Robert N White wrote:

>Hi
>
>This is not to start a flame but an attempt to fine out whether or not some of the points made by
Jim
>Thompson is true.
>
>I posted a message to misc at openbsd dot org (see
>http://groups.google.com/group/lucky.openbsd.misc/browse_thread/thread/4739829dcb527e8e/9d15c656acfb771e?lnk=st&q=Supposed+%22reverse+engineered%22%3F+openbsd&rnum=1&hl=en).
>
>Here are some of the responds I got so far.
>
>--
>  
>
>>OpenBSD's team is far too willing to violate RFCs in their persuit to
>>"rule the world" in my (not so) humble opinion. 
>>    
>>
>Have
>  
>
>>you looked at the
>>'ntp' implementation they ship?
>>    
>>
>
>This is all just spreading FUD. Just to make sure people really know the story behind OpenNTPD:
>
>http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#OpenNTPD 
>--
>  
>
I just love how OpenBSD continually tries to "market" its way out of 
sticky situations.

Quoting the URL above:  "If you really need microsecond precision more 
than the benefits of OpenNTPD, feel free to use ntp.org's ntpd..."

Quoting http://www.advogato.org/person/dtucker/diary.html?start=52:

The comment about clock disciplining (compensation for systematic skew 
or drift) is a fair point, within limits. Right now OpenBSD doesn't 
permit changing of tickadj at the default securelevel so another 
mechanism is needed in the kernel. When this happens, ntpd will probably 
learn how to do it.

Which missed the point, completely and is hillarious if you understand 
why NTP goes out of its way to *never* step the clock.

Other points which the open-minded may wish to consider:
http://lists.ntp.isc.org/pipermail/questions/2004-October/002801.html

that there, boys and girls, is but *one* place where "OpenNTP" violates 
the RFCs.

>and a comment to Tims comment about reverse engineered HAL in OpenBSD.
>
>--
>Wow what a pile of garbage!
>
>Someone needs to read up on copyright law.  The same someone might want to
>spend some time in the law books as well learning how reverse engineering
>works.
>  
>
If <someone> is me, then yes, I understand Copyright law, and Yes, son, 
I do understand "reverse engineering".

I also understand that it *DID NOT HAPPEN* in this instance.

>This is complete hogwash described by someone who is quite ignorant regarding law. 
>  
>
The responder has no idea what he's talking about, and bases his remarks 
on sources which "assure him" that the HAL is "reverse engineered".

I (and others, including Atheros) have the advantage that we can view 
both sets of source code.

Ask yourself this.  "Why does Jim care what OpenBSD does?"  What is my 
motivation?

I note (with some glee) that my remarks that the "open HAL" is a POS and 
doesn't work correctly were ignored.

Jim