Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 11:23:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brian N. Handy" <handy@sag.space.lockheed.com> To: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= <ache@nagual.ru> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.94.961007111439.817I-100000@sag.space.lockheed.com> In-Reply-To: <199610071720.VAA01227@nagual.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hey all, I'm trying to stay on top of this thread and follow all the theories, and I'll throw in my two cents -- It's important to recall Andrey wanted to change random() originally in part because the Gimp folks (and probably others) complain that our random() is really too non-random(). I've done a fair amount of fiddling with random number generators in my time, and I think it's safe to say there's no way it's going to get improved to the point where the numerical folks are happy. Jordan hit this one squarely on the head. Hence most of them use their own random number generator. I don't know anyone that depends on the routine that comes with the system. That's almost scary. There's been one suggestion to write another random number generator and not changing the old one. I don't think that's going to fix anything, since in general the software driving this change (GIMP et al) is all going to have to have small ugly hacks in them to support it. It would be nicer if our random() just worked. So, following in this line of reasoning, I support fixing random(). Regards, Brian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.94.961007111439.817I-100000>