On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:52:30 +0100 (MET), quinet@xxxxxxxxxx (Raphael Quinet) said: >I disagree. This would only encourage some users to re-compile their >own version of the Gimp in a private directory in order to get around >the hardcoded limits. Frankly, I disagree. Systems where admins are likely to impose such restrictions are going to be ones where users don't have enough space to compile private copies of Gimp. >Being a system administrator myself, I believe that an admin should >always suggest some limits (and maybe use some social engineering to >encourage users to respect these limits) but should avoid hard >limits. It depends on the kind of users you have and the hardware you're running. Imposing hard limits is sometimes the only way to deal with certain types of users. >On the other hand, if ulimits are used to limit the maximum file size >or CPU usage, there is not much that we could do about it. Same if >disk quotas are activated. The Gimp can have some control over its >memory usage, but many parts of the code assume that the disk space >is unlimited (or is not the main constraint). Yup. It might be nice to catch SIGXCPU and try to do an orderly shutdown before the SIGKILL does ya' in, though. :) Kelly
