3.8] Reply-To: On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:38:34AM -0700, the unit calling itself Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote: > From: Ted Walther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:51:12AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > >This "adujsting by" information is not available to ntpd. ntpd > > >requests an adjustment using the adjtim(2) system call. The argument > > >is the actual offset. It is up to the kernel to decide how fast the > > >adjustment will be done. > > > > Ah. In that case, I'd like to see the following syslog lines: > > > > Tue Nov 15 20:31:33 NTPD clock is 60.000356s behind, calling adjtim() > > ... > > Tue Nov 15 22:48:33 NTPD clock is 1.001856s ahead, calling adjtim() > > And I'd like a gold-plated commode. > > What gives anyone the impression that things like this are up for public > input and democratic vote? > > This is one of the stupidest points that has ever been brought to the list.
Ah - another self-proclaimed authority & list-Nazi. Well, gee - we've all been waiting for you to weigh in on this, and clue us in on what's appropriate for discussion, and what's not. I'm so glad that you finally resolved this. > Live with the log message. It's functional as it is. It's been working for > months. It was unclear to one guy who couldn't grok what it was trying to > say. Uh-oh... Darren made a boo-boo. There was more than one. Hey - did you actually read the thread, or did you think that was unnecessary to make your call? > Don't make stupid suggestions as to what you'd like it to aesthetically > appear as. Especially when you don't understand the implications of what > you're asking for. Make no mistake, square pants: This post has *nothing* to do with the log entry. This post is about callin' you down - I'm callin' you a friggin' moron. > And if you don't like it, feel free to edit the source code and compile your > way to happiness. Gong! goofed again... already been covered. BMA, Jay
