> From: "nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:14:11 GMT > Sender: questions-bounces+oberman=es....@lists.ntp.org > > E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists > <n...@blacklist.anitech-systems.invalid> wrote in news:h6cauq$f9v$1 > @news.eternal-september.org: > > > nemo_outis wrote: > >> PS I too only use the software to synchronize my clocks. > >> However, while I am grateful for the years of effort > >> that ntp reflects, I am not blind to its warts. > >> And while the opinions of a strong personality may have > >> driven the creation of ntp, it seems those same > >> rigidly-held opinions may now be restricting its > >> further growth and development. > > > > I don't see how, it is open source. > > > > You could get the source code, compile it for yourself, > > modify it to turn it into a text editor, or scientific > > calculator if you wanted to. > > > > If you (anyone) were to make the necessary changes, test, > > ... and if it did turn out to be of significant value, > > it seems unlikely to me that the maintainer / developer > > / committer / ... team(s) would not accept the code changes, > > or add you as a committer, ... > > > First, it seems somewhere between naive and disingenuous to pretend that > ntp, despite being (quasi-)open source (It *IS* copyrighted!), does not > have a significant "political overhead" from a dominant figure that has, > for instance, inhibited such aspects as updating the RFC. > > But, putting that aside, let me remind you of Thoreau's remark, "I came > into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to > live in it...." And so with ntp. > > If I state that ntp has a defect, that no more imposes an obligation on > me to remedy it than it does on its current author(s). We may happily > continue to ignore one another. > > But that does not invalidate my (and others') observation of the defect!
If you, or anyone else, could kindly define the "defect", perhaps it could be fixed. As far as the details reported so far in the vastly over-long thread go, it's a problem with the kernel. Changing the ntp code to support this brokenness, even though it will have at least a slightly negative impact on ntp performance is NOT a bug fix. It would be a bug. If you life is made better by making the one-line edit to the source to change this for yourself, go right ahead. But it is not a reason to "fix" the not broken code in the distribution. you really have two choices: 1. Fix the kernel! 2. Modify your local copy of the ntp sources and build a version that makes life better for you 3. Report an actual NTP bug In case other than '3', don't hold out any hope that competent programmers are going to mess with ntp to fix an external bug in one of the OSes that it is supported on. That would be just plain silly. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
