Re: Followup: Syslog
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:43:51PM +0200, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 April 2001 16:23, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > I think they are not more widely used because they do not make
> > understanding and managing logged information easier. For most
> > users, this is probably the only thing that would make them change.
> So, if I made an alternative to the others, which actually /improved/ the
> value of logging, and made it easier to see what was going on, then there
> might be a reason for switching?
> > Second, applications need to cooperate. Many programs don't even
> > document what facility they use, much less let you change it. To
> > really make use of their logs, you want to know what they do and (as
> > importantly) don't log; the exact format of messages (for automatic
> > analysis); and where to get more details about a message. But this
> > is a lot of work for a lot of applications, and logging tends to be
> > a low priority item.
> Which is why open-source is A Good Thing. This means that if I ever pull it
> off and make a superior logging daemon, I'll be able to do some of those
> things myself, until it catches on.
Yup, but it's still a lot of work!
> Security Matters, and to make it more
> efficient, we need better logging. Not necessarily more logging, just better.
> Also, I want it to be universal, so when I'm creating programs, I can make
> them log via the syslog'er, so I can send the logged messages to another host
> when I'm debugging low-level stuff, and log it to a regular file when just
> programming, etc. A good logging-daemon need not be limited to system
> logging. What do others think?
Definitely. A single logging mechanism suitable for most
applications--"system-level" or not--would be great.
> > I think we're going to be stuck with hard to understand logs for a
> > long time.
> Not if I have anything to say :)