On Wednesday, 5 February 2020 6:30:03 AM AEDT Russ Allbery wrote: > The primary benefit that I can see is one fewer daemon running on a > default installation, one fewer thing to have security vulnerabilities or > some other problems, one fewer thing to keep up to date, and a smaller > base installation. To be clear, these benefits are fairly minor, but they > do exist.
The question is whether those benefits are enough to justify replacing a very solid and reliable logging system. It is probably correct that most users don't use Rsyslog features. But that doesn't mean that those features should be taken away from default installation. For example, if a certain daemon manifested a condition when a message is logged too often, then with Rsyslog I could suppress noise by something like the following ~~~~ if ($programname == "noisydaemon") then { if ($msg contains "frequently repeated noise") then { stop } } ~~~~ This is just an example (probably not the best one) how feature can be handy when it is needed. The point is that you'll only realise that you can't do something any more is when you need it the most. Also the cost of learning. I'm sure that more people are more familiar with Rsyslog. So there is inconvenience too. Disruptive changing of good default for weak reasons is not nice. Rsyslog is not broken to be replaced as default logging system. Finally there were no attempt to seek consensus, no survey, nothing? Just a decision of few maintainers to replace good default with their preferences? It is difficult to appreciate needless disruptive changes. -- Best wishes, Dmitry Smirnov. --- It is impossible to imagine Goethe or Beethoven being good at billiards or golf. -- H. L. Mencken
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.