From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 25 17:31:07 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DA037B40A for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa-plum1b-166.pit.adelphia.net (pa-plum1a-215.pit.adelphia.net [24.53.170.215]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F4E43F85 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:31:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from potentialtech.com (working [172.16.0.95]) h3Q0Uu0n002351; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:30:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Message-ID: <3EA9D340.3060904@potentialtech.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:30:56 -0400 From: Bill Moran User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030301 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lord Sith References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time Problem in 5.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:31:07 -0000 Lord Sith wrote: > ntpd only claims to mimic ntpdate in functionality. > > I'm not excited about the prospect of having another daemon running with > root priveldges on a known port for something that only needs to be run > maybe two or three times a day. Then run it once a day from cron with the -q option. > >> From: Bill Moran >> To: Lowell Gilbert >> CC: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: Time Problem in 5.0 >> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:54:06 -0400 >> >> Lowell Gilbert wrote: >> >>> Shantanu Mahajan writes: >>> >>>> | Also, ntpdate is depreciated. You should be using ntpd with the >>>> | proper switches/configuration. >>>> ntpdate was working *perfectly* with >>>> 4.7R,4.8-Stable. >>> >>> >>> >>> So? That's a significantly different version. >>> >>> Are you *sure* you want to be running 5.0? It doesn't sound like >>> you're much of a debugger yourself, and it's not >>> as though 5.x is recommended for anybody else yet... >> >> >> I'm going to repeat myself here: >> ntpdate is depreciated. The functionality in it is duplicated by ntpd. >> It shouldn't even be in the 5.0 tree. I'm considering filing a pr to >> request that it be removed. Opinions? -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com