5 ms·

"isn't standards compliant" how?

• dalke 12y ago
  I believe gonzo meant "isn't portable", as OpenNTPD uses OpenBSD-only APIs. See this cousin thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8778577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8778577 .
  • gonzo 12y ago
    Yes, this non-portability is part of the openbsd playbook and strategy. There is a "non-portable" version of libressl, too.
    • djmdjm 12y ago
      There's a non-portable version of OpenSSH too. This strategy produces high-quality software while making developers' lives easier. (All in my highly-biased opinion)
      • gonzo 12y ago
        It would be no more difficult for OpenBSD to produce one version, but that wouldn't fit with the strategy.
        • dalke 12y ago
          I don't see why the OpenBSD developers would want to avoid their strategy of producing secure code.
• gonzo 12y ago
  OpenNTPd is not really an implementation of NTP, it is an implementation of SNTP -- the Simple Network Time Protocol. There are a lot of things it doesn't even attempt to do which are covered in the NTP standard.
  • tedunangst 12y ago
    For serious. It doesn't even support the monitor command. How else am I supposed to amplify my DDOS traffic?
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    • gonzo 12y ago
      Turning off mon is part of the recommended configuration for a year now. http://www.pool.ntp.org/join/configuration.html http://www.pool.ntp.org/join/configuration.html Not that openntpd isn't invited to be a part of the NTP pool(s).