On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:12:00AM -0600, Phil Mendelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 09:18:43AM -0600, John J. Trammell wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:56:02AM -0600, Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2002-01-14 at 09:59, John J. Trammell wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > Another good reason I haven't seen yet is that if say /home/
> > > > has its own partition, a user app going nuts and filling up
> > > > the partition won't trash the machine.  Nice segmentation there.
> > > > 
> > > Don't disk quotas do a better job of that?  
> > >  
> > 
> > Perhaps in /home, but another poster mentioned /var...
> 
> OK -- but from a security standpoint, no one that isn't capable of
> fixing the system should be allowed to write in such a way that they
> can crash the system.  Actually, no user should be allowed to do
> *anything* they can't fix, but we have to be careful starting down
> that path.  
> 
> Either way, you are correct from a pragmatic point of view (I'd
> say), but from an idealistic point of view, one could argue that
> *every* user (even daemons and root) should have quotas, disk space
> being finite.
> 

Good, because I'm a pragmatist.  :-)

The thought of sitting down to work out new disk quotas every time I
add a user gives me the willies.  It is far less work for me in my
current position to just partition.

-- 
johntrammell at yahoo.com | 78BA 706C C5F9 9321 E7C4 933B D063 907B A88E 924B
Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List (TCLUG)
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota  http://www.mn-linux.org