38 ms·

Hold up, never log into the machine is exactly what the discussion is about, not logging into machines for log access being one aspect of it.

by R0b0t1 6y ago

hnlmorg 6y ago
I'm guessing you skim read most of the replies after the OP? The OP did touch upon it when describing their own architecture (albeit he wasn't actually suggesting that should be how everyone operates) but everything after that has been more narrowly focused. This particular branch of the discussion was specifically discussing log access: > > ship log events out of the box and into something searchable, indexable, and can derive metrics > That's just a way to spend a ton of money. There's really not a reason to ship or index logs...
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  They're explicitly talking about not logging into machines for log access. One of the ways to make it seem a reasonable suggestion is the broader topic of not logging into machines at all, ever, and why that may be a good thing.
  - hnlmorg 6y ago
    > They're explicitly talking about not logging into machines for log access. That's what I said. ;) > One of the ways to make it seem a reasonable suggestion is the broader topic of not logging into machines at all, ever, and why that may be a good thing. Except none of that was being discussed. Only log access.
    - R0b0t1 6y ago
      The conversation involves both.
      - hnlmorg 6y ago
        No it doesn't. By your own admission: > They're explicitly talking about not logging into machines for log access. Why can't you just admit that you didn't read the thread properly rather than insulting all of our intelligence with these piss poor mental gymnastics where you redefine the context of what people had very clearly written.
        R0b0t1 6y ago
        Because I read the thread? How many times do you want me to repeat myself? They're talking about the specific case of not logging in for log access, but that is partially justified by the wider desire to never have people log in at all. You can separate them but the original conversation didn't.
        hnlmorg 6y ago
        > You can separate them but the original conversation didn't. The conversation you're replying to, however, did. I know this for a fact because I was involved in that conversation and I made that distinction myself ;)

Hold up, never log into the machine is exactly what the discussion is about, not logging into machines for log access being one aspect of it.

by R0b0t1 6y ago

Hold up, never log into the machine is exactly what the discussion is about, not logging into machines for log access being one aspect of it.

hnlmorg 6y ago

I'm guessing you skim read most of the replies after the OP? The OP did touch upon it when describing their own architecture (albeit he wasn't actually suggesting that should be how everyone operates) but everything after that has been more narrowly focused. This particular branch of the discussion was specifically discussing log access: > > ship log events out of the box and into something searchable, indexable, and can derive metrics > That's just a way to spend a ton of money. There's really not a reason to ship or index logs...

R0b0t1 6y ago
They're explicitly talking about not logging into machines for log access. One of the ways to make it seem a reasonable suggestion is the broader topic of not logging into machines at all, ever, and why that may be a good thing.
- hnlmorg 6y ago
  > They're explicitly talking about not logging into machines for log access. That's what I said. ;) > One of the ways to make it seem a reasonable suggestion is the broader topic of not logging into machines at all, ever, and why that may be a good thing. Except none of that was being discussed. Only log access.
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    The conversation involves both.
    - hnlmorg 6y ago
      No it doesn't. By your own admission: > They're explicitly talking about not logging into machines for log access. Why can't you just admit that you didn't read the thread properly rather than insulting all of our intelligence with these piss poor mental gymnastics where you redefine the context of what people had very clearly written.
      - R0b0t1 6y ago
        Because I read the thread? How many times do you want me to repeat myself? They're talking about the specific case of not logging in for log access, but that is partially justified by the wider desire to never have people log in at all. You can separate them but the original conversation didn't.
        hnlmorg 6y ago
        > You can separate them but the original conversation didn't. The conversation you're replying to, however, did. I know this for a fact because I was involved in that conversation and I made that distinction myself ;)