On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 12:08:50AM +0200, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote: > After reading through the features which people would like to see, it seems > to me that there is really need for something else besides sysklogd. What I > really want to know is, why is syslog-ng and/or msyslog not more widely used? > What do they lack? Compatibility and security are the only points I can see > where they might not qualify as a total replacement. i used msyslog a while back, and liked it.. the modular structure made it really easy to extend and maintain. it had a sysklogd like configuration, with small changes. > With that in mind, I've been considering making my own logger. Is this a good > idea? I've considered it a bit, and thought it would be best to start with > the current sysklogd source, and make small, tested changes to be sure that > it's still safe & working. What do people think of this? my suggestion is to start around with msyslog, and extend it (yes, i'm going to be nailed by the syslog-ng people, but thats what you get for entering the holy zones) msyslog already supports logging to databases, which i found to be very useful. and it has most of the sysklogd features in it. 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. -- -< Sami Haahtinen >- -< 2209 3C53 D0FB 041C F7B1 F908 A9B6 F730 B83D 761C >-
Attachment:
pgp6GfarGtvWf.pgp
Description: PGP signature