Date:	Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:59:17 +0100 (BST)
From:	George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Random numbers/George
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.970604093901.2271A-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.OSF.3.95.970604185835.12907A-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> On 3 Jun 1997, George Foot wrote:
> 
> > Apparently, random() is a `more' random
> > generator than rand(); presumably the reason the portable rand() function
> > uses a worse generator is that the algorithm is specified in the standard,
> > although I really don't know (does anyone?).
> 
> I think at least part of the reason for what `rand' does is that good
> random generators are notoriously hard to invent, and those which
> exist aren't always free.  DJGPP's libc needs to be totally free.

But isn't random() in libc too? Surely that algorithm must be free as
well...

-- 
George Foot <mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
Merton College, Oxford

- Raw text -