4 ms·

> you dont have to use journald. you can send back from journald to syslog That's a contradiction. You're running journald even if it's dead weight.

• digi_owl 12y ago
  And if journald goes belly up, no logs for syslog...
  • pjmlp 12y ago
    As if syslog cannot go belly up as well.
    • feld 12y ago
      When have you ever seen syslog go belly up?
      • general_failure 12y ago
        You are clearly too young to remember. But don't worry journal will get there
        • feld 12y ago
          That's the entire point. Syslog has years of stability and reliability. You don't just throw that away, especially for such an important role.
      • pjmlp 12y ago
        Can you assure it is 100% failure proof in all UNIX variants that have one running?
    • e12e 12y ago
      Lets assume for the sake of argument that logind (a new codebase) is about as stable as syslog (anyone of which are several years old, well tested). Layering one on top of the other, you now have doubled the chance of one of them going belly up.
  • the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
    And if syslog goes belly up no logs. What's your point?
    • chronid 12y ago
      So now instead of syslog we have journald AND syslog - we only doubled the risk of something going boom and taking away our ability to log. I don't think that's nice.
    • lil_cain 12y ago
      You used have one component that needed to fail to start losing logs. Now you have two.
• zobzu 12y ago
  Technically its really just a socket dup