ulimit considered braindamaged ?

[Derek Terveer]

In article <10943 at sun.uucp>, guy%gorodish at Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
> One hopes that in S5R3 they've at least come to their senses to the extent
> of making it a constant tunable without source (one *could* hope they
> realize that the "ulimit" scheme is the wrong solution, implement quotas
> instead, and either crank the default ulimit up to 2^31-1 or set it to 0 and
> have that mean "no limit").

The treatment of the "ulimit problem" (to tell you the truth, I'm not really
sure what the "problem" that ulimit is supposed to be solving is..) seems to me
to be rather endemic of Unix in general.  I.e., the implementation of a general
scheme to solve what, to many people, appears to be, by its nature, a specific
problem.  Disk quotas is one example.  My gripe happens to be security.  I find
the user/group/world security quite cumbersome and tedious to manage as a
system administrator with a brood of ~70 users.  To me, a security scheme
should be a tad more specific than Unix allows.  (All right, a lot more
specific) Or am I opening up the wrong box with my soliloquy (previously owned
by Pandora)?