On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 03:35:06PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
>> Where's the unix in everyone of us? ConsoleKit for example, rpm -q
>> summarizes it as "System daemon for tracking users, sessions and seats"
>
> The 'seats' is pure manage
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 03:35:06PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Where's the unix in everyone of us? ConsoleKit for example, rpm -q
> summarizes it as "System daemon for tracking users, sessions and seats"
The 'seats' is pure managerese. The term was probably invented by
some MBA considering t
On Mon Jun 22 2009 - 10:33:37 EEST, Arnold Krille wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>-Arnold, still trying to understand why any distribution should now use
>RealtimeKit after not really using rtlimits in PAM (except for the new
>run for "Kits")
>
I for one consider this "kit" naming pretty awkward, and if it'
On 06/26/2009 12:32 PM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:25 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.c
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 13:15 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> Argh. I should try to find the SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK thread(s) on lkml to
> see what was argued.
It looks like this is all I can find... not a lot of arguing:
2nd try:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/57
3rd version:
http://lkml.org
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:25 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
> > Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > >
> > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10361
> > > (referenced inside the previous ticket
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Finally, I believe your insisting on POSIX is a lost cause anyway,
> because it is a fictitious OS interface. It's a good guideline, but
First of all, POSIX is also IEEE and ISO/IEC standard for an operating
system (including command line utilities), thus it has some we
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> here's my halfway (?) summary:
>
> "distros refuse to even provide a way to enable RLIMIT_RTPRIO because
> it enables regular users to lockup the machine.
>
> Up next: 8 other ways for regular users to easily lockup the machine ... "
>
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:33 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>> On 06/24/2009 10:24 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
>> > >
>> > > Lopez
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> IMO I would probably not have lasted as long as he did in this thread.
> Too many type and fire responses - as you mention below - with little
> thought or research (I'm guilty as well, of course).
For what it's worth, as someone wh
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 20:25 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:14 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Sun, 21.06.09 20:58, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > > The question is relevant, I think, as the kernels that I use (Plan
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:33 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>
> On 06/24/2009 10:24 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
> > > Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > see here for an
On 06/24/2009 10:24 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
see here for an interesting entry:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442959
that is hilario
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:14 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sun, 21.06.09 20:58, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
> wrote:
>
> > > > The question is relevant, I think, as the kernels that I use (Planet
> > > > CCRMA) are the rt patched kernels, currently limited to 2.6.29.5
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
> Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>
> > see here for an interesting entry:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442959
>
> that is hilarious :)
Hmmm, well, not really. It means he has been working o
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:19 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 16:27 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Fernando
> > Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > > Hmmm, did Lennart specifically answer the issue of the clone bomb? I
> > > can't remember and the thre
On 06/24/2009 12:50 AM, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it.
I don't think PA is a bad thing.
PulseAudio works well for me, and I can't believe I'm the only one. I
ha
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
> Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>
> > see here for an interesting entry:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442959
>
> that is hilarious :)
>
> > and
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> see here for an interesting entry:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442959
that is hilarious :)
> and
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10361
> (referenced inside the previous ticket)
> this is when it wa
[something appears to be wrong on the list, I'm not seeing your posts
there, I'm just getting the emails directly addressed to me]
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 16:27 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Fernando
> Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:27 -0400, Paul Dav
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:56:08PM +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > Auditor: OK, show me a list of all processes on this system.
> >
> > System engineer:
>
> ps -ef? Well, there's your problem right there. Shoulda been using BSD...
First projects we did were actually on Solaris and Sun boxen..
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:59:19AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
>
>> It's great that all these new Kits
There certainly do seem to be a lot of new Kits on the block.
>> are putting free software in the
>> hands of average users. What isn't great
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:27 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Fernando
>> Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>> >
>> > This is what Lennart wrote in his original announcement:
>> >
>> >> Why not use cgroups for this? Beca
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:27 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Fernando
> Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> >
> > This is what Lennart wrote in his original announcement:
> >
> >> Why not use cgroups for this? Because it's simply a horrible API, and
> >> using this for media applicati
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 12:19 +0100, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
> Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> > As a point of interest and comparison that has very little to do with
> > this debate, I just noticed that pulseaudio *is* being used in the Palm Pre
> > http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html
> > While Jack
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>
> This is what Lennart wrote in his original announcement:
>
>> Why not use cgroups for this? Because it's simply a horrible API, and
>> using this for media applications has non-obvious consequences on
>> using cgroups for their orig
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 13:12 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> 2009/6/23 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano :
>
> [ ... good attempt at a summary elided ... ]
>
> fernando, unfortunately, you still missed the mechanisms described here:
>
>
> http://ww2.cs.fsu.edu/~rosentha/linux/2.6.26.5/docs/scheduler/sched-
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>> PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it.
>
> I don't think PA is a bad thing.
PulseAudio works well for me, and I can't believe I'm the only one. I
have far more confidence in being able to get sound straight awa
2009/6/23 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano :
[ ... good attempt at a summary elided ... ]
fernando, unfortunately, you still missed the mechanisms described here:
http://ww2.cs.fsu.edu/~rosentha/linux/2.6.26.5/docs/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt
which are intended to guarantee that an uncontrollable
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 10:44 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 22.06.09 23:46, Jörn Nettingsmeier
> > (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de) wrote:
> >
> >>> What is so difficult to understand that rtkit is not intended to be a
> >>> solution for hardcore rt users
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 12:26:01 Dave Phillips wrote:
> Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 08:46 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
> >>> Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> >>> ... we do have a problem now that needs to be sorted with
> >>> integrating pa and jack in a way that is easy for ever
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 08:46 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
>
>>> Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>>> ... we do have a problem now that needs to be sorted with
>>> integrating pa and jack in a way that is easy for everyone to work with.
>>>
>>>
>> Do they need integrat
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 08:46 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
> > Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> > What I see is that Lennart and the others who have worked on
> > pulseaudio have done such a good job at making the platform accessible
> > to the desktop community that it has now become the defacto standard
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>> +10,000
>>
>> PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it.
>
>I don't think PA is a bad thing. On my laptop, PA works as follows:
>
>1) takes care of general desktop stuff as needed
>2) when JACKD connects directly to ALSA, PA
Le 23 juin 09 à 17:04, Paul Davis a écrit :
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Gene Heskett > wrote:
>>
>> PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it.
>
> This type of response is incredibly unhelpful. Lennart and others
> involved with PA have made their goals clear, their
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it.
This type of response is incredibly unhelpful. Lennart and others
involved with PA have made their goals clear, their design assumptions
clear, their overall design philosoph
> +10,000
>
> PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it.
I don't think PA is a bad thing. On my laptop, PA works as follows:
1) takes care of general desktop stuff as needed
2) when JACKD connects directly to ALSA, PA ceases to play anything through
the audio card (who wou
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Bob Ham wrote:
>On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 00:49 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Tue, 23.06.09 00:36, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
>> > Since you claim that all the *Kit stuff is optional,
>>
>> (as a side note, I didn't claim that)
>>
>> > and you will s
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>
> I wouldn't go that far. Lennart has proven to be open to our
> suggestions in the past and is prepared to work with everyone round
> here on the matter of desktop integration and to a degree system design.
>
I hope so. As I read this thread I'm further convinced that t
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 07:19:34 Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
> Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> > As a point of interest and comparison that has very little to do with
> > this debate, I just noticed that pulseaudio *is* being used in the Palm
> > Pre http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html
> > While Jack a
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:59:19AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
> It's great that all these new Kits are putting free software in the
> hands of average users. What isn't great is that they seem to be
> hastily developed and without concern for the wider free software
> community. There will be consequ
Dennis Schulmeister writes:
> If you do a "regular" phone call from one mobile phone to another you
> easily get 1 second latency. The point is you don't notice it unless
> you're standing next to the other person.
Well, 1 second is totally unacceptable on VoIP;). I don't use a headset
and neith
Well, I think this is fundamentally a good idea.
I just thought someone ought to say that.
I quite understand the frustration Paul expresses about the existing
methods of doing this never having being fully exploited, but I can
see why this has happened. It's still simple enough to put your user
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> As a point of interest and comparison that has very little to do with
> this debate, I just noticed that pulseaudio *is* being used in the Palm Pre
> http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html
> While Jack and Portaudio are not.
Yes, also, Palm Pre doesn't ship with pre-ins
On 06/23/2009 06:02 PM, alex stone wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
On 06/22/2009 04:20 PM, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Paul Davis
wrote:
Finally, as Chris said -
many of us are writing apps that target multiple platforms
Well, my
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
>
> On 06/22/2009 04:20 PM, Chris Cannam wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Paul Davis
> wrote:
>
>
> Finally, as Chris said -
> many of us are writing apps that target multiple platforms
>
>
> Well, my comment (from the point of view
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 00:49 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 23.06.09 00:36, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
> > Since you claim that all the *Kit stuff is optional,
>
> (as a side note, I didn't claim that)
>
> > and you will still allow us to run our systems as we
> > s
On 06/22/2009 04:20 PM, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
Finally, as Chris said -
many of us are writing apps that target multiple platforms
Well, my comment (from the point of view of applications rather than
library development) was not so mu
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 20:13 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> If you don't do RT development or doing RT development only for
> embedded cases, or if you are a [/*intended explicitives deleted*/]
> then it doesn't mean anything for you.
>
> However, if you are a desktop developer interested to g
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 22.06.09 23:46, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
> wrote:
>
>>> What is so difficult to understand that rtkit is not intended to be a
>>> solution for hardcore rt users?
>>>
>>> rtkit is not for you!
>>>
>>> Let me repeat this:
>>>
>>> RTKI
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:49:40AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Just downgrade to FC5 or so. Or pick a different distro that is
> suited more to your needs.
Actually F8 would be enough. ConsoleKit was a service there and I
just disabled it without any ill effect.
In F10 that choice has bee
Dennis Schulmeister schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:08 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:00 -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think I saw any assertion in the thread as to the benefits of
>>> enabling
>>> RT by default for all desktop u
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 03:54 +0200, Esben Stien wrote:
> Dennis Schulmeister writes:
>
> > audio performance has always been fine for typical desktop usage
> > without rt privileges me thinks. Because the issue of latency is
> > relative in that case. But maybe I'm missing an important point.
>
On Monday 22 June 2009 17:35:57 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> your rtkit cannot protect against anything, you can just play policy
> catch-up with evildoers forever. that's about the same level of security
> that outgoing firewalls in windows provide - you depend on process names
> and whatnot, and i
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 03:54 +0200, Esben Stien wrote:
> Dennis Schulmeister writes:
>
> > audio performance has always been fine for typical desktop usage
> > without rt privileges me thinks. Because the issue of latency is
> > relative in that case. But maybe I'm missing an important point.
>
Dennis Schulmeister writes:
> audio performance has always been fine for typical desktop usage
> without rt privileges me thinks. Because the issue of latency is
> relative in that case. But maybe I'm missing an important point.
Sure, like VoIP.
--
Esben Stien is b...@e s a
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 20:22 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > You are misunderstanding what I was saying: either a process is
> > SCHED_RR/FIFO or it is not. That's a binary thing. Either you get the
> > full RT powers, or no RT powers at all.
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 01:53 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 22.06.09 16:33, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
> wrote:
>
> > If rtkit would demote all processes when triggered, regardless of whether
> > rtkit granted the privileges or not then I can't really bypass it,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> You are misunderstanding what I was saying: either a process is
> SCHED_RR/FIFO or it is not. That's a binary thing. Either you get the
> full RT powers, or no RT powers at all. Desktop media stuff doesn't
> need the full RT powers.
now
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 01:59 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Take it from a desktop developer: it does make a difference if PA is
> RT or not.
I'd be curious which difference it makes.
> And there are no plans to make every media player RT. Nobody is
> suggesting that.
Okay, that was inaccura
On Tue, 23.06.09 09:14, Jonathan Woithe (jwoi...@physics.adelaide.edu.au) wrote:
>
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > What I am saying is that the current system is too "binary": Either
> > you have RT sched and then for *everything*. Or you haven't, and then
> > you haven't got it for *anything*.
>
On Tue, 23.06.09 01:38, Dennis Schulmeister (linux-audio-...@windows3.de) wrote:
> So after reading all those messages I'm somewhat left up wondering if
> the addressed problem (real-time audio for desktop applications) really
> is an existing problem. The same goes for the theoretical threat of a
On Mon, 22.06.09 16:33, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
> If rtkit would demote all processes when triggered, regardless of whether
> rtkit granted the privileges or not then I can't really bypass it, it is
> always there defining policy.
Except that rtkit wouldn't be
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> What I am saying is that the current system is too "binary": Either
> you have RT sched and then for *everything*. Or you haven't, and then
> you haven't got it for *anything*.
But isn't this more to do with the missing userspace support infrastructure
that numerous peo
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:08 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:00 -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
> > I don't think I saw any assertion in the thread as to the benefits of
> > enabling
> > RT by default for all desktop users? (I may have missed it or forgotten it
> >
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 14:18 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 22:04 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 22.06.09 12:51, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
> > wrote:
> > > > > Good question.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is it resetting all the defaul
On Monday 22 June 2009 23:35:57 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> some daemon fiddling with rt privs at
> runtime in my book qualifies as drowning the child first, then throwing
> it out. maybe eating it afterwards, but i'm not sure.
Yippie! We are back at the "child eating" stage!
/me gets out the pop
On Tue, 23.06.09 00:36, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:37:20PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> > It was clearly a bad idea to post about rtkit on lad. It is a big
> > waste of time fighting this through against all those desktop-haters,
> > fdo-
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:37:20PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> It was clearly a bad idea to post about rtkit on lad. It is a big
> waste of time fighting this through against all those desktop-haters,
> fdo-haters, dbus-haters, who apparently believe I am out to take away
> their freedom to
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:00 -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
> On Monday 22 June 2009 17:37:20 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > The amount of constructive criticism in this thread is next
> > to zero, nobody even bothers to read the README before just fudding
> > around.
>
> I am one of those who also hav
On Mon, 22.06.09 18:00, drew Roberts (z...@100jamz.com) wrote:
> Here is a small bit of an attempt at being constructive.
>
> I don't think I saw any assertion in the thread as to the benefits of
> enabling
> RT by default for all desktop users? (I may have missed it or forgotten it
> though)
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:46, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
> > What is so difficult to understand that rtkit is not intended to be a
> > solution for hardcore rt users?
> >
> > rtkit is not for you!
> >
> > Let me repeat this:
> >
> > RTKIT IS NOT FOR YOU!
>
> this i
On Monday 22 June 2009 17:37:20 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> The amount of constructive criticism in this thread is next
> to zero, nobody even bothers to read the README before just fudding
> around.
I am one of those who also haven't read the README. I have been trying to
follow this thread wit
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 22.06.09 23:19, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
> wrote:
>
>> so what is this about? rt users want absolute control over their
>> machine. anybody who can tolerate some arbitrary bits of policy thrown
>> at them during work is by definition
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:35, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 22.06.09 09:33, Arnold Krille (arn...@arnoldarts.de) wrote:
> >
> >
> > You practically cannot take group membership away from a user after
> > you gave it to him, and als
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:19, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
> so what is this about? rt users want absolute control over their
> machine. anybody who can tolerate some arbitrary bits of policy thrown
> at them during work is by definition not an rt user.
> rt users must be
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 22.06.09 09:33, Arnold Krille (arn...@arnoldarts.de) wrote:
>
>
> You practically cannot take group membership away from a user after
> you gave it to him, and also adding a seperate group for every tiny
> bit you need to authorize access to doesn't scale.
sec
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sun, 21.06.09 16:42, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
> wrote:
>> As a user doing critical audio, say, in a concert situation, I'd require
>> that my computer's realtime audio tasks can use 99.9% of the cpu for
>> short amounts of time. I don't care
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 22:04 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 22.06.09 12:51, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
> wrote:
> > > > Good question.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it resetting all the default, even processes with rt privileges
> > > > not granted by RealtimeKit? Isn'
On Mon, 22.06.09 12:51, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
> > > Good question.
> > >
> > > Why is it resetting all the default, even processes with rt privileges
> > > not granted by RealtimeKit? Isn't rtkit supposed to be the only
> > > authorized way to access schedulers
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:58:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
> Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
> >> You're not ignoring it, you're practically waging the war against it,
> > Ever seen a real war ?
>
> Your point being?
My point being that if you use that word you'd better know
what it means.
>
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 20:24 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 22.06.09 11:15, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:38 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Mon, 22.06.09 15:05, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
> > > > On
On Mon, 22.06.09 21:28, Emanuel Rumpf (xb...@web.de) wrote:
>
> 2009/6/19 Lennart Poettering :
>
> > Also, asking the user to edit /etc/security/limits.conf
> > is certainly not user-friendly. We want to enable RT scheduling for
> > media aplications out-of-the-box.
> >
> Why not just create a s
2009/6/19 Lennart Poettering :
> Also, asking the user to edit /etc/security/limits.conf
> is certainly not user-friendly. We want to enable RT scheduling for
> media aplications out-of-the-box.
>
Why not just create a small script to handle editing + reloading of
limits.conf :
$ allow_realtime_f
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 20:18 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> But uh, that app could then not access the starting user's file in any
> way.
Of course it could! ... :-/
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://list
On Mon, 22.06.09 11:15, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:38 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 22.06.09 15:05, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:24:24AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
>
On Mon, 22.06.09 19:59, Jens M Andreasen (jens.andrea...@comhem.se) wrote:
>
> Since it is rogue processes - from the interweb? - rather than rough
> users that are the potential problem, wouldn't the cure then be to grant
> certain trusted applications RT-privileges?
>
> A novice user would ins
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:38 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 22.06.09 15:05, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:24:24AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
> >
> > > There's something wrong here.
> >
> > There is a lot wrong here.
> >
> > * Question:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 17:58 +0100, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
> Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
> >> You're not ignoring it, you're practically waging the war against it,
> > Ever seen a real war ?
>
> Your point being?
>
> >> The existence of rtkit doesn't make it harder for you to assign RT
> >> privil
Since it is rogue processes - from the interweb? - rather than rough
users that are the potential problem, wouldn't the cure then be to grant
certain trusted applications RT-privileges?
A novice user would install well-known binaries from the distros
repository. The binary runs as user 'rt-audio'
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> You're not ignoring it, you're practically waging the war against it,
> Ever seen a real war ?
Your point being?
>> The existence of rtkit doesn't make it harder for you to assign RT
>> privileges to every process on the machine. However, it makes it
>> possible to prev
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:14:00PM +0100, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
> You're not ignoring it, you're practically waging the war against it,
Ever seen a real war ?
> The existence of rtkit doesn't make it harder for you to assign RT
> privileges to every process on the machine. However, it makes i
On Mon, 22.06.09 11:53, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > What exactly are you asking for as "user-space infrastructure"? Some
> > easy to reach UI that will allow you to make yourself a member of some
> > group? Thi
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> Have you actually read my announcement mail? This stuff is only useful
>> for out-of-the-box RT support on major distributions. If you roll
>> everything your own, because that makes you happy, then ignore rtkit.
> I will ignore it, also as an author. Or tell me why a RT
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> What exactly are you asking for as "user-space infrastructure"? Some
> easy to reach UI that will allow you to make yourself a member of some
> group? This is unlikely to happen. At least not from the desktop
> camp.
Well, this is preci
On Mon, 22.06.09 16:34, Adam Sampson (a...@offog.org) wrote:
> > There is not compile time dependency on rtkit and no runtime
> > dependency either.
>
> Yes, there is a runtime dependency on RealtimeKit -- else there would be
> no point in having it in the first place! If I'm building an operatin
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:20:28PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> FUD, FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. And FUD.
Sounds like our prime minister: "Communists ! Communists !
Communists !". His standard answer to all critics. Even
the Financial Times is communist.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre:
On Mon, 22.06.09 10:08, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
>
> Lennart, I am still trying to understand what the basic rationale is
> here. 3 years ago, the kernel mailing discussed RT scheduling and
> decided that RLIMIT_RTPRIO was the way to handle access to this
> capability. That
Lennart Poettering writes:
> Really, I see not much value in supporting more than one kernel.
I find this statement surprising, having found that testing on multiple
operating systems is an excellent way of finding subtle bugs in code.
(I assume you're just talking about RealtimeKit here and not
On Sun, 21.06.09 21:02, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >
> > The distinction between a thread/clone() and a process/fork() bomb
> > doesn't really matter. What matters is that you can kill() processes
> > and make th
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
