On 11/12/2012 04:26 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Matt Burgess wrote: >> On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 11:56 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> >>> What advantages does systemd give? >>> >>> Binary logs? That's a little difficult to work with if Xorg isn't >>> working. How do you grep a binary log? >> I was going to say 'me too' to all of your post, Bruce, but then, in >> trying to find the list of 18(!) guides on how to use the various >> components of systemd came across >> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/journalctl.html which describes how to >> access the binary logs. The features it provides all seem pretty neat >> and all accessible from the command line. So, that's one less thing for >> me to hold against it. > > OK, let's discuss this. My first comment is that when you have custom > programs like this, the author has to think about everything an admin > might ever want. What if the admin wants something the author didn't > think about? > > Second is that you are using different tools from other logs such as > apache, ftp, mail and any other application that writes a log. > > Third, if the logs were ascii, the bells and whistles in the link above > could be accomplished with a bash script fairly easily. > > About the only really sensible argument is that binary logs use less > disk space. In the days of TB drives, even that isn't a big deal. > > To me the whole systemd philosophy moves away from user knows best to > developer knows best. That's just like MS and Apple. The difference of > course is that systemd *is* open source and we don't have to use it. > > -- Bruce > > P.S. I never did like wtmp, btmp, utmp for pretty much the same reasons > as above. >
Fourth he binary log gets corrupted, how does one recover that? Ie the disk log space fills up, does it keep writing? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
