Re: Followup: Syslog
On Saturday 14 April 2001 00:35, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> i haven't looked at the source, but i remember reading somewhere that it's
> written from scratch and it is pretty new, so there shouldn't be too much
> of old cruft there either.
I forgot to include this in my original post: Why do I hear from everybody
that sysklogd is unreliable? And is there /any/ logger that is reliable? Is
so, which?
If the "unrealible" part isn't due to old cruft in the current source-code,
then I'd rather try and extent sysklogd a little by little, than trying to
run with msyslog. Remember, my ultimate goal is to make logging much better
(secure, efficient, etc), and get this included in Debian as the official way
of doing things. I'm not out to shoot msyslog, syslog-ng, sysklogd, or
anybody else, I just want the damned thing to work, with minimum fuss and
resource-waste for the users. As I see it right now, the only way to include
/all/ the right features would be to extend (or redesign) sysklogd, or to
help out on msyslog or syslog-ng.
Since I'd like this to be "required" at some point, is there any Debian
Head-honcho who'd like to comment?
Regards
Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt
Reply to: