Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.sys5
Subject: Re: ulimit (was: getty/login for callback)
Message-ID: <10081@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 20 Apr 89 22:01:27 GMT
References: <180001@mechp10.UUCP> <13853@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> <797@twwells.uucp> <1456@auspex.auspex.com> <133@tslanpar.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 14

In article <133@tslanpar.UUCP> prc@tslanpar.UUCP (prc) writes:
-> It would have been a lot better had the default been "infinity" rather
-> than 1MB; if somebody actually *does* want to limit their program's 
-> disk consumption, they can set a non-infinite ulimit themselves.
-Fortunately (for system administrators), the ulimit size cannot be 
-increased if the effective user id is not super-user. Trying this
-will cause ulimit to fail and leave the value unchanged. Other
-users may only decrease their ulimit size.

You seem to miss the whole point.  We KNOW that's how "ulimit" is
currently set up.  We claim that that is a MISTAKE.  The purpose of
computers systems is not to make system administrator's happy, it's
to meet real user requirements.  Saying that it is "fortunate" that
users cannot conveniently get their needs met is really perverse.