Talk:OpenNTPD

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

I believe the release date on this page has been munged with that of the www.openbsd.org site proper.

Current release is at OpenNTPD 3.9 released May 14, 2006.

OpenNTPD versions[edit]

It looks as though the project is maintaining two versions. The version for the software included in OpenBSD is 4.2 and the version for the portable code for other operating systems is 3.9p1 according to the OpenNTPD website. It looks like the Infobox in the article isn't set up to handle dual version software like this.

Ecksii (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could go either way. The portable version - 3.9p1 - is the latest individual release of OpenNTPD, but the latest release is that released with OpenBSD 4.2, even if it is not distributed seperately. I'd put one in the infobox and mention the other in the lead-in. NicM (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Leap Second Support?[edit]

I can't find any mention of leap second support in OpenNTPD. If it lacks such support, that fact certainly belongs in the "Criticisms" section. --Danorton (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that 3.9p1 doesn't do anything useful with the LI field. Unfortunately, I cannot find suitable WP:Sources. Jec (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be helpful: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20150628132834 Supertron421 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precision is in the milliseconds or microseconds range?[edit]

The text in the article talks about 50-200ms, which would be milliseconds in SI. But later, it says the loss in precision is in the microseconds.

This needs to be corrected, either one of the is incorrect, or the text is confusing and talks about two different imprecision scenarios (perhaps long-term offset, and jitter?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:483:D78:0:0:0:7E8 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]