In the current security environment, from heartbleed to the NSA, it's becoming clear that security issues need to be systematically dealt with from an industry perspective or people will start to lose faith in secure Internet communication, which would undermine too much of what's valuable about the Internet.
What we need is great APIs/frameworks/design patterns to simplify cryptography so that a newbie ruby on rails programmer CAN create actually secure applications and not even realize that it was complicated in the first place.
In cryptography you make one misstep and the entire chain is broken. It's thus important for things like the linux kernel to provide great implementations so that people don't think twice about using it and never want their own PRNG.
It seems the author admits in the comments: "All the application needs to do is open a socket and generate a GET request." So why complaining about the kernel?
If there's problem with urandom, demonstrate it on the reasonable use case example, don't try to impress anybody by showing how much different libraries, modules and programs you combine for one key-value query.
There's no reason for the kernel to provide standard library functions. In fact, I'd argue that syscalls should be reserved for only actions that cannot be done wholly in userspace (futex is a good example of this). The current model of "hardware randomness to seed a PRNG" makes sense. It is up to the userspace libraries to provide good implementations.
