Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!hedrick
From: hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick)
Newsgroups: net.micro.att,net.unix-wizards
Subject: disk quotas
Message-ID: <3016@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 01:20:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3016
Posted: Thu Aug  1 01:20:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Aug-85 02:07:08 EDT
References: <2067@ucf-cs.UUCP> <363@cuae2.UUCP> <2423@sun.uucp> <5819@utzoo.UUCP> <2494@sun.uucp> <5838@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: hedrick@topaz.UUCP (Chuck Hedrick)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 10
Xref: watmath net.micro.att:362 net.unix-wizards:14131

How you do something matters as much as what you do.  If you are into
Control, I have little sympathy.  It is crazy to think that quotas are
going to let you decrease a user's disk usage below what he seriously
believes he needs.  But in a cooperative environment, they provide a
convenient benchmark, that documents what the user has agreed to.  The
4.2 quota system is particularly nice, since it forgives a few
overages, and allows for more working space when logged in.  They
cause people to look at their file usage a bit more than they would
otherwise, and to think for 30 seconds whether they really want to ask
me for more space.  That's useful, and about all one should expect.