In message <87elfvdopv.fsf@snark.piermont.com>, "Perry E. Metzger" writes:
>
>Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com> writes:
>> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 08:23:31PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> > I agree modulo one thing: RC4 is actually more or less as fast as
>> > random() once initialized, so there is no real point in using random()
>> > -- an RC4 based generator would actually work better and produce much
>> > nicer data for things like monte carlo generators.
>> 
>> Well, then, let's just call it "random()".
>
>Yup -- modulo the fact that I think (I may be mistaken) that Posix may
>specify the algorithm.
>

Not unreasonable -- Java specifies the algorithm for its RNG.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)