On Monday 03 February 2003 12:41 am, Don wrote:
> I think Terry mentioned binary packages simply because it is harder to fix
> them than something available as source but I could be mistaken.
Possibly -- if we're looking at this from the point of view of the user of
said binary package, rather th
On Monday 03 February 2003 12:20 am, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Edward Brocklesby wrote:
> > Where was it indicated that random() wouldn't change?
>
> Right there in the boot message, and again when you logged in,
> where the system indicated to you that it was a BSD system;
So
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 predict
On Sunday 02 February 2003 11:59 pm, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Edward Brocklesby wrote:
> > Maybe I missed something, but why cannot you just rip random() from libc,
> > rename it to bakul_shah_random() and use that in your testing code? Then
> > you are safe from any changes to
On Sunday 02 February 2003 8:39 pm, Bakul Shah wrote:
> What I am suggesting is to leave random() as it is and
> guarantee its behavior won't change and add cryto_random() or
> whatever, and indicate it *may* change.
Where was it indicated that random() wouldn't change?
> Note that it is rand() t
On Sunday 02 February 2003 8:06 pm, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > Maybe I missed something, but why cannot you just rip random() from libc,
> > rename it to bakul_shah_random() and use that in your testing code? Then
> > you are safe from any changes to random(), and indeed have a portable RNG
> > if your
On Sunday 02 February 2003 6:48 pm, Bakul Shah wrote:
> Guys, please realize that random() is also used in generating
> simulation inputs (or timing or whatever). If you go change
> the underlying algorithm or its parameters one can't generate
> the same sequence from the same seed when repeating
