BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- Subject: [Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 18:42:31 -0400
- In-reply-to: <20230518161911.72f0da26.Richard.Pieri@gmail.com>
- References: <ab541108-f473-9cbb-616f-0a9b27d0e6fc@borg.org> <CAAbKA3Wuv3zo=uojsFCcs95kkLJ3-v=EWNGmX8QFhdhU3p=9+g@mail.gmail.com> <20230518161911.72f0da26.Richard.Pieri@gmail.com>
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 4:20?PM Rich Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2023 15:21:29 -0400 > Bill Ricker <bill.n1vux at gmail.com> wrote: > > Faster random may be less random ? > Hoo, boy. Time to post this link again: > https://www.2uo.de/myths-about-urandom/ That *may* help someone who misunderstands me and perhaps thinks i meant any contradiction to anything on that page. (Which AFAIK may be just Rich, who ALWAYS assumes IF he doesn't understand someone that they're WRONG and need correction.) My concern was *since* *his* /dev/urandom reportedly got *faster*, does that mean someone *improved* it (safely!), or *broke* it (aka ^*improved*^ it, badly)? If it were my system, i'd want to be looking at the change notes to see if it was intentional, and if so what cryptographer approved the patches to urandom that made it faster.
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)
- [Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- References:
- [Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
- [Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)
- [Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- Next by Date: [Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- Next by thread: [Discuss] Failing WD Disks
- Index(es):