From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Oct  7 16:40:37 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA09174
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA09122;
          Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.7.6/8.6.9) id JAA12712; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:37:50 +1000
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:37:50 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199610072337.JAA12712@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: ache@nagual.ru, kpneal@pobox.com
Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random())
Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org,
        joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, terry@lambert.org
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>Current random() code is joke from mathematical point of view (but not from
>>ANSI/ISO standards). It is why it needs fixing.
>
>Wait. I feel like I'm missing something here.
>
>The pseudo-random calls are documented. They have been for a long time.
>
>They give repeatable results, cross platform, from the desk machine to the
>supercomputer.

Nope, they give results that vary across platforms and across time.  16-bit
systems can't even represent the values returned by BSD rand().

>And how much hardware isn't supported yet, while this argument about
>changing something minor goes on? How many features does, for example, Linux
>have, while a debate about pseudo-random numbers go on?

Linux has features such as a completely different, non-broken version of
rand().  

Bruce