David L. Mills wrote: > Guys, > > This is really silly. The Unruh agenda is clear. Should you choose to
I think you replied to the wrong node in the thread. I think what you are actually doing is telling Steve that he shouldn't be asking for these changes to included in ntpd at all. Also, I don't think Unruh's position is clear to many of the regulars; they are simply using it to promote their standard positions, whether it be joining a developers' group, or not using Linux. > limit the application space to fast local networks, the chrony choice The impression I'm getting is that extends beyond local networks to include most sources that would be used by fixed, land based, installations, in the first world, at least. > may or may not be optimal. Should you extend this space to the raunchy > global Internet, conviction will require diligent testing and analysis. > There is no clear evidence the chrony algorithms are sufficiently agile > to osicllator wander over the long term and I see no response to this > issue. Long term wander is easy to cope with, unless you run out of adjustment range. I don't see why chrony should have any lower a limit on that than ntpd's. On the other hand, the evidence is mounting that chrony is much better at handling non-random diurnal wander. > > Dave > > David Woolley wrote: > >> Steve Kostecke wrote: >> >>> There's nothing stopping him from implementing what he considers to be a >>> solution himself. He could even distribute his modified version of NTP >>> to anyone who wanted to use it. >> >> >> Why should he do that when something already exists, although it is >> not technically NTP? As I see it, he is trying benefit ntpd by >> encouraging it to behave as well as the alternative that he is using. >> >> There are two ways that people can vote by actions: >> >> 1) to implement the features in the (open source) original; >> 2) to switch to an alternative that already has the behavour they >> consider desirable. >> >> You cannot say that the criticism is invalid because people choose >> op;tion (2). >> >> There is also a number (3), which is to be aware that there is a >> problem but be prepared to live with it. I'm probably in that category. >> >> There is probably also 1a, which is what resulted in the alternative, >> which is to implement a competitor, more or less from scratch, which >> only has the features one considers important. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
