I personally have easily consumed over 80 process slots on a desktop.

Hell..I used to bump into the 128 window limit Sun had on their XSun for a
long time. With real multi-monitor setups (or even virtual desktops) it's quite
easy to end up with a lot of process's and windows.

James

>
>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
>
>
>