Re: Syslog (was: <no subject>)

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms@yahoo.com>]

--- Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 05:47:18AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> > I completely agree, plus it could also allow customization of which
> > messages are logged and which are sent to the console.
> > 
> > So you have my vote for this functionality :-).
> 
> There's just the problem that we don't want Cygwin to rely on
> a running syslogd.  syslogd isn't an integral part of the OS
> (as on U*X systems) while the NT event log is.  Well, on NT.
> On 9x we have the ugly syslog file workaround.
> 
> Corinna
Corinna,

If you are going to emulate *n*x, you are going have to run some
processes.  Memory is cheap, and certainly the syslogd wouldn't use that
much, would it?  Also, it's not like you couldn't have the messages fall
back to the NTeventlog or Ugly-syslog, should the service not be started
or fail.  I bet it would even be possible to have syslogd pass messages to
the NT Event Log, as well.  Anyhow, the concept of running a full blown
installation of cygwin w/o any additional processes will be moot once
cygserver becomes mainstream.  IMHO, the NT Event Log is not very
extensible and, of course, is proprietary.  Just my 2 cents...

Cheers,
Nicholas

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/