On 10/05/2017 15:03, David Taylor wrote:
On 10/05/2017 07:03, Jakob Bohm wrote:
[]
Using NTP 4.2.8p10 instead of the Windows Time Service doesn't make
sense on most Windows machines, but it does make sense in some
situations where the Windows Time Service included with Windows cannot
be configur
On 2017-05-11 17:22, Richard Thomas wrote:
>> On May 10, 2017, at 10:07 AM, brian utterback wrote:
>> On 5/7/2017 7:22 PM, Richard Thomas wrote:
>>> While we’re on the topic of the ’ntpq -p’ display, the days of
>>> 80x24 screens are long since gone. How much work would it be to
>>> increase the si
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I’m not talking about the refid. I’m concerned that the
leftmost field, “remote”, that holds the name or IP address of the server/peer,
is too short for a full IPv6 address, or for a full DNS name.
Rick
> On May 10, 2017, at 10:07 AM, brian utterback
> wrote:
>
>
>
On 5/7/2017 7:22 PM, Richard Thomas wrote:
> While we’re on the topic of the ’ntpq -p’ display, the days of 80x24 screens
> are long since gone. How much work would it be to increase the size of the
> first column of the output so that it had enough space for a full IPv6
> address?
The width
