Hi Rick, Rick Moen writes:
> Quoting Olaf Meeuwissen (paddy-h...@member.fsf.org): > >> I think it's fair to point out that systemd-timesyncd only promises >> Simple NTP (SNTP). How good a job it does of that is another matter >> but at least it explains some of the "quirks" you mention below. > > Put that way, fair point. _But_, the larger context is that a > systematically better job of time sync, using better code and also (in > the case of ntimed-client), _smaller_ code, can be performed instead, > gaining all the advantages of a real NTP client. I had no issues with the larger context so refrained from commenting on that. > Or, to put it a different way, with several excellent genuine NTP > clients to choose among, I deny the existence of a compelling use-case > for any SNTP client, let alone one that's more than a little slipshod. > (systemd-timed's security history, which I didn't get into, is less than > reassuring.) Fully agree. When I looked into timing issues on a Debian server I still maintain, I noticed that systemd-timesyncd only promised SNTP and when I read up on that wondered why anyone in their sane mind would want to use that instead of NTP. > The SNTP protocol is what Windows users settle for, because that's what > they're offered by defaul, and mostly they don't know that they're > missing out. On Linux, we don't need to settle. We definitely don't and the large collection of alternatives, in terms of distributions as well as programs, attests to that :-) Hope this helps, -- Olaf Meeuwissen, LPIC-2 FSF Associate Member since 2004-01-27 GnuPG key: F84A2DD9/B3C0 2F47 EA19 64F4 9F13 F43E B8A4 A88A F84A 2DD9 Support Free Software https://my.fsf.org/donate Join the Free Software Foundation https://my.fsf.org/join _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
