Re: Followup: Syslog
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 12:45:59AM +0200, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote:
> 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.
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.
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)
personally i would be happy with any syslog variant, as long as it has a good
and simple config file. (keeping in mind that the beginners will have to deal
with it too)
--
-< Sami Haahtinen >-
-< 2209 3C53 D0FB 041C F7B1 F908 A9B6 F730 B83D 761C >-
Reply to: