[ntp:questions] Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

Per Hedeland per at hedeland.org
Thu Sep 28 20:00:39 UTC 2006

In article <BN6dnX0h9OgAI4bYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d at comcast.com> "Richard
B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> writes:
>Jan Ceuleers wrote:
>> Danny Mayer wrote:
>>> I don't know why you are asking about Tardis here. We don't know
>>> anything about it.
>> Probably because this is comp.protocols.time.ntp, not comp.apps.ntpd.
>> I know that this does not change the reality of the situation, but if we 
>> collectively stopped discouraging non-ntpd but NTP-related subjects here 
>> then perhaps this group could in time live up to its name.

Absolutely agreed.

>If you look at the traffic here, maybe one percent is about the 
>protocol.  Ninety percent is about how to use, configure, troubleshoot, 
>etc, the reference implementation.

So what? That is no basis for rejecting other posts that are relevant to
NTP the protocol. Rather the opposite in fact - if the group had a huge
volume with discussions about lots of different implementations, it
could be an argument for a split into implementation-specific
(sub)groups, but this is clearly not the case.

>Perhaps we should also support Open NTP, W32TIME, etc?

This is not a support forum, it's a Usenet discussion group - anyone is
welcome to submit questions, answers, or general ramblings, as long as
they are on topic. If you feel that you participate here with some
obligation to "support" the reference implementation, that's fine, but
it has no bearing on what constitues valid posting topics.

>It looks as if Tardis is a commercial product.  As such, it should have 
>its own technical support.

And just because you paid money for something, you are forbidden from
asking questions about it on Usenet? I don't know anything about Tardis,
but in many cases support is an add-on cost, and seldom worth the money.
Usenet is full of questions and discussion about commercial software.

--Per Hedeland
per at hedeland.org

More information about the questions mailing list