Re: CONFIG_RANDOM option for 1.99.2
Aaron Ucko (UCKO@vax1.rockhurst.edu)
Wed, 15 May 1996 21:10:57 -0600 (CST)
> Yes, but nonsecurity-related userspace programs might also want good random
> numbers. Consider a simulation using the Monte Carlo method--pseudorandom
> numbers might produce misleading results.
>
>Someone who's running Monte Carlo simulations hopefully has a fair bit
>of memory available, and knows enough about random number generators
>to realize the importance of a good one. For that matter, the problem
>with random numbers for Monte Carlo methods is rarely the quality of
>the seed, but rather the quality of the generator (the f(x+1) term).
>If the generator has poor spectral properties, it doesn't matter how
>good the initial seed was.
>
>/dev/random generates an excellent initial random number, and perhaps
>a small number more such numbers. It's not designed for generating
>the millions of random numbers that a simulation may need. It is
>designed for generating a small number of random numbers to serve as
>cryptographic keys.
Yeah, OK, you win. I just like the idea of a /dev/random and picked an
argument in its favor that had not yet been used (for good reason, it seems.
Oh well.)
-- Aaron Ucko (ucko@vax1.rockhurst.edu; finger for PGP public key) | httyp!
"That's right," he said. "We're philosophers. We think, therefore we am."
-- Terry Pratchett, _Small Gods_ | Geek Code 3.1 [for explanation, finger
hayden@mankato.msus.edu]: GCS/M/S/C d- s: a18 C++(+++)>++++ UL++>++++ P++
L++>+++++ E- W(-) N++(+) o+ K- w--- O M@ V-(--) PS++(+++) PE- Y(+) PGP(+) t(+)
!5 X-- R(-) tv-@ b++(+++) DI+ !D-- G++(+++) e->+++++(*) h!>+ r-(--)>+++ y?