Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 19:18:44 -0500 (EST) From: Don <don@calis.blacksun.org> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rand() is broken Message-ID: <20030202190827.K2458@calis.blacksun.org> In-Reply-To: <200302030007.01718.ejb@lythe.org.uk> References: <200302021848.NAA19508@agamemnon.cnchost.com> <200302021941.h12JfJ1a004169@a.smtp.serv.lythe.org.uk> <3E3DB0D1.2B02CAF5@mindspring.com> <200302030007.01718.ejb@lythe.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Binary packages from third party software vendors. > > What about them? They either, > a) link to a static libc, and use its rand() always; or > b) link to a shared libc, and use its rand(), as the binary API hasn't > changed; or It isn't a question of the API. It's a question of expected function output. > c) if they really need their own specific RNG, they include it themselves, and > don't rely on libc at all. > > So I fail to see the problem here. The opinion of a random user: I run FreeBSD and not Linux because of the stability and predictability of the system. Changing a critical function like rand() when we know that there are applications which depend on its output does not seem like a good idea. A seperate function for those who need cryptographic randomness seems like a _much_ better idea. This is my person opinion. I am not a developer so please take my comments as such. -Don To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030202190827.K2458>