On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:21:38 +0200 Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 16 September 2007 03:01:26 RW wrote: > > > Essentially what has happened is that /dev/random has been > > abandoned in favour of a better /dev/urandom, and that seems to be > > a bit high-handed to me. > > Not high-handed. Logical. The difference between /dev/random > and /dev/urandom was that /dev/random could block IO if it didn't > have enough entropy and /dev/urandom guaranteed to not block. The > underlying algorithm creating the random was at the discretion of the > implementers.
AFAIK it's all at the discretion of the implementers, unless someone can quote a standard. > So what you had was a highway (urandom) and a road with > traffic lights (random). The need for the traffic lights has been > removed, so there is no logic in not calling it a highway. Wasn't the highway /dev/urandom? > People > travelling the random road, will simply account for the possibility a > traffic light comes up, which never does. That's a poor analogy because they haven't improved /dev/random so it doesn't block, they've taken a /dev/urandom implementation and renamed it. In terms of your analogy they've blocked off the road, diverted everyone onto the highway, and renamed it to main street. Using Yarrow for /dev/random is not an intrinsically bad idea, but it is controversial. _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"