1 |
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 11:57 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
> Basically... why? |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I'm neither advocating being different to be different, nor following |
5 |
> others so howtos about their stuff fit to ours. I'm after |
6 |
> the underlying reasons why general users should be using syslog-ng over |
7 |
> metalog in contrast to the fact we've recommended metalog as long as |
8 |
> I've been around. That and I happen to like metalog's layout, |
9 |
> strangely enough ;) |
10 |
|
11 |
Actually, we've been recommending syslog-ng for *at least* the past two |
12 |
releases. The only thing that was never changed was the virtual. |
13 |
|
14 |
> I'd rather see reasons listed as to why syslog-ng is a superior |
15 |
> default for users who (most likely) don't care, then "we lack |
16 |
> /var/log/messages" :) |
17 |
|
18 |
Besides the /var/log/messages thing, which I think is a non-argument, |
19 |
there is syslog-ng's ability to be usable by anyone. It works great for |
20 |
servers, it works great for desktops. It works as a loghost. It works |
21 |
for remote logging. Essentially, it has all of the features that users |
22 |
would want. It also has all of the features that administrators would |
23 |
want. It is flexible and powerful. |
24 |
|
25 |
It has also been the recommended system logger since 2005.0 (I just |
26 |
checked). |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Chris Gianelloni |
30 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
31 |
Games - Developer |
32 |
Gentoo Linux |