On Fri, Aug 21, 1998 at 01:57:03AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > Why?  timed works just fine for me, but xntpd does not.  Every once in
> > a while, xntpd stops correcting the system time and the only way to get
> > it going again is to kill and restart it.
> 
> That sounds like a reason to fix xntpd, not one to keep timed.

Hmm.. Even if xntpd worked, why should timed go?  To remove all duplicated
stuff?  Well, I guess you are going to remove 'vi' and 'cat' then, too.
After all, you could use 'ed' and 'last', for example ;-)

> xntpd uses a much better timekeeping paradigm in the modern world...

timed has been doing just fine, IMHO.  I have one machine running xntpd
and getting the time from the net.  Locally, time is distributed with
timed.

> xntp requires one to three lines to configure. It is probably large on 
> your system because support for lots of refclocks is built in -- if
> you yank that, it will shrink dramatically.

It still consumes minutes of CPU time on a fast pentium system a month..
while timed uses only seconds. ;-)

Hm.  I guess I just don't want any feature I'm using to go away.  I don't
think timed takes up too much disk space.. and I feel it's more BSDish
than xntpd.  It's a _part_ of _BSD_.  Don't break my BSD! ;-)

  -jm