On 03/26/2013 02:07 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:02:19AM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote: >> The same can be said for irqbalance, except it does clock up cputime: > >> $ ps -C irqbalance -o cputime,etime => 00:40:55 82-02:24:34 >> ...which is 30s/day on a single-user workstation > > There is a cost to running irqbalance, yes. But if you're seeing any load > from it, that implies that you do have multiple cores, and irqbalance is > doing something *useful* with that CPU time. > >> $ ps -C irqbalance -o rss => 392kb > >> But this is all missing a core tenet of Debian/Ubuntu: you select what >> you want running and aren't imposed upon. > > That's not a core tenet in Ubuntu. :) The core tenet for Ubuntu is that we > make opinionated decisions to ensure Ubuntu works out of the box for users. > >> DL> at has reverse dependency lsb-core, that is if we care to support >> DL> lsb-core set out of the box. > >> Out the box, lsb-base is installed; lsb-core isn't, so that doesn't >> change anything (you'd still need to install lsb-core which would pull >> in atd). > >> If we have no solid technical reasoning for imposing these daemons by >> default, I'll propose we don't. > > The historical rationale for atd being included by default is "this is a > standard part of Unix that users expect to find there" (a rationale that > was, in effect, inherited from Debian). However, of all the services that > we run by default, this is by far the most arcane; "1%" of our users is > severely overstating how much atd gets used, and unlike cron, nothing that's > installed by default relies on it. And this is definitely the service that > most often has questions raised about its presence... and several Canonical > OEM projects have definitely removed it from their installs in the interest > of reducing footprint, which is going to be a recurring theme on the phone > stack. > > So I would say that the time has probably come for us to remove atd from the > default Ubuntu system. Other opinions? > +1 for removing on client -1 for removing on server
There is very little cost to have atd on a server, and a server is one place where users should expect something approaching a standard Unix system. I couldn't recall or find any CVEs against 'at' either. -- Jamie Strandboge http://www.ubuntu.com/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
