Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)
]] "brian m. carlson"
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:29:40AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > On 05/15/2013 02:16 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > >Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
> > >>On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > >>>This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
> > >>>more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to
> > >>>see a use case where it is not better.
> > >>
> > >>It is not better if you don't want proprietary binary-format logs in
> > >
> > >The format may be binary, but it certainly is not proprietary [1]
> >
> > I really can't believe people are still coming up with that non-sense.
>
> Maybe because I read it on LWN (http://lwn.net/Articles/468381/):
>
> All complaints about UUIDs were quickly overshadowed by another issue
> once the full proposal was posted: one might charitably say that there
> is not, yet, a consensus around the proposed new logfile format. In a
> sense, that is unsurprising, since that format is deliberately
> undocumented and explicitly subject to change at any time.
>
> You'll pardon me if I believe that LWN is a reputable source for
> information.
This was approximately correct a year and a half ago. It's not correct
today, partly because people did want the format to be documented and
for it to settle down.
> > I have no idea why people assume that a binary format means it can only
> > be processed with a special, proprietary tool. Binary simply means what
> > it means, binary and not text which means it's a more stream-lined and
> > machine-readable format as opposed to a text format with no formatting
> > at all.
>
> It means that it works completely differently from every existing Unix
> log parser on the planet. syslog is hardly "no formatting at all".
syslog and other log files isn't structured particularly well.
> > And, when it comes to processing, binary data is actually *easier* to
> > process. Everyone who has ever written a text parser themselves will
> > agree.
>
> I have written several, and I still prefer plain text. I want to use
> the same tools to parse my logs that I have used for years, like
> logcheck. Text files is the Unix way.
Nothing stops you from having plain text log files too while using the
systemd journal. We're not planning on taking the old/regular-format
files away. Adding the journal means you get more information, you get
better searchability and so on. If you don't want that, turn it off. I
want it, since it'll make it easier for me to manage my systems.
Cheers,
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: