Ntimed – NTPD replacement
github.com
Ntimed – NTPD replacement
1–10 of 109 posts
Re: Ntimed – NTPD replacement
#2According to the OpenNTPD web page, "The portable version is outdated and in need of a maintainer."
Why another from-scratch rewrote, instead of helping with that project, especially when it was also motivated by an aversion to the "100,000 KLOC" in the ntp.org ntpd?
Re: Ntimed – NTPD replacement
#3According to the OpenNTPD web page, "The portable version is outdated and in need of a maintainer." Why another from-scratch rewrote, instead of helping with that project, especially when it was also motivated by an aversion to the "100,000 KLOC" in the ntp.org ntpd?
> Why another from-scratch rewrote,
And why oh why in C with so many safer options available today ..
Re: Ntimed – NTPD replacement
#4According to the OpenNTPD web page, "The portable version is outdated and in need of a maintainer." Why another from-scratch rewrote, instead of helping with that project, especially when it was also motivated by an aversion to the "100,000 KLOC" in the ntp.org ntpd?
Given PHK's interest in timekeeping I would guess it's going to be more accurate and precise than both ntp.org ntpd and OpenNTPD.
However beyond that speculation, I don't know. It would be interesting to know.
Re: Ntimed – NTPD replacement
#5According to the OpenNTPD web page, "The portable version is outdated and in need of a maintainer." Why another from-scratch rewrote, instead of helping with that project, especially when it was also motivated by an aversion to the "100,000 KLOC" in the ntp.org ntpd?
Well, he answered why in the first ntpd thread:
"The main reason I didn't start from OpenBSD's NTP implementation is that it is not aimed at being part of a larger family of time-keeping programs, like I intend to deliver, so it wouldn't save me any time in the end."
Re: Ntimed – NTPD replacement
#6According to the OpenNTPD web page, "The portable version is outdated and in need of a maintainer." Why another from-scratch rewrote, instead of helping with that project, especially when it was also motivated by an aversion to the "100,000 KLOC" in the ntp.org ntpd?
> Why another from-scratch rewrote, And why oh why in C with so many safer options available today ..
What safer options are there with equal size, overhead (read: none) and not full of layers upon layers of abstractions?
Re: Ntimed – NTPD replacement
#7According to the OpenNTPD web page, "The portable version is outdated and in need of a maintainer." Why another from-scratch rewrote, instead of helping with that project, especially when it was also motivated by an aversion to the "100,000 KLOC" in the ntp.org ntpd?
> Why another from-scratch rewrote, And why oh why in C with so many safer options available today ..
I'd wager that the lower level nature would be useful for something like accurate timekeeping, which is actually an intricate task if you intend on doing it fully.
Re: Ntimed – NTPD replacement
#8According to the OpenNTPD web page, "The portable version is outdated and in need of a maintainer." Why another from-scratch rewrote, instead of helping with that project, especially when it was also motivated by an aversion to the "100,000 KLOC" in the ntp.org ntpd?
> Why another from-scratch rewrote, And why oh why in C with so many safer options available today ..
The appropriate systems language for use on UNIX and Linux is C. The entire interface is based on C conventions. Sometimes, when all you have is nails, you really ought to reach for a hammer.
Re: Ntimed – NTPD replacement
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why another from-scratch rewrote, And why oh why in C with so many safer options available today ..
What safer options are there with equal size, overhead (read: none) and not full of layers upon layers of abstractions?
That sounds like you're implying that safety has no value, the only "overhead" worth considering is CPU cycles (what about the programmer's time/effort/sanity?), and that abstractions have negative value.
I don't think that's how you're supposed to software.
Re: Ntimed – NTPD replacement
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why another from-scratch rewrote, And why oh why in C with so many safer options available today ..
What safer options are there with equal size, overhead (read: none) and not full of layers upon layers of abstractions?
Rust. Some of it's design goals (as stated on their webpage) are among the exact things you mentioned: zero-cost abstractions, minimal runtime, guaranteed memory safety, threads without data races.