That's why we have a reviewers :-)

Posted Nov 20, 2011 19:15 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: That newfangled Journal thing by yoush
Parent article: That newfangled Journal thing

It would be nice if people who propose to do things differently, will first write explicit lists of what was good in old way of doing things, and explain how these items will be done in the new way.

Well, this is where critics come in the picture. Lennart is suprisingly good when you present him a real-world task and is always ready to change his creations to support them. He notoriously bad when the real-world task is well, I have a script here, I'll not explain what it does and why I need it, but you'll break it so it's your resposibility to fix it, yes, but when you show willingless to think about things - he shows the willingless to help you.

One of the first decisions in the case of journald is side-by-side installability of syslog and journald. This means that the questions like "how should it work with remove loggers and such" have a natural answer "the same way as before". This also means that pressure to fix programs to be journald-firendly is not as big, but apparently Lennart understands that he can not force everyone to use journald right away.

to post comments

That's why we have a reviewers :-)

Posted Dec 21, 2011 7:22 UTC (Wed) by topher (guest, #2223) [Link] (1 responses)

One of the first decisions in the case of journald is side-by-side installability of syslog and journald.

Better yet, instead of comparing least common denominator syslog, how about comparing it to the research and efforts that are already at work in solving these same problems, and already have solid workable solutions (without many of the negative aspects of "the journal").

If Lennart wants to come up with a new syslog replacement, doing better than basic syslog isn't good enough. Not *nearly* good enough. It needs to be better than syslog *and* all of the recent research *and* better than anything that could be layered on top of existing syslog (which is where it currently fails badly, IMO).

That's why we have a reviewers :-)

Posted Dec 21, 2011 16:58 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

If Lennart wants to come up with a new syslog replacement, doing better than basic syslog isn't good enough.

It is if you can force people using systemd to use it.

(This just provides a reason not to try out systemd: do I really want an increasingly large chunk of the system sucked into it, as now seems likely, disrupting my existing procedures? It's taking over from cron, and now syslogd... thanks but no thanks.)