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. > 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. It has also been the recommended system logger since 2005.0 (I just checked). -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
