From owner-freebsd-security Thu Jan 25 11:44:25 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (ringworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0772E37B6B4 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:44:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 2354 invoked by uid 1000); 25 Jan 2001 19:42:35 -0000 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:42:35 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: Allen Edwards , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Newbie Post - Limiting processes Message-ID: <20010125214235.F1122@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Allen Edwards , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from des@ofug.org on Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:39:36PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:39:36PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > "Allen Edwards" writes: > > They sell based on HDD space as well as background processes. > > Without reading their site, I imagine that what they mean by > "background processes" are processes that run while the user is not > logged in (usually these are IRC proxies or various kinds of file > transfer clients). I've seen a shell provider or five that considers a process to be a background process when it does not have a controlling tty. It's in such cases that people tend to use the screen workaround I mentioned in another mail in this thread. G'luck, Peter -- This sentence contradicts itself - or rather - well, no, actually it doesn't! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message