Story

uselessd - a fork of systemd

Preview

Ignore Corruption?? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-21 14:19 (#2SQ1)

Look I'm still kind of a Linux/BSD noob, but their first link to the Systemd bugtracker is kind of compelling, no?

The single most important system management tool, basic logging, is turned binary, and SystemD developers' official response to log corruption and complete unreadability is literally "ignore it"??

This is okay with all the distros? What the frak is going on out there?

Re: Ignore Corruption?? (Score: 2, Informative)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-09-23 06:00 (#2STB)

You don't have to use systemd for logging, you can continue using rsyslogd and plain-text logs if you so choose.

Re: Ignore Corruption?? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-23 11:42 (#2STS)

So you're saying it's opt-out, like spam, and the Mafia, and taxes? Kind of missing the point of an inherently poor design and unaccountable developer, no?

Re: Ignore Corruption?? (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-09-23 22:54 (#2SVE)

So you're saying it's opt-out
No, it's opt-in. It's not going to automatically shut-off your syslog. Now, what distros choose to use as their default is a different matter, its they who are making these default decisions for you.
Kind of missing the point of an inherently poor design and unaccountable developer, no?
No. Problems don't actually need to be fixed upstream, distros can patch anything about systemd they want, before packaging it for their platform. That's where Ice Weasel comes from. I don't see anything inherently poor about the design... Binary log files are no more risky than plain text, and any logger can have bugs.

Did you know that rsyslogd will bring down your whole damn system if you use TCP logging over the network, but the destination stops accepting?

Re: Ignore Corruption?? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-24 00:13 (#2SVG)

Huh? I was saying one had to "opt out" of having the log files be binary. You don't seem to be saying anything different? They are binary by default. One has to choose to turn off the binary logging. That's opt-out. One has to opt-in to the old-fashioned way, no?

Or are you saying they ALSO have text logging by default, doubling up all the logging?

Are you also really saying that a corrupted binary file is every bit as parseable, salvageable, and recoverable as a text file with short or malformed lines towards the tail? I'm not seeing it.

Re: Ignore Corruption?? (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-09-24 06:31 (#2SVV)

systemd DOES NOT LOG TO DISK BY DEFAULT.
Is that clear enough?

If your distro opts to configure it to do so (out of the box for you), that's a different matter entirely, and one you'll have to take-up with them. They could keep rsyslogd in-use just as easily.

And yes, binary files are just as recoverable as text files. The only difference between text and binary is a 7 vs 8-bit character space, and the standard character defined for line-endings. Otherwise, there is no difference between binary and text files. This is entry-level stuff, first week of programming 101.

Re: Ignore Corruption?? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-24 10:58 (#2SW1)

But that's nonsense. Binary implies the files are not sequential but stored in data structures with random access and placement. You seem to be implying that binary files are written to sequentially. Nope. Maybe in SyatemD's case I don't know.

Re: Ignore Corruption?? (Score: 2, Insightful)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-09-24 12:15 (#2SW3)

"Binary file" implies no such thing.

Text files can be written with random access in complicated data structures as well. The most impenetrable XML file is plain-text, after all.

Moderation

Time Reason Points Voter
2014-09-27 20:33 Insightful +1 zafiro17@pipedot.org

Junk Status

Not marked as junk