Time Problem in 5.0

[V.M.Smith]

FWIW, i've been using both ntpdate (on workstations) AND ntpd (on
servers) under 5.0 RELEASE since it came out in January without a hitch.

Personally, I don't see the harm in leaving ntpdate in since it's
lightweight, super-easy to use and still appropriate (IMHO) for
workstations that don't stay on all the time

Cheers,

VS

On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 15:54, Bill Moran wrote:
> Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> > Shantanu Mahajan <shantanoo at ieee.org> writes:
> >>| Also, ntpdate is depreciated.  You should be using ntpd with the
> >>| proper switches/configuration.
> >>	ntpdate was working *perfectly* with
> >>	4.7R,4.8-Stable.
> > 
> > 
> > So?  That's a significantly different version.
> > 
> > Are you *sure* you want to be running 5.0?  
> > It doesn't sound like you're much of a debugger yourself, and it's not
> > as though 5.x is recommended for anybody else yet...
> 
> I'm going to repeat myself here:
> ntpdate is depreciated.  The functionality in it is duplicated by ntpd.
> It shouldn't even be in the 5.0 tree.  I'm considering filing a pr to
> request that it be removed.  Opinions?