Re: Followup: Syslog
On Saturday 14 April 2001 01:23, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> I didn't intend to say that sysklogd was unreliable. I do run sysklogd on
> all of my machines, and i'm pretty happy with it. i just noticed that
> msyslog had features i liked too.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn't implying that you meant
sysklogd was unreliable. I just remembered that it was one of the things I
would have wanted in the original post, because I had heard it, and didn't
know if it was true...
> the cruft comment was to point out that it is easier to extend. just like
> any other software, time and modifications gather around cruft, which makes
> the program harder to understand, harder to modify and slower. (no, this
> does not mean that sysklogd is slow)
Yep - again this is hearsay, but I've heard that msyslog wasn't as reliable
as sysklogd. What I want above all is to make sure /everything/ gets logged,
so no messages are "forgotten" or discarded. If msyslog has made some radical
changes, chances are it will have more bugs.
I know, I'm difficult. But I'm also paranoid, and I want my logging to be
Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt