On 09/02/2016 11:37 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 09/02/2016 09:05 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
For some reason, rsyslog was the default on openSUSE some years back, that's the reason I have it. And it's given me problems.
If rsyslog gave you problems, what makes you think the more complex, more advanced syslog-ng wont?
What makes you think syslog-ng is more complex, Anton? I distinctly remember a few years back when openSUSE switched to rsyslog. I tried to get rsyslog to write timestamps in the ISO8601 format. In syslog-ng it was just add "ts_format(iso)" to the main options, I don't remember if I ever worked it out in rsyslog :-)
You've just answered the question. Other posts to this thread answer it. The -ng can do more, is more capable * it has better 'human oriented functions' * it handles a more readable, understandable, less machine oriented config * it has better error handling, for example of errors in the config * it can do things that rsyslog couldn't I'm not saying that a batter architectural model, one more understandable and perhaps more easily maintained because of that is always less complex, but my expeince is that more code and more maintenance and more time/entropy doesn't help. I've seen some applications, for example, that were large enough in C and when recoded in C++ the number of lines dropped dramatically, but that didn't mean it was more understandable to someone meeting it for the first time. FORTH and APL have been termed 'write only languages' because they are understandable only by the author; yes anyone can write code like that but some languages lend themselves to it more so - in my opinion C++ is one. But that's beside the point when the re-architecting adds complexity. And the simplicity of the UI is no measure of the simplicity of the code. Some of the nicest, most user-oriented GUI applications are a horrible mess of event handling spaghetti. Yes I prefer -ng. Yes I prefer something I can manage, so long as I'm not expected to code it or maintain the code. Long gone are the days when the UNIX Guru knew all the code on the system, the kernel, the shell, ed and more. So much of Linux is one person or one team dealing with one application or subsystem. The time for generalist code-jockeys is long gone; they'd be drowned in the sheer volume. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org