@hal_pomeranz @robey No, I'm not sure that it is. At least not from the context of a single machine administrator.
The accessibility of my logs has been changed; I can get the logs in traditional time order, oldest at the top, as long as I wait an unpredictable amount of time for 'journalctl' to do its job. Over 2 minutes for this little single-user machine that was only installed a couple of months ago. Nice. I don't know how to ask "how big is the log" before querying it, where I'm used to using 'ls -l' to look at text files.
Or I can get the latest logs instantly with 'journalctl -r', didn't know about that one because I don't need to fix a problem more than I need to complain about my aching knees. But when I get my results, they're in the opposite sequence order to the logs I'm used to seeing, which causes delays in understanding the content.
(I'm not saying that I'm not used to seeing events in that order, just that I don't see that in the context of text streams that look the same as file contents, for good reason)
If you have a bunch of related machines to look after, the absolute last thing you should be doing for logging is looking on the individual machines, you should be streaming log events out over the network to a trusted location. Throw them into an Elastic, or a Greylog, or something like that; and now log events become "a database of events" rather than "a sequence of events". Put your efforts into centralised logging, rather than messing around on the machine itself (unless of course, you're investigating why logging isn't going to your central point, in which case ...)