It's 2008. 1 TB disk drives cost $160. Quotas are 32-bit.

[Heinrich Rebehn]

Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 09:05:48AM -0700, John Kozubik wrote:
>> That point is well taken.  However, regardless of the adoption rate, I
>> _do_ believe that there is still a qualitative difference between quotas
>> and, for instance, ZFS - in terms of "coreness".
> 
> One qualitative difference is that lots of people seem to be
> interested in ZFS.  I haven't seen any mention of quotas for
> many years.  In fact, I was under a vague impression that they
> hadn't worked since UFS2, and that that was still the case
> because no-one cared.

They *do* work and we do use them. You need them if lots of users share 
a common disk. The fact that they are not mentioned, only means that 
they "simply work".

> 
>> I believe this because of the historical presence of this functionality
>> and the reasonable expectation that it represents a basic function of a
>> unix-based OS (not just FreeBSD).
> 
> There are lots of historical functionalities that are no longer
> part of the OS.  Things change.
> 
> Now it may be that quotas are indeed useful enough to
> be salvaged in a geric fashion (applicable to arbitrary
> filesystems, as has been mentioned).  Not my call: I'm certainly
> not going to do the work.  But with the level of use in recent
> years, maybe the right answer is to consign them to the bin
> (or an optional GEOM layer or whatever), along with tty line
> disciplines, uucp, isdn and X10?

With this reasoning you could also drop the shell and tell people to use 
kde. BTW, X10 has been replaced by X11 ;-)

Cheers,

	Heinrich