OpenBSD Project Releases OpenNTPd

44BSD writes "The folks at OpenBSD have announced OpenNTPd, a BSD-licensed implementation of the NTP protocol. As with OpenSSH, there are two teams responsible for the code, which, like OpenSSH, is available in pure OpenBSD and portable versions." TLA FYI: This Wikipedia entry offers a quick overview of the Network Time Protocol. Read on below for some more on OpenNTPd.

"As explained at the project home page:

One team does strictly OpenBSD-based development, aiming to produce code that is as clean, simple, and secure as possible. We believe that simplicity without the portability "goop" allows for better code quality control and easier review. The other team then takes the clean version and makes it portable, by adding the portability "goop" so that it will run on many operating systems.

I have been using the OpenBSD variant of this daemon as it exists in the OpenBSD 3.5-current branch of the OS, and it has worked flawlessly with absolutely zero configurational effort. The supplied config file is sufficient to have the daemon synch against a randomly chosen stratum 2 server (pool.ntp.org, served up via round-robin A records). Aside from its simplicity, this daemon offers the ability to be selectively bound to a machine's network interfaces, rather than having to bind to all, as is the case with xntpd. The features provided by this implementation are probably sufficient for the majority of NTP users, and when the promised support for GPS and radio clocks is added, still more will be able to choose OpenNTPd. This additional diversity is welcome, indeed."

Comments

Why?

[crbowman]

What was the problem with the old NTPd? I thought it was open source.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the software itself is lacking in certain areas (like the mentioned binding to specific IPs for example) and the guy who writes it refuses to accept patches to add functionality people want. So its not really a great piece of software anyhow.

But worse still, its not actually free software. The license is ambiguous, and uses the term "without fee" in a way that could easily be construed as "you can distribute this if you don't charge a fee" instead of "you have permission to do stuff, without having to pay a fee to me". This means linux and BSD cds being sold can't have xntpd on them without risking legal problems.

When people have pointed out the problem with the wording, and that the added words don't add anything to the statement anyhow, he has been hostile and refuses to change the license to clarify wether or not you are allowed to charge money for something that includes xntpd. Given these problems, and the relative simplicity of ntp, it makes more sense to make a free, high quality replacement than try to deal with the problems of the existing software.

Re:Why?

[44BSD]

Two reasons come to mind --

First, for something as widely deployed as NTP, it is desirable to have a variety of implementations in use. This is well-trod ground, so no need to go over it.

Second, a distinguishing feature of OpenNTPd is its simplicity. It lacks many of the features of xntpd, and provides a subset of xntpd's functionality, and additional features which have been in demand. I guess you could say it does more of what a large number of people want, and less of what a comparative few want.

Since the two implementations are different in what they can do (although there is obviously substantial overlap), those seeking a decent NTP implementation now have a choice, which is a goot thing.

Re:Why?

[eeg3]

The license is ambiguous, and uses the term "without fee" in a way that could easily be construed as "you can distribute this if you don't charge a fee" instead of "you have permission to do stuff, without having to pay a fee to me".

In either such case, OpenBSD be putting itself into harm's way. I personally don't like how they refuse to release iso's, so that you have to buy the CDs. The CD, mind you, is an unfortunate whopping $40.

However, it's good to see a "free-er" version of ntpd out there. It seems like OpenBSD is competing with GNU in the political aspect of software.

Re:Why?

[johnnys]

With OpenBSD, you NEVER need to buy the CDs. Once you learn that OpenBSD can be installed over the Internet for FREE then the "need" for iso's goes away.

You can download the install iso or floppy images from ftp.openbsd.org or a mirror and boot it. Then you select the ftp server you want to use for the install and it installs very quickly. I recently ordered the 3.5 CD set and it took a looonnnggg time to arrive. Since I was in a hurry, I just installed from the Internet and had no problems at all.

Personally I always order the latest CDs, but then I want to support the project. I use OpenBSD in production environments, and I really don't give a damn about all the "personality issues". I just like an robust and secure OS that gives me reliability and managability without fuss or fanfare.

Just my .02

Re:Why?

[SirGeek]

In either such case, OpenBSD be putting itself into harm's way. I personally don't like how they refuse to release iso's, so that you have to buy the CDs. The CD, mind you, is an unfortunate whopping $40.

I hear you. I basically refuse to deal with OpenBSD because they won't do an ISO . I asked about this and got an earfull and a spitload of attitude. Oh well.. I'll just continue to use OpenSSH ( and not pay them ) and its their loss not mine.

Re:Why?

[DashEvil]

Just a small question, if you only want it to evaluate it, what's wrong with booting from the supplied floppy image and installing it via FTP? (automated, of course).

Re:Why?

[eeg3]

"Then you select the ftp server you want to use for the install and it installs very quickly."

Ugh, I don't have whatever kind of bandwidth you have in my house, so installing an OS on a couple of systems through an ftp install would take a nice whopping couple of days. It's faster and more efficient to download one iso, and just reuse it over and over. Not to mention, I can download an iso and burn it at a friend's house who has cable or DSL, then use it to install on a system that only has a dialup connection.

"I recently ordered the 3.5 CD set and it took a looonnnggg time to arrive. Since I was in a hurry, I just installed from the Internet and had no problems at all."

On Dial-up, it'd probably take less time to wait for the postman to deliver it by horse than it would to download the entire distribution.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, if you weren't retarded, you could download the files and put them on a cd anyways, only grabbing the ones you need, and saving yourself about 500 MB of download over an iso image. The ISO obsessed linux world isn't the only way to do things, if you can't learn to do things a different way, then stick with what you have and leave those who like saving bandwidth alone.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not in either case. If the license meant "you can do stuff and don't have to pay me for permission to do it" then they would be fine, IF he would clarify the license.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Manually picking through files and putting them on a CD is anal, and time consuming. I don't know about you, but I try to up my productivity, not decrease it by doing things an obtuse way because the developer of a project wants to gourge users for money. Going through such takes away from my time dealing with other tasks, but I guess when you don't really have anything to do such tasks are easy. Everyone isn't a 15 year old kid that can waste valuable time on superfluous activities.

Moreover, the average user doesn't want, and/or have the ability to do such tasks, and shouldn't be expected to. Congrats on being an ignorant elitist.

Re:Why?

[Moridineas]

Just so everyone is clear and your post isn't taken out of context

The official OpenBSD CD distribution is sold yes. The OpenBSD project does not put up ISO's.

However you can easily net install (floppies are available for this purpose) and even, easily even, roll your own CD's from an installled base. Once instaleld you can upgrade with cvsup, as with all the BSDs.

You buy the CD if you need a CD and/or want to support OpenBSD.

Re:Why?

[Moridineas]

What the other poster said.

The install from the floppies is easy, and probably faster than downloading a CD, burning it, and installing off the CD.

Why do you care so much about a floppy? Make your own CD if you need it so badly but won't pay for it. But honestly I can't think of a situation where the floppy netinstall wouldn't be good enough?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's pretty funny that OpenBSD is getting so anal about licensing, yet they won't let people make ISOs. Bloody hypocritical. Then again, everyone knows NetBSD and FreeBSD are far better choices, if you want an OS that doesn't get all of it's popularity from a fallacy of "security".

Re:Why?

[vesamies]

But worse still, its not actually free software.

This is not what everybody is thinking. FSF and OSI list this licence in their collections of free software licences. And many software with this kind of a licence is included in many distros, Debian for example, which has very strict rules of what can be included.

Of course, the wording is confusing, and this licence is not recommended, and OpenNTP guys are entitled to their own opinion.

Re:Why?

[vesamies]

picking through files and putting them on a CD is anal

Indeed, check out this site to reduce your pain.

Re:Why?

[Blender]

We're talking about OpenBSD here right?

Just put /pub/OpenBSD/3.5/{your_arch}/* from a OpenBSD mirror on a CD, make a boot floppy and you're good to go.

Moreover, the average user doesn't want...

Who's the ignorant elitist here?

...and/or have the ability to do such tasks, and shouldn't be expected to.

If by this you mean lacking the knowledge, then maybe OpenBSD just isn't for you...

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The duplicity is that Theo is a licensing stickler but yet invented some bogo-legalism about copyrighting the CD catalog. (NOT a creative work, and therefore NOT copyrightable.)

Theo is very clear in that thread that he is living off the CD sales.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the elitism that is killing BSD. Theo is just about the worst. He is completely anal about the the most picayune details of a license, but he himself releases OpenBSD with onerous conditions, even threatening lawsuits against those who copy the ISO.

Elitism has taken its toll on FreeBSD too. FreeBSD is literally coming apart at the seams. KSE is hosed. SMP sucks. The best experts have quit the FreeBSD project.

Hey guys, our biggest enemy is ourselves. Can't we all just get along?

Re:Why?

[44BSD]

Amusing how the OpenBSD project goes out of its way to make a portable version of a utility they could easily have allowed to remain OpenBSD-only, and news of the event immediately turns into a Linux crybaby convention. The sense of entitlement is as annoying as it is predictable. You want an ISO? Make one, or find someone who already has. The fact this this seems so damn hard is testimony to either the laziness, stupidity, or selfishness of the whiners who make the requests, seems to me.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Compilation copyright. Look it up.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is idiocy. You sound like some hick with a dip in your mouth. I use Windows XP, so suck on that you elitist! Hah! What's the matter? Cat got your tounge?? LOL You stupid kids. I bet you can't even gather the strength to type a reply.

No bother. Just let it be known that you are a coward and a bisexual.

Re:Why?

[ArbitraryConstant]

You can just download the install packages and burn your own CD. I've done that for years.

It's not as convenient as a FreeBSD ISO that you can just install, but if another 10 minutes is over your threshold for convenience, you won't like OpenBSD anyway. It takes a lot longer than that to adjust to things from most other OSes.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Phonebook. Look it up.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people care enough about getting sued to consult a lawyer on license problems. Lawyers say "if you charge money for a cd with that on it, you could be violating the license", you don't sell cds with it.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, its pretty simple. If you are too cheap to pay for something, and to lazy to download it, THEN FUCK OFF. I don't think any of the openbsd devs are gonna cry because they have one less mouching asshat using up bandwidth and whining cause they are too lazy to read docs.

If you seriously can't handle downloading a single directory via ftp and burning it to a cd, then how are you able to download a single iso and burn it to a cd? These are equally time consuming and difficult tasks.

And oddly enough, you don't have to be 15 to have enough time to do a wget && cdrecord and go back to work. Its funny linux retards are so upset about the lack of ISO images, but when we evaluated what unix we would use for work, all the linux distros that didn't have ftp installs to save having to download shitloads of extra crap were automatically disqualified. Their lack of network install cost them a paying corporate client.

Re:Why?

[bahamat]

I can think of a reason.

I haven't owned a computer with a floppy drive for over 5 years, and I use PC's. No, I take that back, my last laptop had a floppy/battery bay that I always had the battery in.

It's true that I could very easily create my own el torito cd with their floppy images, most of my friends can't. OBSD could get a lot more users with very little effort.

Re:Why?

[strobert]

hey now, I wouldn't call this a "Linux crybaby convention". It is a crybaby convention, but has nothing to do with Linux.

I will admit that there are probably more crybaby type folks in Linux land than in BSD land, but I think that mainly has to do with the larger base of Linux and you will get more "local users" that way. :).

I am a pretty big Linux guy. However, I was weened on BSD, but liked the earlier usage and consistent aspects of Linux way back when. At that time you didn't have an openbsd, there was (lesse if I can recall) 386bsd, netbsd, freebsd and BSDI (the commercial varient). buddy ran BSDI, I pulled down SLS and used it.

I still am planning on pulling down OpenBSD (and maybe one of the others) one of these days and see if I can get a local install area set up, just need to make some time (also was waiting to get the bigger bandwidth I now have at the office).

Re:Why?

[Just Some Guy]

Out of the downloadable packages, you would need:

• base35.tgz - 30MB
• bsd - 5MB
• etc35.tgz - 1.5MB
• floppy35.fs - 1.5MB
• man35.tgz - 6.5MB
• misc35.tgz - 2MB

for a total of about 46.5MB to get a running system with all of the documentation.

46.5MB / 4KB/sec (low estimate of the typical download rate of a 56K modem) equals a bit over 3 hours.

Frankly, if you don't have the patience to run a three-hour download, then I wouldn't want to be around the OpenBSD mailing lists and newsgroups when you start complaining that it takes too long to install it. If you're unwilling to invest that minimal amount of time then OpenBSD isn't for you.

Insightful, my foot. That's just lazy.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

On Dial-up, it'd probably take less time to wait for the postman to deliver it by horse than it would to download the entire distribution.

The individual arch's (binaries) I use of OpenBSD, are typically about 140MB (each) or less (x86, sparc64 and macppc). Downloading enough files to burn an x86 bootable CD, even over dial-up, is not all that painful. Then, once you download that and the source, CVS updating to -stable takes very little time.

To download all arches, source and packages that come with the CD sets? Sure that would take an age. But are you going to use it all?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, the average user doesn't want, and/or have the ability to do such tasks, and shouldn't be expected to. Congrats on being an ignorant elitist.

All the people here, familiar with OpenBSD and who read your message, are thinking you are an ignorant arse.

If you are not ignorant of OpenBSD, you can take about 60 seconds to decide whether you want all the files for your arch or whittle it down.

140MB or 40MB... decisions decisions...

You DON'T know OpenBSD. I can say that for certain. You talk big though.

Downloading the file to make a bootable OpenBSD CD is trivial once you LEARN.

Re:Why?

[Bert64]

If you have multiple machines, you can just download it once and use one of the machines as an ftp server and then install over a lan..
You could also setup a proxy and do an ftp install via the proxy, this will achieve the same effect but you won't need to manually download the files and put them on an ftpserver.

Re:Why?

[evilviper]

Arg! Another completely uninformed rant, moderated as Intersting...

It's true that I could very easily create my own el torito cd with their floppy images, most of my friends can't. OBSD could get a lot more users with very little effort.

Guess what? Upon hearing your rant, the OpenBSD developers TRAVELED 14 MONTHS BACKWARDS IN TIME, and released a bootable CD image... ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.3/i386/cd33.iso

It's only 3MBs, because it's just the bootable CD image, which your idiot "friends" can burn as an image, without the dist files. You'll still need to install those over FTP, HTTP, from a local partition, etc.

Besides that (with all the Windows CD-Recording software I've seen) it's easier to create a bootable CD from a floppy image, than it is to find the menu option to burn as an ISO (they like to hide that option, for some reason).

Re:Why?

[evilviper]

I asked about this [google.com] and got an earfull and a spitload of attitude.

Oh no... You asked a FAQ, one that is addressed in dozens of places on every OpenBSD site, and you got sligtly rude answers.

IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD. AHHHHHHH!

How about you stop using all other OSes, because there's a few rude people using them, too.

I'll just continue to use OpenSSH ( and not pay them ) and its their loss not mine.

I'm sure they won't miss you... You'd just have flooded the lists and news groups with even more dumb questions, flames, etc.

Re:Why?

[SirGeek]

Oh no... You asked a FAQ, one that is addressed in dozens of places on every OpenBSD site, and you got sligtly rude answers.

Well.. I DID RTFM at the time. I saw nothing either saying "We don't do ISO images" or "We do ISO images". That was added after my initial inquiries. Had it been there when I asked, I wouldn't have said anything.

I'm sure they won't miss you... You'd just have flooded the lists and news groups with even more dumb questions, flames, etc.

Flooded the lists with crap ? I don't think so. I avoid posting until I have googled for a problem/solution and I don't find one. And, I have been a software engineer ( Yes. I have a BS in Computer Science ) for 17 years and I am still developing software and doing system administration along with tech support so I really hate asking questions that are in FAQ's .

Also, I am an active developer on the Linux HA ( High Availablility) for a fairly long time. I'm their non-linux release engineer. So from that list, I'm quite familiar with people who don't RTFM or read the FAQ's. Its annoying but you deal with it. You should avoid copping attitudes with people who may honestly made a mistake or misread something.

Re:Why?

[Shanep]

Well.. I DID RTFM at the time. I saw nothing either saying "We don't do ISO images" or "We do ISO images". That was added after my initial inquiries. Had it been there when I asked, I wouldn't have said anything.

It may well be, that your post substantially helped to get the mention in the FAQ shortly thereafter. On 25th Oct 1999.

Re:Why?

[R.Caley]

you have to buy the CDs. The CD, mind you, is an unfortunate whopping $40.

Er, borrow the CD from someone else, that's how I first installed FBSD.

Free software you know, you're allowed to do that kind of thing.

Mind you, $40, 22 quid, the word whopping hardly applies. Less than Doom3 and far more fun.

Re:Why?

[SirGeek]

It may well be, that your post substantially helped to get the mention in the FAQ shortly thereafter. On 25th Oct 1999.

Possibly, I don't know. As I had said, if they had just said. "Nope. Sorry but we don't supply an ISO Image" I would have been satisfied, but to be dumped on for a honest question is never right. And the more I looked into things, the more that I saw Theo was the sort of person who "Doesn't work and play with others very well" . Such is life. I'm quite happy with FreeBSD now. Such is life.

Re:Why?

[Shanep]

Such is life. I'm quite happy with FreeBSD now. Such is life.

Are you avoiding OpenBSD because of Theo?

Seems like such a waste. Love him or hate him, OpenBSD is put together pretty damn well. I started with OpenBSD around when you did (2.5), years before that it was Debian Linux and since then I've played with Net and FreeBSD. I like them all, but there's a lot to love about OpenBSD and it's what I enjoy each day where I have a choice.

I'm glad you're happy with FreeBSD, it just seems a pitty to avoid OpenBSD because the leader may have been rude to you. What matters is that he gets great things done for the project, which you can freely reap.

So that makes three

[peter]

We now have the original ntpd, chrony, and openntpd. I've been using chronyd for a while now, and it's pretty easy to set up. I like how the server can be controlled or queried by a client, chronyc, from the command line without restarting it. I also like being able to limit how often it queries the timeserver, to make sure I don't over-do it. AFAIK, there's nothing bad about chrony. (It's GPL, though, not BSD. The more the merrier.)
http://chrony.sunsite.dk/

Oh, and my ISP has its own stratum 2 server, z3.eastlink.ca. :)

openntp makes ntptrace useless

[MavEtJu]

with xntpd:
server 127.0.0.1, port 123
stratum 4, precision -29, leap 00
refid 10.10.10.3 delay 0.00021, dispersion 0.00000 offset 0.000060
rootdelay 0.06087, rootdispersion 0.00815, synch dist 0.03857
reference time: c4a447e8.ad0b0118 Sun, Jul 18 2004 10:50:48.675
originate timestamp: c4a447f6.fc5989a7 Sun, Jul 18 2004 10:51:02.985
transmit timestamp: c4a447f6.fc4b6794 Sun, Jul 18 2004 10:51:02.985

With openntpd:
server 127.0.0.1, port 123
stratum 2, precision 0, leap 00
refid 0.0.0.0 delay 0.00024, dispersion 0.00000 offset 0.000072
rootdelay 0.00000, rootdispersion 0.00000, synch dist 0.00000
reference time: c4a49a92.575967ff Sun, Jul 18 2004 16:43:30.341
originate timestamp: c4a49c58.7acd9fff Sun, Jul 18 2004 16:51:04.479
transmit timestamp: c4a49c58.7ac07fae Sun, Jul 18 2004 16:51:04.479

It doesn't show me the refid and it doesn't the correct stratum. Any idea why not?

Re:openntp makes ntptrace useless

[Anonymous Coward]

recent commit to openbsd tree I read indicated that they thought stratum was an obsolete concept and removed it. *plonk*.

I believe it replies with a constant '2' now.

Re:openntp makes ntptrace useless

[treat]

recent commit to openbsd tree I read indicated that they thought stratum was an obsolete concept and removed it. I believe it replies with a constant '2' now.

You can't be serious?

Re:openntp makes ntptrace useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Log message:
do not do the stratum guessing dance.
stratum is pretty much pointless anyway these days, and we certainly
do not want to send out illegal packets (stratum=0) until synced...

Actual Quote

Re:openntp makes ntptrace useless

[MavEtJu]

But that doesn't explain the missing refid...

Re:openntp makes ntptrace useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, this proves the openbsd ppl are just useless zealots with no hope of ever producing any code I would use in a business environment.

Re:openntp makes ntptrace useless

[c13v3rm0nk3y]

Does the NTP spec describe exactly how a running server can be queried for this information? I mean, the definition of the various terms ntptrace reports on is defined in RFC-1305. Does this RFC also talk about how a third-party tool might query a running server? Seems unlikely.

If not, then ntptrace probably relies on the ntpd server from ntp.org to be running. I mean, this is where ntptrace comes from, right?

OpenNTPd is probably just ignoring ntptrace queries on port 123 since they appear malformed from it's point of view. The ntpd from the ports tree probably knows how to speak to ntptrace. It is an ntp.org specific tool.

Re:openntp makes ntptrace useless

[Anonymous Coward]

No, stratum and refid and others are described in the protocol specification. And those are essential features to correctly choose accurate timer server.

According to the OpenNTPd source code, this implementation doesn't refer startum even as a client. This means if you want to keep your machine's clock synchornized with UTC, OpenNTPd shouldn't be used.

Re:openntp makes ntptrace useless

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it means you have no idea what you are talking about, pretty close though.

Re:openntp makes ntptrace useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded? How is not supporting someone elses debugging tool in your daemon being a zealot? And I hate to break it to you, but damn near every unix machine on the planet and a serious portion of network equipment is already running code the "openbsd ppl" produced.

Re:openntp makes ntptrace useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you mind explaining how you came to this conclusion? Please detail exactly why leaving out these items makes it unsuitable. Or are you just blindly saying "this isn't here, it sucks" without understanding the ntp protocol?

Re:openntp makes ntptrace useless

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not biting the (flame)bait.

stratum is an essential concept in the NTP protocol. Refering to it the way they do casts shadows on the code as a whole. Seriously.

Now, the news seem to say it is an early version, and I imagine it will be fixed in the future.

OpenBSD vs Portable.

[guacamole]

Can someone explain me how the separate OpenBSD and portable trees are maintaned. Are they basically two separate source trees that get updated simultaneously with the new features?

Re:OpenBSD vs Portable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically all the changes made to ntpd on OpenBSD are then made to the OpenNTPd version and if it breaks anything in the portable version it gets fixed.

Do one, then the other.

File under "It had to be said"

[Anonymous Coward]

> This additional diversity is welcome, indeed.

I, for one, welcome our new timeserving overlords.

Hey, at least it's not goatse.cx, hot grits, beowulf clusters or Natalie Portman ;)

haiku

[Anonymous Coward]

helicopter crash
dead flesh stinking charred flesh
freebsd death

Re:*BSD is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

Good News Everyone!
Turns out that *BSD is stronger than ever!
According to an Inernetnews article, Netcraft has confirmed that *BSD has "dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
There has been a steady increase in *BSD developers over the past decade.
There are currently 307 FreeBSD developers as of the 2004 core team election.
You can read more about FreeBSD here

If you would like to try out a BSD, you can download: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, or DragonflyBSD
Enjoy!