Steven Stern wrote: > On 11/15/2013 04:46 AM, Frantisek Hanzlik wrote: >> For one thing I'm in the conviction that binary logs are hazardous >> bullshit, > > In what way might the logs be hazardous? It was mean mainly from administrator view. When things go bad, machine HW/SW fail or any other disasters occurs, logs are very valuable. And I'm confident that binary logs are too weak in this situation. Text logs are useful even if log file is damaged or ends with fragments and can be easy readable with lot of tools. Binary logs, by contrast, may be useless when log file is damaged or I haven't this one unique utility for reading them. And my experiences with systems where binary logs are implemented says clearly that binary logs is bad idea. Second, it is question when tight integration of systemd and logging services has any benefits - there is number of situation (logging over network, for example) which speaks for separate logging service. And possibilities with e.g. rsyslogd are better than with journald - why Fedora must again replace verified, reliable, Unix standard things with some crappy solutions? For nightmares of its users? Franta Hanzlik -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
