Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #17060 > unrolled thread

OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43

Started bykalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen)
First post2026-04-14 19:55 +0000
Last post2026-06-02 20:34 +0000
Articles 5 on this page of 45 — 13 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.unix.programmer

Contents

  OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2026-04-14 19:55 +0000
    Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-04-14 20:10 -0400
      Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-15 03:34 +0000
      Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-15 08:15 +0100
      Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2026-04-15 15:08 +0000
    Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-04-21 20:41 +0200
      Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2026-04-21 18:52 +0000
    Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> - 2026-05-30 13:39 -0700
      Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2026-05-30 20:46 +0000
        Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> - 2026-05-30 15:59 -0700
          Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2026-05-30 23:05 +0000
            Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-31 08:34 +0100
            Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> - 2026-05-31 02:22 -0700
          Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 16:55 -0700
            Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-31 08:26 +0100
        Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-05-31 04:51 -0400
          Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-01 00:22 +0000
            Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-01 09:16 +0100
            Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-06-01 08:18 +0000
              Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2026-06-01 14:13 +0000
                Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-06-01 16:02 +0000
                  Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-02 00:13 +0000
                    Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-06-02 08:22 +0000
                      Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-08 00:32 +0000
                        Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-06-08 08:20 +0000
                          Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 00:54 +0000
                            Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-06-09 08:48 +0000
                              Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 00:34 +0000
                                Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-06-10 08:21 +0000
                                  Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 04:33 +0000
                                    Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-06-11 10:18 +0000
                Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-01 17:14 +0000
                  Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:14 +0100
                Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-02 00:31 +0000
                  Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-06-02 07:35 +0200
                    Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-02 06:39 +0000
                      Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 14:49 +0000
                    Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:08 +0100
                      Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-06-02 15:36 +0200
                Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:22 +0100
                  Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 17:06 +0000
                    Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 18:47 +0000
                      Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-06-03 08:18 +0000
                    Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 20:40 +0100
                      Re: OT: Firefox vs Chromium on Fedora 43 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 20:34 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#17182

Fromcross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Date2026-06-02 17:06 +0000
Message-ID<10vn2ik$jj$1@reader1.panix.com>
In reply to#17177
In article <10vm7bo$2prmk$4@dont-email.me>,
Nuno Silva  <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 2026-06-01, Nicolas George wrote:
>
>> boltar@caprica.universe, dans le message
>> <10vjf8j$23ctb$1@dont-email.me>, a écrit :
>>>>If you’re looking for messages sent to stderr, systemd collects these
>>>>in its journal. You can find Firefox-related messages in your per-user
>>>>journal with something like
>>>>
>>>>    journalctl --user --user-unit=\*firefox\*
>>> So much simpler than "grep firefox /var/log/syslog". Horray for systemd!
>>
>> Your mocking would work better if you were capable of explaining how a user
>> program is able to get its standard error log to /var.
>
>The obvious answer has been pointed out already, but you may want to
>look up certain parts of IEEE 1003.1:
>
><https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/closelog.html#tag_17_83_06_03>

That's not the same thing, though.

The question was how one gets output written to the standard
error stream from some process into syslog.  The `syslog` and
related functions don't really help with that, unless you write
a program that reads that data (presumably over a pipe) and pass
it as an argument to `syslog` et al.  But even if one does that,
the user may not have permissions to write to the system log.

>I'd also want to point out a different way of answering this:
>
>    Can you explain how a user program is able to get its log messages
>    to the systemd journal?
>
>The point here not being a claim that that is not possible, or a need
>for explanation, but a moment for you to consider "well, maybe syslog
>does something similar-ish?".

See above.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17183

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2026-06-02 18:47 +0000
Message-ID<GyFTR.2696$q_q3.183@fx44.iad>
In reply to#17182
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>In article <10vm7bo$2prmk$4@dont-email.me>,
>Nuno Silva  <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2026-06-01, Nicolas George wrote:
>>
>>> boltar@caprica.universe, dans le message
>>> <10vjf8j$23ctb$1@dont-email.me>, a écrit :
>>>>>If you’re looking for messages sent to stderr, systemd collects these
>>>>>in its journal. You can find Firefox-related messages in your per-user
>>>>>journal with something like
>>>>>
>>>>>    journalctl --user --user-unit=\*firefox\*
>>>> So much simpler than "grep firefox /var/log/syslog". Horray for systemd!
>>>
>>> Your mocking would work better if you were capable of explaining how a user
>>> program is able to get its standard error log to /var.
>>
>>The obvious answer has been pointed out already, but you may want to
>>look up certain parts of IEEE 1003.1:
>>
>><https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/closelog.html#tag_17_83_06_03>
>
>That's not the same thing, though.
>
>The question was how one gets output written to the standard
>error stream from some process into syslog.  The `syslog` and
>related functions don't really help with that, unless you write
>a program that reads that data (presumably over a pipe) and pass
>it as an argument to `syslog` et al.  But even if one does that,
>the user may not have permissions to write to the system log.

Several C++ applications that I work with use an internal logger
framework.  This was originally written for my burroughs V
series simulator.  The framework supports multiple sinks;
one of which can be the syslog.

This is used instead of direct writes to stderr throughout
the entire application.

There's an interface class (c_logger) that
defines the interfaces to the subsystem, e.g.

class c_logger {

    bool    l_debug;

public:
    c_logger(bool d)                { l_debug = d; }
    virtual ~c_logger(void) {};

    void        log(const char *, ...)
            __attribute__((format(printf, 2, 3)));
    size_t      trace(const char *, ...)
            __attribute__((format(printf, 2, 3)));

    virtual void   do_log(const char *, va_list) = 0;
    virtual size_t do_trace(const char *, va_list) = 0;

    void   set_tracing(bool d=false)   { l_debug = d; }
    bool   is_tracing(void)            { return l_debug; }
};

There are a set of derived classes that provide the
sink(s).

   c_file_logger            Takes a filename
   c_gzip_logger            Takes a filename and gzips the output
   c_stream_logger          Takes an outputstream to which output is sent
   c_syslog_logger          Logs output via the syslog() system call

There is also a multiplexor:

   c_mux_logger             implements c_logger and keeps a list of
                            registered loggers.  Any call to 'log' or 'trace'
                            will be passed to each of the registered loggers.

int
main(int argv, const char **argv)
{
   c_logger         *ml;
   c_file_logger    *fl;
   c_syslog_logger  *sl;

   ml = new c_mux_logger();
   ml->add(new c_file_logger(stderr));
   if (argc > 1) {
       ml->add(new c_file_logger(argv[1]);
   }
   ml->add(new c_syslog_logger());

   ml->log("%s: Welcome to main\n", argv[0]);

   return 0;
}

The Welcome message is replicated on all registered sinks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17186

Fromboltar@caprica.universe
Date2026-06-03 08:18 +0000
Message-ID<10voo00$3g79h$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#17183
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:47:02 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>The question was how one gets output written to the standard
>>error stream from some process into syslog.  The `syslog` and
>>related functions don't really help with that, unless you write
>>a program that reads that data (presumably over a pipe) and pass
>>it as an argument to `syslog` et al.  But even if one does that,
>>the user may not have permissions to write to the system log.
>
>Several C++ applications that I work with use an internal logger
>framework.  This was originally written for my burroughs V
>series simulator.  The framework supports multiple sinks;
>one of which can be the syslog.

Writing your own logger isn't hard. At its core its just an ostream or
file pointer surrounded by a mutex. The point was redirecting console output to
the syslog which is easily done by piping to the logger utility.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17184

FromRichard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-06-02 20:40 +0100
Message-ID<wwvv7c0vigp.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
In reply to#17182
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
> The question was how one gets output written to the standard
> error stream from some process into syslog.  The `syslog` and
> related functions don't really help with that, unless you write
> a program that reads that data (presumably over a pipe) and pass
> it as an argument to `syslog` et al.

The program has existed for years, it’s called ‘logger’.

> But even if one does the user may not have permissions to write to the
> system log.

Possible in principle I suppose, but it seems like a weird configuration
since it’d make it less convenient for non-root daemons to use syslog.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17185

Fromcross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Date2026-06-02 20:34 +0000
Message-ID<10vneo7$an8$1@reader1.panix.com>
In reply to#17184
In article <wwvv7c0vigp.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>,
Richard Kettlewell  <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> The question was how one gets output written to the standard
>> error stream from some process into syslog.  The `syslog` and
>> related functions don't really help with that, unless you write
>> a program that reads that data (presumably over a pipe) and pass
>> it as an argument to `syslog` et al.
>
>The program has existed for years, it’s called ‘logger’.

I'm aware.  The point was that just linking to the POSIX
definitions for `syslog` et al was, again, answering a different
question than the one posed.

>> But even if one does the user may not have permissions to write to the
>> system log.
>
>Possible in principle I suppose, but it seems like a weird configuration
>since it’d make it less convenient for non-root daemons to use syslog.

It is actually quite common on a multi-user system.

As for system daemons that don't run as root, most versions of
`syslogd` these days support an option to specify the pathname
to multiple Unix domain sockets that they'll accept messages on;
those can be permitted differently for different daemons (many
of which may well be running in their own `chroot` prisons or
something similar, and thus unable to reach the standard socket
path anyhow).

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.unix.programmer

csiph-web