Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 6:41 PM, lee <l...@yagibdah.de> wrote: >> >> Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> writes: >> >> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:49:54 +0100, lee wrote: >> > >> >> > I wonder if the OP is using systemd and trying to read the journal >> >> > files? >> >> >> >> Nooo, I hate systemd ... >> >> >> >> What good are log files you can't read? >> > >> > You can't read syslog-ng log files without some reading software, > usually >> > a combination of cat, grep and less. systemd does it all with > journalctl. >> > >> > There are good reasons to not use systemd, this isn't one of them. >> >> To me it is one of the good reasons, and an important one. Plain text >> can usually always be read without further ado, be it from rescue >> systems you booted or with software available on different operating >> systems. It can be also be processed with scripts and sent as email. >> You can probably even read it on your cell phone. You can still read >> log files that were created 20 years ago when they are plain text. >> >> Can you do all that with the binary files created by systemd? > > Yes, you can.
You can predict the next 20 years? >> I can't even read them on a working system. > > If that's true (which I highly doubt, more probably you don't know how to > read them), then it's a bug and should be reported and fixed. I read log files with less. The bug is that systemd uses some sort of binary files, and they aren't going to fix it. They even won't fix their misunderstanding of what "disabled" means. So why make bug reports? -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.
