Re: NIST time
John Hasler wrote:
> Paul E Condon wrote:
> > Therefore, debian hackers should not waste their time trying to solve
> > problems that they imagine such a person might have.
>
> I wrote:
> > What are you talking about?
>
> Paul E Condon writes:
> > The current standard precision clock...
>
> I know all that. I'm asking you to identify the imaginary problems that
> you claim Debian hackers are wasting time trying to solve.
>
> Please do not cc: me. I read the list.
> --
> John Hasler
> john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
As I said in my last email, I do not intend, or mean, "imaginary". If I did not
write "imagined", I should
have, and I am sorry for the poor choise of word. And I did not intend to say
that Debian hachers are working
on this imagined problem, only that others are working on it and that Debian
hackers should not waste their
time on the problem being pursued by others.
The problem to which I am referring is devising a protocol for the internet that
will somehow support the
cross-calibration of two primary standard atomic clocks **over the internet**.
Use of words like "to atomic
clock precision" are, to me, suspect in any proposed revision of NTP. Work on
such proposals will surely
not bare fruit. That is my point. Work on making NTP work in the hands of
Klutzes like me is, I think, useful.
At the least, it reduces the uninteresting email traffic on this list.
And, again, I commend the support of NTP, ntpd, ntpdate, and chrony by Debian
and by you. The issue is to
which I referred is support for atomic clocks on the internet. Not the support
of high quality
(by human standards) time on the internet. I cited some numbers that I thought
might explain why I think
as I do. If they don't impress you, well... Perhaps my reasoning is wromg, or
perhaps you are wrong in
rejecting it, or perhaps both. But I thank you for your work, and I am sorry,
truly, if my opinion causes
you discomfort.
Reply to: