> On May 5, 2016, at 1:36 PM, Gary E. Miller <g...@rellim.com> wrote: > > As much as I prefer, and defend, the gpsd/ntpd combo, I also understand > there is resistance from a lot of people that want to keep things > really simple. Strong resistance. Based on good reasons. > > And I have to say the current gpsd/ntpd handshake is just not very good > right now. The GPSD NG driver has seriously bad bahavior by default > and the SHM driver depends on a deprecated syscall. > > In both the above cases let's not make the best solution get in the way > of the good enough one. > > gpsd really shines for standalone, non-network time keeping, and that is > where ntpd, by design, sucks. So until a good working handshake is > rock solid, and standalone is well supported, I say keep 20. > > RGDS > GARY > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703 > g...@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588
I agree 100% - I’d like to see clock type 20 stay in NTPSec. K.I.S.S when a non-moving or low power or SoC system needs accurate time and has no desire to care about location or motion. Thanks, Frank _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
