3 ms·
But syslog already solved this problem (as others have said): you pipe all your output to syslog (even via TCP/UDP) and then syslog determines where the output
by fiddlerwoaroof 9y ago
But syslog already solved this problem (as others have said): you pipe all your output to syslog (even via TCP/UDP) and then syslog determines where the output should go via the entries in syslog.conf. And you can even write a simple utility that wraps an arbitrary executable and redirects its stdout/stderr to syslog as well, solving the problem for 90% of the applications that don't have builtin syslog support.
- oblio 9y agoI feel like I'm having the same discussion, here, on HackerNews, when I talk to people about Emacs. Yes, technically we can do anything. In the end it's all code, if my time was free I could just do anything :) But sensible defaults are important. Software design is important. Unix basically skirts the issue by throwing all these decisions in the user's lap. I can take these decisions, but I don't always want to have to do it. And there's many situations where you can't necessarily do it, either due to technical limitations, political limitations, budget constraints, etc. In short, I'm glad systemd is winning. Sure, the average user loses a bit on the purity front but he gains a lot on the practical front.