Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:00:26 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, Nick Sayer <nsayer@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/astro/xglobe/files patch-random Message-ID: <200102250900.f1P90Qc12868@earth.backplane.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102251920150.6561-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:
:The C standard just gives an example of a portable implementation without
:saying that it is a bad example.
:
:On second thoughts, the standard rand() is somewhat broken as designed.
:"unsigned int" seed limits it to UINT_MAX sequences, and there is no
:way to ask for irreproducible randomness.
:
:Bruce
Yes, but on the otherhand there are a huge class of applications
that don't need irreproducible randomness. For example, games,
many classes of math problems, EE and other simulations... quite a few
things do just fine with a standard pseudo-random sequence. It's only
security and cryptography where rand() really breaks down. These are
certainly important application classes, but they are by no means the
*only* application class to consider. I see no reason to marginalize
'everything else' with a warning. I'm not that paranoid.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102250900.f1P90Qc12868>