In some mail from Marcus J. Ranum, sie said: > > Darren Reed wrote: > >The biggest problem any change is going to have is dealing with > >convincing programmers that the extra effort is worthwhile. > > Yeah. :( But unless we can, we're stuck with syslog forever. > > Now that I think about it, I think a requirement must be that it > >provides a syslog(3) interface for old applications. > > You're probably right. Of course if one provided > such an interface there'd be no motivation to ever > change it, and we'd be (basically) stuck with syslog > forever. That's just for backward compatability in the application. The log messages that get generated are all in the new style with tags and data. I suppose I'm banking on programmers see the change in syslog output, going to find out what it's all about, reading about the extra capabilities themselves and making their own judgement call about whether or not to use the new interface. Just look at how installing package foo on linux or *bsd these days means you have to have X, Y and Z already there because people leverage off extra features from other new things. Darren _______________________________________________ LogAnalysis mailing list LogAnalysisat_private http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 19:38:12 PST