From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Mar 1 3: 3:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from point.osg.gov.bc.ca (point.osg.gov.bc.ca [142.32.102.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525BC37B71A for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:03:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by point.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) id DAA25363; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:03:13 -0800 Received: from passer.osg.gov.bc.ca(142.32.110.29) via SMTP by point.osg.gov.bc.ca, id smtpda25361; Thu Mar 1 03:02:57 2001 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by passer.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.11.2/8.9.1) id f21B2pY56572; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:02:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from cwsys9.cwsent.com(10.2.2.1), claiming to be "cwsys.cwsent.com" via SMTP by passer9.cwsent.com, id smtpdM56462; Thu Mar 1 03:02:27 2001 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by cwsys.cwsent.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) id f21B2N621253; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:02:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200103011102.f21B2N621253@cwsys.cwsent.com> Received: from localhost.cwsent.com(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "cwsys" via SMTP by localhost.cwsent.com, id smtpdQ20986; Thu Mar 1 03:01:45 2001 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 Reply-To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group X-Sender: schubert To: /dev/null@primenet.com Cc: drosih@rpi.edu (Garance A Drosihn), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rand(3): enough already! In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:36:46 GMT." <200102280736.AAA19304@usr05.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:01:45 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200102280736.AAA19304@usr05.primenet.com>, Terry Lambert writes: > A bit of a stretch, but... > > Could we just teach people to type "rand()" when they wanted > "rand()", and "random()" when they wanted "random()"? If I put my manager's hat on, yes this sounds reasonable. However both of use know better, clueless users use software written by clueless developers. I'm not adverse to keeping rand() as long as we have a secure default and those who want to configure their systems like traditional UNIX systems do so knowing full well what they are doing, and that we've addressed bloat (see the thread entitled " FreeBSD sources from 20000" by Mark Murray . [Like a fine wine I'm mellowing with age, oops I don't have my security administrator's hat on. :) ] > > I know, I know, this is like expecting people to type something > other than "read()" when they want to output data; still, it > might be worth considering. > > "Oh dear, my parcheesi program which uses "read()" to do output > on Linux isn't working on FreeBSD! Let's fix libc!". Sometimes management solutions work, sometimes they don't. If I put my manager's hat on, I might just agree with you (or just not understand you), however putting my propeller hat on, I think you're overreacting in these last two paragraphs. Management solutions, e.g. teaching or hiding our heads in the sand, don't always work -- I don't think they will work here either. If removing rand() or having rand() call random() is not politically feasible I might understand you from a management or political (selling FreeBSD to the Linux and NT masses) perspective but from a purely technical perspective your arguments don't make sense. (God, I hate wearing so many hats). Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/Alpha Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD, ISTA Province of BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message