1 |
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 01:47:49PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday 27 September 2005 01:29 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 11:57 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
4 |
> > > I'd rather see reasons listed as to why syslog-ng is a superior |
5 |
> > > default for users who (most likely) don't care, then "we lack |
6 |
> > > /var/log/messages" :) |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > Besides the /var/log/messages thing, which I think is a non-argument, |
9 |
> > there is syslog-ng's ability to be usable by anyone. It works great for |
10 |
> > servers, it works great for desktops. It works as a loghost. It works |
11 |
> > for remote logging. Essentially, it has all of the features that users |
12 |
> > would want. It also has all of the features that administrators would |
13 |
> > want. It is flexible and powerful. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> how exactly is this an argument for syslog ? metalog has all these features |
16 |
> (and more) except for remote logging ... |
17 |
|
18 |
Additionally, metalog (afaik) won't be depending on glib, like |
19 |
>=syslog-ng 1.9. |
20 |
|
21 |
Keep in mind I'm talking only defaults here (iow, use whatever is best |
22 |
for your needs). |
23 |
|
24 |
Re: it being a temporary change that should be undone, it's been |
25 |
around long enough I won't call it 'temporary' at this point. |
26 |
|
27 |
Merits vs "well, we recommend/did this a while back and were going to |
28 |
reverse it" mainly. |
29 |
~harring |