On Monday 03 February 2003 12:18 am, Don wrote: > It isn't a question of the API. It's a question of expected function > output.
Then it's applicable not only to binary packages as Terry states, but any source that uses rand(). > 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 I would say that depending on the internal algorithm used by rand() (or random()) is a bad idea; however, I don't know what the relevant standards say about this, so I won't say any further. (Why is it a bad idea? Because I'm not going to write software which makes this assumption; I'm sure that even if at some point in time all systems use an identical algorithm, at some point my software will have to run on a system which uses something different. So if I really need it, I will take rand() from libc and place it in my own code.) > does not seem like a good idea. > > A seperate function for those who need cryptographic randomness seems like > a _much_ better idea. I'm not sure Yet Another RNG API (of course arc4random() already exists) gains anything unless rand()/random() absolutely cannot be changed; and as I say I'm not convinced this is the case. Doesn't even the 0 / RAND_MAX fix change the algorithm? Software which relies on that behaviour will break .. > This is my person opinion. I am not a developer so please take my comments > as such. Likewise. Regards, Edward. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
