https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638477#c8
"I see this as well. Sounds like clipping or some really bad sample rate frequency conversion."
(It's only later that it becomes clear that this is due to a glibc "regression".)
http://www.tuxradar.com/content/debian-ditches-glibc-eglibc
I consider all this a real attitude problem.
The function below addresses the perennial programming quandary: “How do I take good data in string form and painlessly turn it into garbage?”.
To make the argument that strfry isn't a joke, you might find a real program that uses it productively. I'd be interested in seeing if one exists.
NAME
strfry - randomize a string
[snip]
DESCRIPTION
The strfry() function randomizes the contents of string by using rand(3) to randomly swap characters in the string. The result is an anagram of string.
[snip]
COLOPHON
This page is part of release 3.32 of the Linux man-pages project. [snip]
What version of the man-pages package do you have installed?
In any case, I'm not wrong about strfry being a gag function, and it looks (if you read upthread) that my hunch was right that nobody uses it in real code.
(Oh, pardon. I didn't catch that you might have thought that I thought that strfry was anything but a joke. My take on the situation is that the documentation needs patched, rather than the strfry code. :) )
But this one is "It's broken, this is how, this is data confirming it, this is a patch and that's how it's fixing the issue." The work is done - review, apply, release. Or if it's considered such a joke that it's not worth fixing, just remove it completely.
Seems to say it isn't used. I also contest that it _is_ broken. I cannot find a man page that promises that it uses a uniform distribution; one could even argue that such a function should not use an uniform distribution. For example, randomizing the non-uniformity of the distribution depending on the phase of the moon would, IMO, be a good idea for this function.
When presented with a model bug report (includes good description, test cases, and even a patch) he felt the need to change the function, but instead of using the supplied patch he rewrites it himself and commits it without testing it. It is still broken. When this is pointed out he gets angry and complains about people wasting his time, when it was he that decided to waste his own time rewriting it his own way and he was the one that still got it wrong.
Everyone would have been better off if he had taken the sensible path of "read bug report", "confirm bug", "test patch", "commit patch" instead of arguing and rewriting things out of spite.