Date: 26 Apr 2003 08:29:14 -0400 From: "V.M.Smith" <vmsmith@grokking.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time Problem in 5.0 Message-ID: <1051360154.591.15.camel@thoreau.sohotech.ca> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <shantanoo@ieee.org> 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?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1051360154.591.15.camel>