Article of Melissa O'Nail (Was: srand(0))

From	Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Article of Melissa O'Nail (Was: srand(0))
Date	2025-12-28 02:44 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<20251228024431.00000016@yahoo.com> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <20251222204538.00003fc2@yahoo.com> <10iekvr$pa8n$1@paganini.bofh.team> <20251224000824.00005ce7@yahoo.com> <10iga40$11ds6$1@paganini.bofh.team> <20251224121211.00000e8f@yahoo.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 12:12:11 +0200
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 09:00:50 -0000 (UTC)
> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:
> 
> > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:  
> > > On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:54:05 -0000 (UTC)
> > > antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:
> > >     
> > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:    
> > >> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 18:41:10 +0100
> > >> > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >       
> >   
> > > Also, the TestU01 suit is made for generators with 32-bit output.
> > > M. O’Neill used ad hoc technique to make it applicable to
> > > generators with 64-bit output. Is this technique right? Or may be
> > > it put 64-bit PRNG at unfair disadvantage?    
> > 
> > My point of view is that generator can be used to generate long
> > bistream.  Then you can cut the bitstream and get number of
> > desired size.  Good tests should check that such usage leads
> > to reasonable properties.  So, fact that one generator produces
> > 32-bit pieces and other produces 64-bit pieces should be irrelevant
> > to the test.
> >   
> 
> What you say is correct in few use cases. But there are many uses
> cases (in field of testing of numeric code, probably, most of them)
> in which "less random" LS bits are acceptable. 
> Not that I can see why it could be the case for MT19937-64, but it
> could apply to one of two of other 64-bit generators tested by
> O'Neill.
> 
> 
> > > Besides, I strongly disagree with at least one assertion made by
> > > O’Neill: "While security-related applications should
> > > use a secure generator, because we cannot always know the future
> > > contexts in which our code will be used, it seems wise for all
> > > applications to avoid generators that make discovering their
> > > entire internal state completely trivial."
> > > No, I know exactly what I am doing/ I know exactly that for my
> > > application easy discovery of complete state of PRNG is not a
> > > defect.    
> > 
> > O’Neill is not a prophet, ignore what she say it you think you
> > know better (which is probably the above).
> >   
> > > Anyway, even if I am skeptical about her criticism of popular
> > > PRNGs, intuitively I agree with the constructive part of the
> > > article - medium-quality PRNG that feeds medium quality hash
> > > function can potentially produce very good fast PRNG with rather
> > > small internal state.    
> > 
> > She seem to care very much about having minimal possible state.
> > That is may be nice on embeded systems, but in general I would
> > happily accept slighty bigger state (say 256 bits).  But if
> > we can get good properties with very small state, then why not?
> > After all looking at state and updating it takes code, so
> > small state helps with having fast generator.
> >   
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > Concerning Mersenne Twister, she is not the only one to
> > criticise it.  My personal opinion is that given large
> > state and not so simple update Mersenne Twister would
> > have to be very very good to justify its use.  
> 
> One theoretical advantage of MT19937 is that it has period of
> astronomic proportions. Which means that one instance of PRNG could be
> de-multiplexed into millions or billions of sub-streams with no
> detectable degradation of the quality of each sub-stream.
> However I fail to see how de-multiplexing into more than ~ one
> thousand of sub-streams can be practical. And for the latter one does
> not need to be astronomical, something like period=2**96 would be
> fully sufficient with many bits to spare.
> So, in theory I agree with the criticism. But in practice I am not
> bothered by the size of MT state.
> 
> > But it
> > fails some tests, so does not look _better_ than other
> > generators.
> >  
> 
> It would be interesting to find out what were those tests that failed.
> I wonder, if tests suit can run faster on multicore computer. I don't
> want to wait 5-6 hours just to find out that report does not provide
> an information that I am looking for.
> 

I reproduced results of M. O'Neil. Luckily, on semi-modern hardware
(Coffee Lake or EPYC3) and for PRNGs in question BigCrash finishes in
2-2.5 hours. Which is a pain, but considarably less so then 5 hours.
mt19937 fails all tests of scomp_LinearComp() variaty (2 in Crash and 2
in BigCrash). It passes all the rest of tests.
After re-reading O'Neil, I see that she wrote that, but first time I
didn't pay attention.

I have read description of scomp_LinearComp(). I can't say that I
understood much. Neither theory, nor parameters, in particular, even
after looking though code I have no idea about the meaning of parameter
r. 
I am not so sure that Pierre L’Ecuyer himself fully understands this
test, apart from the fact that many moons ago basic algorithm for
calculation of linear complexity was published in IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory. Otherwise, his description would not look so much
as hand waving. As to O'Neil, she likely understands it better than
myself, but that's not a huge achievement :(
My less than scientific feeling about this test is that one part of it
is looking if test is LFSR or LFSR-family and if the answer is yes then
test fails.
So, eccentrically, mt19937 is punished for what it is rather than for
randomness of results that it produces.

I made a minimal modification to mt19937 algorithm, telling it to skip
every 19936th result word. With modification it easily passes all 3
crash batteries of Pierre L’Ecuyer.
Do I think that my modified mt19937 is better than original? No, I
don't. IMHO, the only thing it is better in is passing batteries of
L’Ecuyer.

> > > On related note, I think that even simple counter fed into high
> > > quality hash function (not cryptographically high quality, far
> > > less than that) can produce excellent PRNG with even smaller
> > > internal state. But not very fast one. Although the speed depends
> > > on specifics of used computer. I can imagine computer that has
> > > low-latency Rijndael128 instruction. On such computer, running
> > > counter through 3-4 rounds of Rijndael ill produce very good PRNG
> > > that is only 2-3 times slower than, for example, LCG 128/64.    
> > 
> > Maybe.
> >   
> 
> May be I'd even test my hypothesis. Eventually. Except that, again, I
> am not thrilled by idea of waiting 6 hours for each result.
> 

I tested.
It turned out that my hypothesis was wrong. Running counter through 3
rounds of Rijndael128 is not enough. Running counter through 4 rounds
is still not enough - it fails 1 test (#86) in BigCrash battery.
I didn't test 5 rounds, but even if it is enough, which is likely, it
would almost certainly be slower than other several known methods.

All that with simple 64-bit binary counter as a state variable.

With 128-bit state and with partial chaining of 64 bits of Rijndael
output back into part of state (the other half of state is still a
counter), passing all batteries appear very easy. It only takes one
round for chaining and another one for hashing. But under O'Neil's
figures of merit using 128-bit PRNG state considered cheating );

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-22 08:48 +0000
  Re: srand(0) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-12-22 06:44 -0500
    Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-22 13:18 +0100
      Re: srand(0) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-12-22 12:13 -0500
        Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-22 18:41 +0100
          Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-22 20:45 +0200
            Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-22 21:16 +0000
            Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-22 22:19 +0100
            Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-22 22:57 +0100
              Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-23 11:18 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-23 10:54 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-23 13:50 +0200
                Re: srand(0) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-12-23 18:29 -0500
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 16:30 -0800
            Re: srand(0) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-12-23 17:54 +0000
              Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-24 00:08 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-24 02:02 +0000
                Re: srand(0) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-12-23 23:43 -0500
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-24 05:34 +0000
                Re: srand(0) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-12-24 09:00 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-24 12:12 +0200
                Article of Melissa O'Nail (Was: srand(0)) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-28 02:44 +0200
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-12-28 05:38 +0000
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-28 12:35 +0200
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-05 14:21 +0200
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-01-07 10:51 +0000
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-08 14:03 +0200
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-08 09:40 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-08 09:26 -0800
                Re: srand(0) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 13:48 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 08:41 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-08 01:06 +0200
              Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 05:22 -0600
                Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 23:09 -0600
                Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-25 09:51 +0100
                Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-25 04:24 -0600
              Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 07:50 -0800
            Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 07:46 -0800
              Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-07 18:14 +0200
          Re: srand(0) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-12-22 19:16 +0000
            Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-22 22:35 +0100
      Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 07:24 +0000
        Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-23 09:59 +0100
          Re: srand(0) Michael Bäuerle <michael.baeuerle@stz-e.de> - 2025-12-23 11:09 +0100
            Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 14:49 +0000
          Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-23 16:13 +0000
            Re: srand(0) richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2025-12-23 19:05 +0000
        Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 02:16 -0800
          Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 14:47 +0000
        Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-23 16:08 +0000
          Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 15:44 +0000
    Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 07:17 +0000
      Re: srand(0) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-23 08:25 +0100
        Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 14:45 +0000
          Re: srand(0) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-23 19:15 +0100
  Re: srand(0) John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-12-23 00:39 +0000
    Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-23 02:17 +0000
      Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 14:55 +0000
        Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 23:35 -0600
          Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-26 08:23 +0000
            Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-26 14:48 -0600
              Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-26 15:12 -0600
    Re: srand(0) Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-12-23 06:49 +0000
      Re: srand(0) John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-12-23 20:37 +0000
        Re: srand(0) Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-12-24 15:22 +0000
    Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 07:25 +0000
      Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-24 06:16 +0000
        Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 15:21 +0000
          Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-24 19:00 +0000
            Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-25 03:07 -0600
              Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-25 19:31 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-25 21:14 +0100
                Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-25 15:29 -0600
                Re: srand(0) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-12-25 23:25 -0500
                Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-25 23:41 -0600
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-26 05:42 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-12-26 01:52 -0500
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-26 07:56 +0000
                Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-26 04:48 -0600
      Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-24 10:51 +0200
        Re: srand(0) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 00:59 -0800
        Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 15:28 +0000
          Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-24 17:44 +0200
            Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 16:17 +0000
              Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-24 17:53 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 17:27 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 17:33 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-24 20:16 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-25 02:01 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-25 03:17 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-26 08:13 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-25 04:30 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-25 09:10 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-26 08:08 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-30 06:07 +0000
                Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-30 18:42 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-31 02:01 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-31 03:10 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-31 03:28 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-31 09:37 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-01 07:32 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 19:02 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-01 19:20 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-01 21:53 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 23:50 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-02 14:32 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-02 16:18 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 20:52 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 20:46 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-01-03 04:08 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-03 04:39 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-03 14:24 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-03 20:38 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-30 19:37 -0800
                Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-31 17:24 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 15:17 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-12-31 12:30 -0500
                Re: srand(0) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-31 18:42 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-12-31 15:07 -0500
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-31 22:18 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-31 20:55 +0000
                Re: srand(0) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-31 22:57 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 16:00 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 01:03 +0000
                Re: srand(0) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-01-01 14:05 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 19:03 +0000
                Re: srand(0) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-01-01 20:28 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 15:29 -0800
                Re: srand(0) highcrew <high.crew3868@fastmail.com> - 2026-01-01 00:31 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 16:05 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-31 15:29 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-31 20:52 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 15:14 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-05 20:00 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 15:03 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-30 19:35 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-31 04:51 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-31 15:15 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-31 20:51 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 15:00 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-01 01:45 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 16:34 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-01 07:23 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-01-01 02:01 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 02:29 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-30 06:34 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-30 14:05 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-28 05:51 +0000
            Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-24 17:08 +0000
    Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 07:39 -0800
      Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 13:54 -0800
        Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-08 15:34 +0000
          Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-08 14:44 -0800
            Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-09 06:06 +0000
              Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-08 22:46 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-09 22:38 +0000
                Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-09 23:27 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-09 17:09 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-01-10 19:44 +0000
        Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-09 00:36 -0800
  Re: srand(0) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 11:04 +0100
  Re: srand(0) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 21:44 -0800
    Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 15:41 +0000
      Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-24 18:04 +0100
        Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-25 05:41 +0000
  Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-08 02:57 +0000

csiph-web