Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.os.linux.misc    |    Linux-specific topics not covered by oth    |    135,536 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 134,880 of 135,536    |
|    Carlos E.R. to Nuno Silva    |
|    Re: ever had 1GB+ kern.log (and syslog)     |
|    17 Jan 26 14:36:47    |
      From: robin_listas@es.invalid              On 2026-01-17 00:30, Nuno Silva wrote:       > On 2026-01-16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:       >       >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 21:40:30 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:       >>       >>> Way too complicated.       >>       >> First you said it couldn’t be done at all -- that it was       >> “intentionally impossible”, and “intentionally not implemented by the       >> journal”. Now when I point out it can be done quite easily,       >> potentially with just a few lines of script, you claim that’s “way too       >> complicated”.       >>       >> What I think is, it’s your existing way of laboriously copying and       >> filtering text-format logfiles with your own (likely regexp-heavy)       >> custom scripting, that is “way too complicated”, and you are suffering       >> from something called the “sunk-cost fallacy”, where you don’t want to       >> throw away all the effort you have put into your existing ways of       >> doing things, even if the new way is simpler.       >       > No, you're again LDO-ing the conversation. You effectively said this       > can't be done within systemd's journal. That may be ok, and it may well       > be possible to do it externaly, easily or less so, but the point stands       > that someone pointed a use case for which that journal apparently (from       > what you said) isn't a suitable replacement.       >       > As usual, you try to sweep this under the rug of "it's FLOSS so you can       > change it [or make it part of a larger workflow]".       >       > (If you really insist in going in that direction, there's not much to be       > discussed, because, as far as the missing bits can be implemented in a       > Turing-complete language, it has to be possible to do so; the only       > limitation is going to be licensing. That part you got right. But       > derailing the train of thought this way really appears like you're       > making extensive efforts to avoid conceding that the tool you prefer       > does not have this feature.)       >              In some machines, the journal is cryptographically signed. Thus any       later manipulation is impossible, it invalidates the signature.              --       Cheers, Carlos.       ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca