| 1 |
On Tuesday 27 September 2005 01:29 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 11:57 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Basically... why? |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I'm neither advocating being different to be different, nor following |
| 6 |
> > others so howtos about their stuff fit to ours. I'm after |
| 7 |
> > the underlying reasons why general users should be using syslog-ng over |
| 8 |
> > metalog in contrast to the fact we've recommended metalog as long as |
| 9 |
> > I've been around. That and I happen to like metalog's layout, |
| 10 |
> > strangely enough ;) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Actually, we've been recommending syslog-ng for *at least* the past two |
| 13 |
> releases. The only thing that was never changed was the virtual. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
because someone changed it doesnt mean it should have been changed |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > I'd rather see reasons listed as to why syslog-ng is a superior |
| 18 |
> > default for users who (most likely) don't care, then "we lack |
| 19 |
> > /var/log/messages" :) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Besides the /var/log/messages thing, which I think is a non-argument, |
| 22 |
> there is syslog-ng's ability to be usable by anyone. It works great for |
| 23 |
> servers, it works great for desktops. It works as a loghost. It works |
| 24 |
> for remote logging. Essentially, it has all of the features that users |
| 25 |
> would want. It also has all of the features that administrators would |
| 26 |
> want. It is flexible and powerful. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
how exactly is this an argument for syslog ? metalog has all these features |
| 29 |
(and more) except for remote logging ... |
| 30 |
-mike |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives