David J Taylor wrote:
Harlan Stenn wrote:
Bjorn sez:
Given how the mailing list users welcome anyone but users of todays
latest greatest ntp-dev code, are you surprised?
Seems to me you are being troll-like instead of being direct and
constructive.
I, for one, really have no idea what you are talking about.
H
I agree with Bjorn. You only need to read some of the posts to see what
he means!
The impression given is that this newsgroup is the support group for one
specific implementation of NTP (albeit the reference one, and a very good
one), and that anything else is wrong, tainted, or off-topic.
If people don't want to give that impression, perhaps they could choose
their words better?
David
I don't think that's quite fair or accurate. I think that if you are
going to do your own implementation of NTP, or SNTP you have to comply
with the relevant RFC or draft. Microsoft didn't, does not, and as far
as any of us knows, has no intention of doing so!
The Open NTP people, as far as I know, did not and took a lot of flak
about it. I don't know if their product is now RFC compliant or not.
Various other non-NTP protocols and/or software get occasional mention
here mostly in the context of people who want to do something that NTP
does not do or does not do well.
There are at least two versions/implementations of NTP besides the
reference implemenntation and Open NTP. Both are derived from the
reference implementation and differ from it because the O/S they run on
is not Unix or Unix-like. These are HP's implementation for VMS (the
reference implementation is so loaded with Unixisms in both the code and
the build procedures that it can't be built on VMS) and the Windows
version. The Windows version receives more than occasional mention
here. The VMS version has been mentioned occasionally.
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
