This isn't new to me, but maybe someone might think "hey that's just what I wanted", since it's a slow day on yon list. If your running an application and want to capture the output to a system log file, you can use logger. Instead of explain it in too much depth, try the below while tail -f'ing /var/log/daemon.log. echo test | logger -p daemon.info -t \[test\] You'll now have an idea of what it does and why you might like to use it, of course you can do more so you can always rtfm @ `man logger`. Cheers, James.
This isn't new to me, but maybe someone might think "hey that's just what I wanted", since it's a slow day on yon list.
If your running an application and want to capture the output to a system log file, you can use logger.
Instead of explain it in too much depth, try the below while tail -f'ing /var/log/daemon.log.
echo test | logger -p daemon.info -t \[test\]
You'll now have an idea of what it does and why you might like to use it, of course you can do more so you can always rtfm @ `man logger`.
Cheers, James.
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug -- Oliver Jones » Roving Code Warrior
Logger is indeed a useful command line tool for shell scripts that want to log messages to syslog. If you're writing Perl scripts you have a little more in the way of options. You can use the CPAN module Sys::Syslog for basic syslog access. Or you can use Log::Dispatch which can use Syslog, amongst other things such as Email, files etc. You can also use Log::log4perl which is a Perl version of Log4J. Log4J is a very flexible application logging framework. If you're a PHP coder you can use log4php. In fact on logging.apache.org there are links to ports for PHP, C/C++, .Net/Mono, Perl, PLSQL, and Java. Most Log4J ports support some sort of Syslog logging interface. Deciding on a good Logging framework early on in your applications development, no matter what language you use, can be a very good thing. Logging can aid tremendously in debugging and understanding what your daemons/applications are doing. A good thing about the Log4* framework is that you can leave your logging statements in your code and control the verbosity very finely with config files (XML or "property" style files). Regards On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 17:32 +1200, James Clark wrote: oliver(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 » www.deeperdesign.com
* Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeper.co.nz> [2005-04-19 08:25]:
You can also use Log::log4perl which is a Perl version of Log4J. Log4J is a very flexible application logging framework.
And since my immediate reaction when I read phrases like “flexible framework” is to assume a bloated, overengineered API that forces its world view on me instead of adapting to my preferences: Log4perl also makes it very easy to do the simple things you might want to do. It scales seemlessly from 10-liners to 10,000 LOC projects. Regards, -- #Aristotle *AUTOLOAD=*_=sub{s/(.*)::(.*)/print$2,(",$\/"," ")[defined wantarray]/e;$1}; &Just->another->Perl->hacker;
* Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeper.co.nz> [2005-04-19 08:25]:
You can also use Log::log4perl which is a Perl version of Log4J. Log4J is a very flexible application logging framework.
And since my immediate reaction when I read phrases like “flexible framework” is to assume a bloated, overengineered API that forces its world view on me instead of adapting to my preferences:
Log4perl also makes it very easy to do the simple things you might want to do. It scales seemlessly from 10-liners to 10,000 LOC projects.
Regards, -- Oliver Jones » Roving Code Warrior
Sometimes over-engineered frameworks can be very helpful in providing a consistent and well tested set of foundations upon which to build. It is better to start with solid foundations than to try and stuff in more solid foundations as an after thought when your programs requirements expand. If the framework is good it shouldn't require you to do a lot of work to start using it. Log4* is like that. It is relatively simple to get up and running with it. Regards On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 16:53 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: oliver(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 » www.deeperdesign.com
* Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeper.co.nz> [2005-04-23 05:15]:
Sometimes over-engineered frameworks can be very helpful in providing a consistent and well tested set of foundations upon which to build.
I disagree completely. I probably agree with the intent of what you’re saying, but I can’t let this statement stand as is. Architecture astronautics lead to a lot of entropy for not much gain. Frameworks are helpful when they try to address a problem, not when they try to make you build your application around them.
It is better to start with solid foundations than to try and stuff in more solid foundations as an after thought when your programs requirements expand.
Yes; that is why a framework should try to address its problem space very thoroughly. Another example of this is the Template Toolkit, a suite of Perl modules for, well, templating. It does *everything* and then some that you’d expect to ever want from a templating system, but you have to do almost nothing to start using it. You can use as much or as little of it as you want.
If the framework is good it shouldn't require you to do a lot of work to start using it. Log4* is like that. It is relatively simple to get up and running with it.
Yep. Good frameworks stick to their purpose and come with sane defaults and a good swath of convenience interfaces. That's what Log4perl (and probably Log4* in general, which I have no experience with) is like. What I was saying is that when I see “flexible application framework”, that *usually* means there’s some architecture astronaut[1] at work. [1]: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html Regards, -- #Aristotle *AUTOLOAD=*_=sub{s/(.*)::(.*)/print$2,(",$\/"," ")[defined wantarray]/e;$1}; &Just->another->Perl->hacker;
On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 16:44 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeper.co.nz> [2005-04-23 05:15]:
Sometimes over-engineered frameworks can be very helpful in providing a consistent and well tested set of foundations upon which to build.
I disagree completely. I probably agree with the intent of what you’re saying, but I can’t let this statement stand as is.
Architecture astronautics lead to a lot of entropy for not much gain. Frameworks are helpful when they try to address a problem, not when they try to make you build your application around them.
I agree. Except when the framework is intended to be something that you build around. Something that saves you from having to write all the "boring stuff" and focus purely on the problem domain. Ruby on Rails sounds like that (though I've not used it) and I read about a perl framework recently (I forget the name) that lets you build webapps with very few lines of code. There is only one problem with a lot of these sorts of frameworks, and that is if you want to do something that doesn't fit with the architecture or methodology used in the framework things can start to look like a hack. Which is why these sorts of frameworks need to be carefully considered in the context of what you're trying to achieve. Regards -- Oliver Jones » Roving Code Warrior oliver(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 » www.deeperdesign.com
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:44, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I disagree completely. I probably agree with the intent of what you’re saying, but I can’t let this statement stand as is.
Architecture astronautics lead to a lot of entropy for not much gain. Frameworks are helpful when they try to address a problem, not when they try to make you build your application around them. ...
Well said.
... What I was saying is that when I see “flexible application framework”, that *usually* means there’s some architecture astronaut[1] at work.
[1]: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html
And now for a completely off-topic note, Joel in the article shares my healthy disregard for many online journalists[1]: <quote> "... with the imbecile business journalists dripping with glee as they copy each other's stories: "Peer To Peer: Dead!" </quote> I've said this once; though not nearly as well. I still often read: " ... open source software, written by programmers in their spare time and made freely available blah ..." Counterexample: OpenOffice.Org "Sun is still the largest contributor to the project with some 50 developers in Germany, followed by Novell with about 10 contributors, and only four active community developers."[2] | |___ even took me by surprise. [1] Not worth a new thread sorry. [2] http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1530132226;fp;2;fpid;1 Sid.
s swami wrote:
[1]: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html
And now for a completely off-topic note, Joel in the article shares my healthy disregard for many online journalists[1]: <quote> "... with the imbecile business journalists dripping with glee as they copy each other's stories: "Peer To Peer: Dead!" </quote>
I've said this once; though not nearly as well.
I still often read: " ... open source software, written by programmers in their spare time and made freely available blah ..."
Counterexample: OpenOffice.Org "Sun is still the largest contributor to the project with some 50 developers in Germany, followed by Novell with about 10 contributors, and only four active community developers."[2] | |___ even took me by surprise.
[1] Not worth a new thread sorry. [2] http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1530132226;fp;2;fpid;1
Sid.
Then given your, quote: "Healthy disregard for many online journalists" It would be a good idea to disregard the prattlings and misquotations of the Aussie press. Methinks they were simply overwhelmed to be able to corner Simon at the OOo Miniconf that was part of LCA 05. This is a quote of a mail on the OOo Marketing list from OOo Community Manager, Louis Suarez-Potts responding to his being misquoted: "The nunber of those granted commit access can be approximated by going here and counting: <http://www.openoffice.org/copyright/copyrightapproved.html> Not all who have signed the forms are developers and not all have commit access, but they do line up. We also list companies; you'll notice quite a few. In fact, if the media want information as to which companies are working with OOo, they can always go to this page. What are these persons and companies doing? Many are doing coding, many localization, many porting; and many web stuff, which also requires commit access. You'll probably recognize a some of the names there. I think the last time I counted the number was about 500, and that was 6 months ago." Of course not all are coders, there are marketing people, Documentation writers, Web designers, QA people, testers etc, but also that list doesn't count the number of community people working on it without commit access or those working on Ximian OpenOffice. Having said all that, the article is right in part, Sun is still the biggest contributor by far, IBM have used the code to create Workplace and we haven't seen zip from them and the project still needs coders, if only to keep up with the RFEs that keep coming in from users. However even without the enhancements, OOo 2.0 will still be making MS look to it's laurels. Cheers Yo
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:48, Graham wrote:
s swami wrote:
And now for a completely off-topic note, Joel in the article shares my healthy disregard for many online journalists[1]: <quote> "... with the imbecile business journalists dripping with glee as they copy each other's stories: "Peer To Peer: Dead!" </quote> ...
I still often read: " ... open source software, written by programmers in their spare time and made freely available blah ..."
Counterexample: OpenOffice.Org "Sun is still the largest contributor to the project with some 50 developers in Germany, followed by Novell with about 10 contributors, and only four active community developers."[2]
|___ even took me by surprise.
[1] Not worth a new thread sorry. [2] http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1530132226;fp;2;fpid;1
It wasn't worth a new thread :-) Quoted text is Graham:
Then given your, quote: "Healthy disregard for many online journalists" It would be a good idea to disregard the prattlings and misquotations of the Aussie press.
First, there are obvious qualitative differences between the journalism I characterised as " ... open source software, written by programmers in their spare time and made freely available blah ..." and the journalism I linked to as my counterexample. So your "good idea" admonition doesn't follow.
Methinks they were simply overwhelmed to be able to corner Simon at the OOo Miniconf that was part of LCA 05.
Second, don't worry about Simon Phipps. The relevant part of the article, which I quoted, was the statement of Ken Foskey.
This is a quote of a mail on the OOo Marketing list from OOo Community Manager, Louis Suarez-Potts responding to his being misquoted:
Third, a link would have been useful. I searched in most of the zillion mailing lists at http://marketing.openoffice.org/ but no luck. But don't bother, my paragraph below renders what Potts has to say inconsequential. Fourth, let me assume that "his" (in you paragraph quoted above) refers to Ken Foskey and not Suarez-Potts or Simon Phipps. Then it would seem that claims of misquotation are incorrect. In fact Foskey was _not_ misquoted as shown by: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.openoffice.general/38240 Fifth, as both you and Suarez-Potts say, #with-commit-access != #developers nowhere near a good approximation of developer numbers. Sixth, given the subject I prefer Foskey's comments to those of the (hardworking) marketing department. Seventh, apart from you there's only one other who has read so far. So I'll stop before he too gives up. :-)
Having said all that, the article is right in part, Sun is still the biggest contributor by far, IBM have used the code to create Workplace and we haven't seen zip from them and the project still needs coders, if only to keep up with the RFEs that keep coming in from users.
However even without the enhancements, OOo 2.0 will still be making MS look to it's laurels.
I agree. Looking forward to the 2.0 release. Keep up the good work and thanks for keeping me honest :-) Sid. PS I won't carry on this thread. So I concede to any further points you may make. We're on the same side afterall. Or just mail me offlist and I'll concede in private too. :-)
s swami wrote:
It wasn't worth a new thread :-)
Heh! I suppose it depends on one's particular passions! :)
PS I won't carry on this thread. So I concede to any further points you may make. We're on the same side afterall.
:) Never thought otherwise. And I shall be at the installfest passing out CDs of OOo stable and bleeding edge Oh and that link. :) http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgId=1962138 The only reason I tend to jump on such is that it has been noticeable of late that a few slashdotters, print and online press types like taking shots at OOo because it's becoming so successful. A bit of the tall poppy syndrome methinks, but there is an amount of sensationalist "making a story out of nothing" in the online press. OOo makes a good target because our marketing budget amounts to $0.25c in a forgotten Paypal account somewhere and so can't affect the advertising revenue of the particular publication. We roll on in spite of that however. :) Cheers Yo
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:26, Graham wrote:
The only reason I tend to jump on such is that it has been noticeable of late that a few slashdotters, print and online press types like taking shots at OOo because it's becoming so successful.
Keep jumping :-) You made me go to some of the OOo sites to have a look around and that's a good thing. I must say you guys have quite a community happening. Good work. Sid.
:) Never thought otherwise. And I shall be at the installfest passing out CDs of OOo stable and bleeding edge
Yet you appear not to have registered your attendance? :) http://www.wlug.org.nz/archive/installfest/registration.php Just so you know, Ubuntu Hoary installs OO.o 1.1.3 by default, and in universe you will also find the current 2.0 beta, 1.9.79. We'll also be preparing and giving away Windows OSS CDs in the form of zcat's Kia Ora CD - Bruce is currently working on 0.0.5 for the installfest, but the list of programs on 0.0.4 is at http://zcat.wired.net.nz/kiaora/programs.php and based on that I expect it contains OO.o/Win32 1.1.4. If you want to help out by including anything extra on these CDs, please contact me off list in the next few days. Craig
Craig Box wrote:
:) Never thought otherwise. And I shall be at the installfest passing out CDs of OOo stable and bleeding edge
Yet you appear not to have registered your attendance? :)
http://www.wlug.org.nz/archive/installfest/registration.php
Just so you know, Ubuntu Hoary installs OO.o 1.1.3 by default, and in universe you will also find the current 2.0 beta, 1.9.79.
We'll also be preparing and giving away Windows OSS CDs in the form of zcat's Kia Ora CD - Bruce is currently working on 0.0.5 for the installfest, but the list of programs on 0.0.4 is at http://zcat.wired.net.nz/kiaora/programs.php and based on that I expect it contains OO.o/Win32 1.1.4.
It certainly does :) OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 AbiWord 2.2.5 firefox 1.0.3 thunderbird 1.0 filezilla 2.2.12c emule 0.45b winhttrack 3.33 gaim 1.2.0 miranda 0.3.3.1 GTK+ 2 for Windows 2.6.4 The GIMP2 for Windows 2.2.4 inkscape 0.41-1 audacity 1.2.3 cdEX 1.51 vidomi SciTE 1.62 pdfcreator 0.8.0 7zip 3.13 clamwin 0.83 Spoon Installer r10 tuxpaint 0.9.14 tuxpaint stamps tuxracer 0.61 frozen bubble 1.0.0 celestia 1.3.2 Really Slick Screensavers 0.1 tightvnc 1.2.9 winscp 3.7.4 Available for download now at http://zcat.wired.net.nz/files/ Official release date 3/5/05, but it's unlikely I'll change anything else before then unless there's a serious exploit in Firefox or emule or such... -- Disclaimer: Any disclaimer attached to this message may be ignored.
Craig Box wrote:
:) Never thought otherwise. And I shall be at the installfest passing out CDs of OOo stable and bleeding edge
Yet you appear not to have registered your attendance? :)
Bugger I knew that rubber band was cutting off circulation to my little finger for a reason. ;)
http://www.wlug.org.nz/archive/installfest/registration.php
Just so you know, Ubuntu Hoary installs OO.o 1.1.3 by default,
Yup I know and a very tidy version it is too. Cool Iconset, nice interface all round. I think it's the Debian community version
and in universe you will also find the current 2.0 beta, 1.9.79.
680m79 has now been superceded as the beta by 680m95 (beta2? Certainly the most stable). There were some issues with Open Document in '79. By the time the Installfest comes around we should be at m97 anyway.
We'll also be preparing and giving away Windows OSS CDs in the form of zcat's Kia Ora CD - Bruce is currently working on 0.0.5 for the installfest, but the list of programs on 0.0.4 is at http://zcat.wired.net.nz/kiaora/programs.php and based on that I expect it contains OO.o/Win32 1.1.4.
If you want to help out by including anything extra on these CDs, please contact me off list in the next few days.
Done! I'll probably have CDs with OOo iso's which have an installer and versions for all the major platforms. I'll also have CD's with PDF's of the up to date OOo manuals plus early releases of 2.0 Manuals. Does the LUG have a friendly printer? I'd like to print up a few hardcopies but haven't to this point because they're 450+ pages. :) Cheers Yo
Craig
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
participants (7)
-
A. Pagaltzis -
Craig Box -
Graham -
James Clark -
Oliver Jones -
s swami -
zcat