4 ms·
No, it wouldn't, but they've made abundantly clear they're not interested in doing anything reasonable the BSDs propose.
by beefhash 7y ago
No, it wouldn't, but they've made abundantly clear they're not interested in doing anything reasonable the BSDs propose.
- hannob 7y agoYou think it's reasonable to have a function called arc4random, even though we know arc4 is insecure and creates biased (i.e. not pseudorandom) output, yet as we know that arc4random really is not "random numbers based on (a)rc4", because internally it's using something secure? So you'd have to actually know that this function named after an insecure stream cipher is a secure way to get random numbers?
- kazinator 7y agoI glanced at an online man page for this several minutes ago which informs that though this was originally RC4 based, it now stands for the "a replacement call for random".
- kazinator 7y agoDo you work with embedded systems that use glibc? It's bloated. It's bad enough keeping up with the cruft dreamed up by POSIX; why add BSD functions that nobody uses outside of the BSD microcosm. Glibc is monolithic; functions that nothing in your system uses are still sitting there in the .so image.