Technical strategy and performance

Jason Azze jason at
Thu Jun 30 12:01:25 UTC 2016

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr at> wrote:
> We forked from Classic for the same reasons we didn't start from
> scratch and didn't use chrony - that is, the demand from the large
> users driving our funding.  Originally, that was (implicitly)
> government users for which the initial NSF term grant was buying a
> more secure NTP. Later the customer base expanded and shifted towards
> the large corporate users backing LF.
> The thing about these users is they're intensely conservative.  They
> won't buy a time service implementation that doesn't reassure them by
> looking and smelling like what they're used to.

This is why I try to make noise when things are broken on RHEL/CentOS
6.x. I don't see a builder for that OS on The Red
Hat Enterprise family (RHEL, CentOS, Scientific Linux, Oracle
Enterprise Linux) and SuSE Linux Enterprise Server are where we
boring, conservative sysadmins like to live. There are a lot of us who
haven't moved off of RHEL 6 (supported through 2020) for critical
infrastructure because RHEL 7 went systemd on us.

Perhaps there should be a separate discussion about supported
platforms: Where does the project claim the software will compile and
where does it claim the software will run (and are those two lists

Jason Azze

More information about the devel mailing list