On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 05:03:46PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>    
>    I would support lowering the default per-user process limit back to 80; I
>    suspect it was raised for the sake of convenience for those who run huge
>    numbers of server processes under a single UID (e.g. apache) but don't
>    understand how to raise the resource limit, which was a silly reason if
>    it's why it was done.  Certainly it was a mistake to raise the *per-user*
> 
> it was raised because users run that many processes.  desktop users
> run many programs.  if you run "konqueror" by itself, you get about
> 10 processes.  i've never had a problem with servers and this limit.

You get 10 processes for the *first* instance of that abominable pig
"konqueror".  You don't get 10 processes for each subsequent one -- though
it does eat one process per java applet, spit.

Have you _really_ seen more than 80 processes consumed by a single desktop?
I'd be curious to know what was running.  In any case, generally speaking
one does not run huge numbers of X applications on a timesharing host; and
we have login classes to apply resource limits for different kinds of users.

-- 
 Thor Lancelot Simon	                                      tls@rek.tjls.com
   But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
 objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp!  You towel!  You
 plate!" and so on.              --Sigmund Freud