Ah the classic "call it a religion" and you can dismiss it argument. There's just one problem - this is the exactly OPPOSITE of a religion: because it's based on solid evidence.
Well, I don't see this evidence of yours.
Look at how this conversation has gone. I started by answering your technical concerns. Initially you had a real technical issue, a real need for better performance than the system originally provided, and how you needed to be able to replace the logger to solve it.
So I explained how systemd allows to do the exact same thing. You can have your syslogd if you want it, and you even have a special mode that logs to RAM that might have solved your particular issue without needing to roll your own daemon in the first place.
With that answered (since you didn't have any counterargument to the solution I provided), what's your answer? That it's no excuse, that the unix philosophy is absolutely holy and critical to keep for reasons you can't quite articulate. You keep on railing against the binary log format despite that I told you it can be disabled, as the very idea of binary data seems to offend your sensibilities.
And that's why I call it a religion. Because you've ran out of real technical concerns and now your only argument is that it goes against the True Way of doing things.
Taking it away is a terrible thing to do, the developers are assuming that the use-cases THEY can think of are all the use-cases that can legitimately exist.
I'll repeat for the third time that if you want syslogd, you can have syslogd. Maybe saying it for the third time will sink in finally.
It's arrogance, plain and simple.
Now there's something that sounds a lot like religion. When lacking a legitimate technical argument, complain of the arrogance.
So maybe, indexing is not as useful as you initially thought ?
Why would I ever conclude that? Modern computing is heavily reliant on indexing information. No need to look further than Google.
There are plenty of other formatted text outputs without the overhead of JSON though - the colon-seperation format of the passwd file for example. We've solved these problems very well, repeatedly, for 40 years without ever having to abandon clear-text for a core utility,
Sure, separate by colons data in a file with fields that can contain colons. That'll be nice and convenient to parse with awk.
And there's core stuff that has binary data. lastlog and package managers for instance. Berkeley DB is as UNIX as it gets, and I don't hear anybody whining it's a binary format. How about RRD? You probably use that for graphs, and that's binary too.
Or I can do what I did do - change distros to one that doesn't use systemd. But since Linux is now the unix of enterprise, and the distros that are being used professionally have all found the dependency hell created by systemd overwhelming and given up on offering alternatives - the problem isn't solved by that, it solves it for me at home, but it leaves me dealing with it when I get to the office in the morning.
What dependency hell? Systemd is being adopted for a very simple reason: the people who actually do the work of making distributions like it. It saves them lots of work, improves debuggability and performance, and provides additional functionality for free. At the start there was a first adopter, and they couldn't have adopted it because everybody else was already dependent on it.
It's very interesting that you have so many arguments about historical evidence but keep on ignoring the one that's staring you in the face: that the people who most directly deal with these things disagree with you.