>> 	deraadt told me that i should not replace random(9), as there can be
>> 	some code depending on poorness, or uniformity, of random(9).
>???  Can you/he point to some examples of this?  Sounds a little bit
>suspect to me...

	sys/arch/sparc/sparc/clock.c assumes that random(9) returns uniform
	random number (at least the comment says so).
	if we take a safer side, we should not replace random(9), or we should
	repalce random(9) with a random number generator with uniform
	number distribuion.  i still am not really sure if it matters (i
	suspect it does not).

itojun