Re: Is amd64 ready for the desktop?

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry%piermont.com@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. Even a fairly simple
function of resources would be better than a hard coded number. People
are always free to adjust that number to local conditions -- we're
just talking about the default.


Perry