Re: [logs] Syslog payload format

From: Kyle R. Hofmann (krhat_private)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 19:21:11 PST

  • Next message: Rainer Gerhards: "RE: [logs] Syslog payload format"

    On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:13:17 +0100, "Ogle Ron (Rennes)" wrote:
    > Just compare the successes of history on protocols:
    > X.500 vs. LDAP
    > X.400 vs. SMTP
    > OSI vs. TCP/IP
    > SGML vs. HTML
    > CMIP vs. SNMP
    > It's not trivializing a problem to understand that nice and easy tends to
    > win over complete and complex.  All of the protocols that lost, were highly
    > intellectual and covered all/most possible situations.  But they didn't win
    > out, why?  They had too much baggage and were too complex to implement.
    > You can spend your time and this list's time creating grandiose frameworks,
    > but history is against you for actually getting it used.  Learn from history
    > this time.
    > Ron Ogle
    > Rennes, France
    Well, I happen to think that SLP and the various tagging APIs are all simple.
    (Well, maybe not any tagging API but liblog's.  Heh heh heh.  :-)  I can't
    think of any warts or needless complexity on any of them, except maybe for a
    few parts of SLP that are needed for backwards compatibility.  Since you
    disagree, could you explain what about SLP seems so complex?  Or if it's not
    SLP you object to so much, one of the tagging API's?  (liblog, eventlog,
    idsalite)  I'm curious to know what I've missed.
    If all of them are so broken that you can't even bear to talk about them,
    could you propose something better?
    Kyle R. Hofmann <krhat_private>
    LogAnalysis mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 19:38:23 PST