Subject: Re: arc4random(9)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/29/2002 03:10:07
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 03:59:27PM +0900, email@example.com wrote:
> >It seems to me that the *right* thing to do would be to persuade the other
> >BSD camps to replace arc4random() with an RC4-based random() implementation.
> >It is not *always* wrong to do things better and try to persuade the other
> >guys to see the light, after all.
> go ahead. i won't stop you from persuading others. i have other
> important things to do than "this name is better" battle.
I think it's abundantly clear that the function name is hardly the only
1) You committed the code almost immediately after "asking" about it on the
lists. What was the point of "asking" if you were going to commit the
code before anyone had a chance to comment -- or did you already have
your mind made up and just want to *appear* to be soliciting input?
2) If the reseeding from /dev/random can't be turned off, the code's not
useful as random(). You yourself even suggested earlier that it would
be desirable to use the code as random().
Thor Lancelot Simon firstname.lastname@example.org
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud