[subract]

No clue personally, but the author is prolific enough here that I thought it merited posting.

[ggm]

I go with three paths out.

1. it consumes too much systems resources. So its net-negative impact on the system under observation

2. it's misleading and leads to false diagnoses of situations under review

3. she's under an NDA of some kind related to a CVE or some other high class risk which will come out in due course but she felt a burden to stop people being exposed to risk.

4. I can't count and there are 4, 5, 6 other reasons but these 3 are mine.

[crimsonpowder]

If it was 1 or 2, there would be a long Rachel-style post ranting about it and explaining exactly why.

It has to be 3.

And she knows her stuff, so I'm listening. Luckily we don't use atop.

[AnimalMuppet]

I'll go with number 3. She didn't just say "don't run", she said "uninstall". That doesn't sound like "misleading" or "uses too much resources". It sounds very CVE-ish.

[benmmurphy]

1) is possible because it uses some interesting options like nice/mlockall/changing its oom score so if the atop process went out of control your box would probably be fucked.