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