That's why we have a reviewers :-)

Posted Dec 21, 2011 7:22 UTC (Wed) by topher (guest, #2223)
In reply to: That's why we have a reviewers :-) by khim
Parent article: That newfangled Journal thing

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).

to post comments

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.)