On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 14:55 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > If we have resource accountability, we give a user a certain amount of > > resources, and then we don't care anymore. > > As for the memory, I agree. But some resources are exclusive in nature. For > example, if one starts a player with a horrible music on your computer, what > do you want to do? One way is to mute the speaker. But, generally speaking, > it is nicer to be able to kill it, isn't it?
No. What you want is to cut off access to the sound system. Killing the process is something that an administrator should not have the right to do. And frankly, the administrator probably shouldn't have the right to cut off the sound system either. The *user* definitely *does* need both options (cut off and kill). It is true that exclusively allocated resources don't need much in the way of accounting. The two resources that you really want accountability for are storage and CPU time. But I would like something more than just killing the process. I also want to be able to let the user log out, log back in later, and still have their music player do something sane. In between, a second user should be able to log in and use the audio subsystem. Think of this as sort of like a console switch for audio -- then extend the idea to the entire pool of exclusive hardware resources that are associated with the console (sound, microphone, display, keyboard, mouse, etc). All of these should be part of the login session, and the session should be reconnectable. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
