Re: ANNOUNCE: grapevine 0.1 "The flying sheep" released

On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 12:25:24PM +1000, Nathan Hurst wrote:
> > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 09:31:48AM +1000, Nathan Hurst wrote:
> > > Are there any _fundamental_ reasons why we can't use syslog 
> > > for grapevine too?
> > I asked Georg this on IRC yesterday, but I didn't get a clear answer;
> > certainly it is better to build on what has gone before.  If syslogd
> > needs to be extended to support user-level notification better, that
> > would be a good project to work on.
> That was my point entirely (hence the '_fundamental_' :).  Syslogd can do
> things like log to remote systems, write to console, and it has a known
> configuration system.  It also means that existing log analysers can be
> used and extended with gnome apps.

Well grapevine is more "per user" while syslog is more per system.  Though it
think it would be fairly easy to make grapevine watch syslog and send selected
entries to the user.  In fact this was always planned, it just isn't implemented

> > But however it is implemented, I think grapevine is very interesting.
> Absolutely, I was thinking about getting a student here to work on the
> same idea...

Get a student to help me with grapevine then :)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]