On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 5:39:19 PM EST Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 February 2020 6:30:03 AM AEDT Russ Allbery wrote:
> > The primary benefit that I can see is one fewer daemon running on a
> > default installation, one fewer thing to have security vulnerabilities or
> > some other problems, one fewer thing to keep up to date, and a smaller
> > base installation. To be clear, these benefits are fairly minor, but they
> > do exist.
>
> The question is whether those benefits are enough to justify replacing a
> very solid and reliable logging system.
>
> It is probably correct that most users don't use Rsyslog features. But that
> doesn't mean that those features should be taken away from default
> installation.
>
> For example, if a certain daemon manifested a condition when a message is
> logged too often, then with Rsyslog I could suppress noise by something like
> the following
>
> ~~~~
> if ($programname == "noisydaemon") then {
> if ($msg contains "frequently repeated noise") then {
> stop
> }
> }
> ~~~~
>
> This is just an example (probably not the best one) how feature can be handy
> when it is needed. The point is that you'll only realise that you can't do
> something any more is when you need it the most.
>
> Also the cost of learning. I'm sure that more people are more familiar with
> Rsyslog. So there is inconvenience too. Disruptive changing of good default
> for weak reasons is not nice.
>
> Rsyslog is not broken to be replaced as default logging system.
>
> Finally there were no attempt to seek consensus, no survey, nothing?
> Just a decision of few maintainers to replace good default with their
> preferences?
>
> It is difficult to appreciate needless disruptive changes.
We just had a GR where the project voted it was just fine to systemd all the
things, so this sort of thing is to be expected.
Scott KAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.