On 2015-02-14, Paul <tik-...@bodosom.net> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 2:09 PM, William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: > > > Yes but you said > "This means that if you are using say a PPS source, which gives > microsecond long term offset, it can take many hours to get there" > and I was responding to that. If you refuse to accept that your previous > statements set the context for a discussion then you're just an ANON troll.
Hardly anon. But if the context was PPS, then I agree that I was probably wrong (not being able to remember what my test system was doing.) > > >> To get the discussion started, lets compare some of the differences >> between chrony and ntpd. >> > > BZZZZZT. NTPd is yesterday's news. It's core is unlikely to change absent > a security flaw. Design "discussions" about it are useless and unhelpful > (but they should still be on more relevant list). Come back when you're > ready to write about the differences between Chrony and Ntimed with reasons > to select one or the other. In the meantime be a better advocate of > alternatives to NTPd i.e. get unstuck from the past and port Chrony to > Windows. When timed is actually out I may be interested in testing it again. However, you discussion indicates to me that there the design of timed had not advanced from that of ntpd. Whether it is yesterday's news or not, it seems to be determining tomorrow nontheless. You have not given any indication that the design discussion has moved on from ntpd. > > Research is needed, and such research should be part >> of any new system. Is it there? >> > > Ntimed has a few constraints -- no research needed: > 1) Be safer (simpler) than ntpd. > 2) Be smaller than ntpd. > 3) Be as good or better than ntpd where better is probably slippery. None of those indicate that anything about the design has changed. You know much better than I do I would assume. No idea what is unsafe about ntpd. Smaller may be possible, mainly be cleaning up the accretion of code. And I would like to hear about what "better" means. I have mentioned why I believe chrony is better. What do you mean by better? > > It's not clear to me if worrying about dial-up costs is an Ntimed concern > (I doubt it) but if it is for you then use Chrony. Dialup costs? Where did I ever mention dialup costs? And chrony's ability to handle dialup is simply an indication of its greater flexibility. Dialup costs never played a role in the design of chrony, except in making it flexible enough to handle the situation of intermittent connectivity to a time source. I am beginning to wonder who the troll is here. I have given you detailed answers to your question, you come back with irrelevancies and snarky comments. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
