I confess, this is very funny and the underlying situation is a bit absurd, but it's unclear what point Brouwer is making by pointing out the absurdity.
There surely is something absurd about having to register specific processes as exempt from the OOM killer. But given that the OOM killer exists, and could kill xlock...how should that be fixed?
There surely is something absurd about having to register specific processes as exempt from the OOM killer. But given that the OOM killer exists, and could kill xlock...how should that be fixed?