Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Unruh> ntpdate serves a useful purpose, something which ntpd -g -q does not >Unruh> do (because for the purpose of setting the clock in a one-shot >Unruh> manner, ntpd is seriously flawed, especially if the clock is already >Unruh> within 128ms of the correct time). Now, sntp should be equally >Unruh> seriously flawed, since the suggestion in the rfc is that it use the >Unruh> same algorithm for clock setting as ntp uses I certainly would not >Unruh> overload the name sntp with yet another operating mode. >It's comments like this that cause me to wonder if you are just being a >troll, and to wonder if I should invest effort in responding. >I certainly wonder what your goal is by writing things like this. My goal is as a user to provide some input into ntp to make it better. Using sntp as a name is not a good idea. I got very confused when I originally thought that sntp was a client only protocol. Then I discovered that it was both a client only protocol AND an atomic clock server proptocol. And now it is the name of "set the clock once and quickly" program as well. That stikes me as a mess. Maybe it stikes noone else as a mess which is fine. But as I found from my acting as a sysadmin, if noone complains, I have no idea what stupidities I have institututed, or where things are broken. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
