On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 09:08 -0600, RB wrote: > On 4/9/08, Rainer Gerhards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No problem at all, I think it's well-hidden in the ML. A good fix (via > > autoconf is still not done, so I should probably add a bug tracker ;). > > I don't know about the remainder of the atomic changes you've made, > but a check for >=gcc-4.1.0 will suffice for the stuff that's in > atomic.h.
I just began, more outstanding... But it looks like that easy solution is the right one - thanks! > I must say - I can't express how excited I was to find this project. > It's been on my long-term plate for quite some time to fork syslog-ng > and add all the nice features the Pro license grants; now I don't have > to! Good to hear ;) And, believe it or not, I never ever installed syslog-ng. But,of course, it's the primary competitor in this space. IMHO we are now far ahead of it (I guess you already know that chart, but...): http://www.rsyslog.com/doc-rsyslog_ng_comparison.html Bazsi seem currently to brew something in regard to the log store, which is not (yet ;)) my priority. Also I don't think it helps to cryptographically sign the store (at least for court), the message itself must be signed (that's my route on that). So we will probably see a few features in the *paid* edition of syslog-ng that rsyslog does not yet have. Even with that, and even compared to the paid edition, I think we are now far ahead. > I'm partial to the syslog-ng configuration syntax, but can most > definitely live with this for not having to re-implement all that > stuff. rsyslog's config file syntax is just plain ugly. No way around. But wait a bit, I am working on a scripting engine: http://rgerhards.blogspot.com/2008/02/introducing-rainerscript-and-some.html http://www.rsyslog.com/doc-rscript_abnf.html > Tell me, are you also working on UDF-WORM? ;) Neither of them - just the boring stuff ;) Rainer _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
