On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Michael Torrie <[email protected]> wrote: > journald can certainly work in conjunction with syslog. In fact any > enterprise distro is probably required to have a normal syslog for audit > purposes (RHEL7 does by default, and it also has journald). journald > certainly does things that syslog does not, such as allowing > fine-grained logging and debugging from the very start of init. I think > the idea of journal is a good one; I just wish they'd use an on-disk > format that wasn't an opaque binary dump; perhaps this will change in > the future. But like I say, syslog is still available, even if it's not > on by default in distros like Fedora. Some people compare journald with > the Windows event log and viewer, but this is rather ignorant I think.
Yes, I understand all of that. I object to the requirement to either run both (for reasons you mentioned), or suffer with limited options. I personally would rather replace journald with my choice of logging system only. Granted, I understand this is just a nitpick, but it's a valid concern. It's only one, fairly small, extra service to run. I'll get over it. The benefits of systemd still, so far, outweigh the drawbacks. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
