Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!isg100!nusdhub!rwhite
From: rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.sys5
Subject: Re: ulimit
Message-ID: <1324@nusdhub.UUCP>
Date: 20 Apr 89 21:00:46 GMT
References: <10075@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: National University, San Diego
Lines: 21

in article <10075@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) says:
> 
> Funny how the originators of UNIX, software developers par excellence,
> haven't decided to add ulimit to their own systems then.

Funny, I was under the impression that they had;  it had a strange name
though ... (reaching through the mists of time) ... I think they called
it ULIMIT or something [0.5 ;-)]

ulimit was and is a good idea even if it does tend to burn the unwary...
I don't have a problem with it because it has saved much more trouble
than it ever caused.  I am glad that they are making it easier to alter
in more recient releases, but it never took more than "a little care
and planning" anyway.  If a comercial package runs into ulimit a lot
I tend to think that the designers were lax in the planning and fore-
thought department... but that's just me.

Rob.

P.S.  most UNIX systems I have worked with have a 2MB ulimit, not 1MB;
but that really is neither here nor there.