> Has anyone here used Webalizer? If so, what did you like/not like about it > compared to Analog?
I'll be honest, I use both, and I can get the same information out of either. On my system (Win32) webalizer is significantly faster, due to it's use of .history and .current files, it doesn't ever reread log, it stores the data internally. I haven't investigated ways to improve Analog's performance, at the moment I only run Analog daily, so it's not a problem. The only real difference is the layout and formatting of the reports. There is certain information that is accessible from analog, but not Webalizer, but I've yet to use any of those tables. I prefer Webalizer's output, but Analog+ReportMagic is almost as good. Due to popular demand by my users, I use both. -- The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own. +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this | mailing list, go to | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/unsubscribe.html | | List archives are available at | http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/archives/ | http://www.tallylist.com/archives/index.cfm/mlist.7 +------------------------------------------------------------------------
