From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Feb 14 5:44:25 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from ipt2.iptelecom.net.ua (ipt2.iptelecom.net.ua [212.9.224.2]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59214152; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 05:44:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from vega.vega.com (dialup1-59.iptelecom.net.ua [212.9.226.59]) by ipt2.iptelecom.net.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00276; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:45:59 +0200 (EET) Received: from altavista.net (big_brother.vega.com [192.168.1.1]) by vega.vega.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09562; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:43:22 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from sobomax@altavista.net) Message-ID: <38A80676.DD50DA8D@altavista.net> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:43:19 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev Reply-To: sobomax@altavista.net Organization: Vega International Capital X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: uk,ru,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Ben Smithurst , questions@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: timed/adjtime() on -current References: <9929.950432964@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Anyway: Don't used timed, use ntpd. Why? As long as the timed is in the base system and serves the basic need to syncronise time across several machines in the LAN I do not see any objections to not use it. Its main advantage that it's permit updating time via ntpdate (the thing that xntpd doesn't allow to do) which is particularly useful for dial-up connections. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message