On Fri, 2005-10-14 Seth Vidal wrote: > okay I'm confused. Why isn't using syslog-ng a slam-dunk. > > 1. we don't break compatibility for the api - which means not modifying > lots of difficult programs > 2. it makes it easier for this to trickle into rhel > 3. it's a known value in that it's used in large-scale and small-scale > operations all over the place. > 4. it's an immediate win over syslog in that it is: > a. more feature-full > b. actually maintained Because syslog-ng isn't the Right Solution(tm) for the general problem of event logging. For example, not breaking the API means there is no way to log anything more structured than a text string, which makes analyzing the logged events a lot more difficult. My thinking was that if we're going to switch, let's switch to the Right Solution(tm). Of course, the Right Solution(tm) may not exist or be usable at this point. If syslog-ng is a drop-in replacement for the present syslogd (including configuration files and applications), then you're right and I'm being a stick in the mind. :) However, having to do a migration to syslog-ng that is not pain-free for sysadmins might not make sense if something even better is be out there. Best, -- Elliot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
