On Tuesday 27 September 2005 01:29 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 11:57 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: > > Basically... why? > > > > I'm neither advocating being different to be different, nor following > > others so howtos about their stuff fit to ours. I'm after > > the underlying reasons why general users should be using syslog-ng over > > metalog in contrast to the fact we've recommended metalog as long as > > I've been around. That and I happen to like metalog's layout, > > strangely enough ;) > > Actually, we've been recommending syslog-ng for *at least* the past two > releases. The only thing that was never changed was the virtual.
because someone changed it doesnt mean it should have been changed > > I'd rather see reasons listed as to why syslog-ng is a superior > > default for users who (most likely) don't care, then "we lack > > /var/log/messages" :) > > Besides the /var/log/messages thing, which I think is a non-argument, > there is syslog-ng's ability to be usable by anyone. It works great for > servers, it works great for desktops. It works as a loghost. It works > for remote logging. Essentially, it has all of the features that users > would want. It also has all of the features that administrators would > want. It is flexible and powerful. how exactly is this an argument for syslog ? metalog has all these features (and more) except for remote logging ... -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
