This is not a defect, it is by design. The rationale for this can be found in A Proposal to Add an Extensible Random Number Facility to the Standard Library (N1398) which says (emphasis mine):
On the other hand, the specifications for the distributions only
define the statistical result, not the precise algorithm to use. This
is different from engines, because for distribution algorithms,
rigorous proofs of their correctness are available, usually under the
precondition that the input random numbers are (truely) uniformly
distributed. For example, there are at least a handful of algorithms
known to produce normally distributed random numbers from uniformly
distributed ones. Which one of these is most efficient depends on at
least the relative execution speeds for various transcendental
functions, cache and branch prediction behaviour of the CPU, and
desired memory use. This proposal therefore leaves the choice of the
algorithm to the implementation. It follows that output sequences for
the distributions will not be identical across implementations. It is
expected that implementations will carefully choose the algorithms for
distributions up front, since it is certainly surprising to customers
if some distribution produces different numbers from one
implementation version to the next.
This point is reiterated in the implementation defined section which says:
The algorithms how to produce the various distributions are specified
as implementation-defined, because there is a vast variety of
algorithms known for each distribution. Each has a different trade-off
in terms of speed, adaptation to recent computer architectures, and
memory use. The implementation is required to document its choice so
that the user can judge whether it is acceptable quality-wise.