Thank you...

Posted Nov 21, 2011 19:00 UTC (Mon) by faramir (subscriber, #2327)
In reply to: Thank you... by zlynx
Parent article: That newfangled Journal thing

Microsoft can't stop you from shipping your program if you don't follow the spirit of the rules.

Ubuntu/Fedora/Debian/etc. can effectively do this by refusing to include your program their core distribution.

That's not to say that the distributions would actually do this or that they wouldn't get push back from the developers of "important" packages. Still the differences between the Microsoft and Free Software worlds may make enforcement of good practices easier in the Free Software world.

Thank you...

Posted Dec 7, 2011 5:36 UTC (Wed) by Klavs (guest, #10563) [Link] (1 responses)

I will bet that a program, starting with logging everything with free form text to the same ID would, if used by sysadmins, quickly be improved upon, in regards to id logging. As a sysadmin I often have to look through source code to find the real reason for an error message (that's one big reason I prefer Open Source) - and if the program already used something with support for proper logging, like journald idea - I would easily whip up a patch for upstream to improve logging for the instance - helping myself in the future as well.

Thank you...

Posted Dec 7, 2011 10:35 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

what is it about the journal 'proper logging' that makes it any easier for you to write a patch to fix bad logging than with normal syslog?

normal syslog can deal with structured logging already via RFC 5324 structured logging, and the CEE specs standardize this further http://cee.mitre.org/

why are these not as good as the journal proposal?