Re: Is amd64 ready for the desktop?

[Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>]

> "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb%cs.columbia.edu@localhost> writes:
 >> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:06:28 -0400
 >> "Perry E. Metzger" <perry%piermont.com@localhost> wrote:
 >>> So, if I understand correctly, you're suggesting that we leave things
 >>> as they are, but you're also suggesting that you don't like things as
 >>> they are.
 >>
 >> Some of it is aesthetic revulsion -- these programs *shouldn't* be so
 >> big...

> I don't disagree, but that's an entirely different issue.

> The fact is, ulimits are currently hard coded for a particular
> architecture, and this makes very little sense.

I think different ulimits differently depends on machine's power and
some (e.g., stack size) mostly doesn't depend on it. Stack size was
the only problem I had. It was so problematic because of unclear
segfaults of mplayer. It was not so trivial to understand a connection
between these segfaults and stack size.

Other ulimits are trivial and IMHO have quite rather usable defaults.
I increased 'nofiles' and 'data' but this is because of my specific
requirements.

Anyway, increasing default stack size whould be useful
(I think mplayer's segfaults are reproducible).
Also a few words about login.conf in NetBSD Guide may help a lot.

-- 
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.