David, We are talking right past each other and are not having a productive discussion. Tge best choice for me is just to shut up.
Dave David Woolley wrote: > 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
