From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 26 05:29:20 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 6C79137B401 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 05:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chomsky.sohotech.ca (ottawa-hs-64-26-169-251.s-ip.magma.ca [64.26.169.251]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4492143F75 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 05:29:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from vmsmith@grokking.org) Received: from conrad.sohotech.ca (conrad.sohotech.ca [192.168.1.2]) by chomsky.sohotech.ca (8.12.6p2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h3QCTECb039103 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 08:29:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from vmsmith@grokking.org) Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([192.168.1.4]) by conrad.sohotech.ca with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sat, 26 Apr 2003 08:29:14 -0400 From: "V.M.Smith" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <3EA9925E.30201@potentialtech.com> References: <20030424214413.GC90097@grimoire.chen.org.nz> <20030425091950.GA558@dhumketu.homeunix.net> <3EA92FF1.30809@potentialtech.com> <20030425184813.GA674@dhumketu.homeunix.net> <448ytye5xj.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <3EA9925E.30201@potentialtech.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1051360154.591.15.camel@thoreau.sohotech.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 26 Apr 2003 08:29:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2003 12:29:14.0300 (UTC) FILETIME=[72864FC0:01C30BEF] 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 12:29:20 -0000 FWIW, i've been using both ntpdate (on workstations) AND ntpd (on servers) under 5.0 RELEASE since it came out in January without a hitch. Personally, I don't see the harm in leaving ntpdate in since it's lightweight, super-easy to use and still appropriate (IMHO) for workstations that don't stay on all the time Cheers, VS On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 15:54, Bill Moran wrote: > 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?