On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:31:03 -0500, Scot L. Harris <webid@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 12:40, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote: > > > > > > As Linux becomes more main stream the assumption has to be that users > > > won't have the expertise to tune a system. As such reasonable defaults > > > and limits should be put in place to protect the user and the system. > > > Those that have requirements that exceed these limits should be in the > > > 10% range if the defaults and limits are well selected. > > > > I think it's a good idea. But I can see all those Joe-Users flooding > > the mailinglists with messages like "When trying to run X I receive > > error Y: resources exhausted." > > Which why a reasonable set of limits need to be selected that work for > 90% of the users out there. There will always be some that will have to > modify those limits. But a good default can be arrived at. I strongly disagree with you that a set of limits "need to be selected" or that a "good default can be arrived at." I see no reason for Fedora to break away from the rest of the Linux world here, and indeed from the rest of the Unix world, in enforcing some arbitrary set of resource usage limits out of the box. Users should not have to seek out freedom on their own comptuer, to be compelled to remove arbitrary limits *you* have placed on them, limits on how they're able to use their computers. Under no circumstances can I support arbitrary limits placed on how people are able to use their computers running Fedora. You feel it is a good idea to hold the hand of people installing Linux to the point of playing mommy (IMO). I reject any notion that the level of interference you are asking for is necessary. -- Chris "Build a man a fire and he will be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life." -- Unknown
