[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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?

Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt

Reply to: