On 2011-03-30, David L. Mills wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> You have completely missed the point. The war to minimize the number of
As have you. He was not denigrating your work. He was denigrating the
claim that ntpd now has one driver per device type. He was pointing
out that not only has your war not
If you or anybody you know might be interested in submitting a GSoC
proposal for NTP, please goferit!
http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Dev/GSoCProjectIdeas has more projects
than ever before, and they are also probably much more varied as well.
--
Harlan Stenn
http://ntpforum.isc.org - be
Bruce,
You have completely missed the point. The war to minimize the number of
drivers has not always been successful, but does represent many hours of
work on my part to update all the drivers when some minor detail of the
common interface has changed over the last thirty years. Your referenc
Steve,
Whatever does or does not work with IFF applies also to GQ and MV. These
have been no changed. However, from a purely practical view, IFF is
probably best for typical Internet configurations..
Dave
Dave
Steve Kostecke wrote:
On 2011-03-29, Dave Hart wrote:
On Tue, Ma
Dave,
David L. Mills wrote:
> Martin,
>
> This is the same issue with OpenSSL. If you have it, use it; otherwise,
> use whatever else is available. The application programs that might use
> the driver have the same issues. You could do it also with mode codes,
> but that is counterproductive in v
Dave Hart wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:41 UTC, Martin Burnicki
> wrote:
>> Whether addressing of either mode is done by separate driver numbers
>> (which I still find a good idea in this case, since SHM is a generic
>> driver), or by a mode number for the existing SHM driver, is a totally
>
