I went to the trouble of downloading the DVD iso file for 32 bit systems. The webpage says to use a program called shalsum to check the download. There is NO PLACE AT ALL on the download page or anywhere else I can see to find the shalsum program to check the download prior to trying to burn it to a DVD disk. I doubt I am alone in feeling mislead by the RedHat people when their webpage says use a program which is NOT available.
Well, I was interested in trying Linux but if the very download page is this useless then I can only guess the rest of the online "support" must be just as bad. Why tell downloaders to use a program you don't make available for download???????
Vytas
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
On Sunday 03 Jul 2005 10:26, Vytas Valas wrote:
I went to the trouble of downloading the DVD iso file for 32 bit systems. The webpage says to use a program called shalsum to check the download. There is NO PLACE AT ALL on the download page or anywhere else I can see to find the shalsum program to check the download prior to trying to burn it to a DVD disk. I doubt I am alone in feeling mislead by the RedHat people when their webpage says use a program which is NOT available.
Well, I was interested in trying Linux but if the very download page is this useless then I can only guess the rest of the online "support" must be just as bad. Why tell downloaders to use a program you don't make available for download???????
Vytas
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Vytas,
Firstly, it is widely considered to be BAD MANNERS TO SHOUT on mailing lists where others try to help you.
Secondly, I think that the posting of messages such as yours is highly disrespectful to other members of the list.
Thirdly, it is good practice to try to help yourself before requesting help from any mailing list, not just ours. I happen to be running Fedora Core 3, which already has sha1sum installed. Typing "man sha1sum" at a shell prompt tells you how to use it. However I assume you are still running something like XP. If, instead of being abusive to a great team of highly talented people, you had taken what I would consider to be the obvious approach to solving your problem and put the search string "sha1sum windows" into Google, you would have found loads of links to software downloads and help pages on the subject.
Fourthly, if you do manage to sum check and burn the DVD iso, you will probably come across the same kernel panic installer problem as I did. To save you the trouble of doing another Google search, here is the Google search string:- site:redhat.com/archives/fedora-list kernel panic install FC4
and here is the solution to the problem:- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2005-June/msg02445.html
After helping him with this, and advising him on the package selections, my ten year old son successfully installed Fedora Core 4 on the new PC I built for him. So it can't be all that difficult.
I hope I have made my point, and that we can look forward to some of your more constructive postings to this list in future.
Dave Fletcher
Vytas Valas wrote:
I went to the trouble of downloading the DVD iso file for 32 bit systems. The webpage says to use a program called shalsum to check the download. There is NO PLACE AT ALL on the download page or anywhere else I can see to find the shalsum program to check the download prior to trying to burn it to a DVD disk. I doubt I am alone in feeling mislead by the RedHat people when their webpage says use a program which is NOT available.
Hmmm, it is available on this box as: sha1sum is /usr/bin/sha1sum
BTW, it is sha1sum not shalsum and it should be available for Windows at:
http://ftp.gnupg.zone-h.org/binary/sha1sum.exe
among other sites. (just google sha1sum.exe)
Well, I was interested in trying Linux but if the very download page is this useless then I can only guess the rest of the online "support" must be just as bad. Why tell downloaders to use a program you don't make available for download???????
In my experience the online "support" especially as provided for FREE here is quite good. YMMV (obviously).
ciao, furlan
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 19:26 +1000, Vytas Valas wrote:
Well, I was interested in trying Linux but if the very download page is this useless then I can only guess the rest of the online "support" must be just as bad. Why tell downloaders to use a program you don't make available for download???????
Send an email - using the same tone - to Redhat DEMANDING a refund.
This is a community supported project. If you want help, you might try being a tad more polite. BTW, there are abundant links on the first page of a Google search.
Vytas Valas wrote:
I went to the trouble of downloading the DVD iso file for 32 bit systems. The webpage says to use a program called shalsum to check the download. There is NO PLACE AT ALL on the download page or anywhere else I can see to find the shalsum program to check the download prior to trying to burn it to a DVD disk. I doubt I am alone in feeling mislead by the RedHat people when their webpage says use a program which is NOT available.
Ok. I understand the frustration. The website could use a revamp with a better design, better content and updates but for this particular issue (help is most welcome. ping fedora-docs or fedora-marketing list if you are interested), here is what happened. Before the release, I googled for a good sha1sum utility for other platforms besides Linux. Linux distributions usually include sha1sum utility, Fedora does and it can be installed using "yum install sha1sum" so not much of a problem there. I ended up with several links to particular ftp sites amoung which nearly all of them were already overloaded potentially from Fedora users themselves . Some of them looked like personal websites and others werent really generic project pages
ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/binary/sha1sum.exe http://mirrors.rootmode.com/ftp.gnupg.org/binary/sha1sum.exe http://www.slavasoft.com/fsum/ http://www.slavasoft.com/hashcalc/
Linking to these websites from the Fedora download page would require that the project page be a generic one like sf.net. Linking to random personal webpages or commercial webprojects without getting explicit permission from them. Bandwidth costs a huge amount. That is a liability. Linking to particular mirrors is a bad idea too especially when they are overloaded since the users wont be able to reach those webpages anyway. I shooted off a mail to the developer of md5summer(.org) requesting that he add sha1sum to his project. Now if you really want the download page to point to a sha1sum utility it would be good to get some links from non-commercial websites like sf.net or freshmeat.net or which are known to work well and dependable in Windows or OS X or any platform of your choice.
Alternatively there is always google and the mailing list archives with a good number of users actively helping each other. Hope that helps
regards Rahul
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Rahul Sundaram wrote: [snip]
Linking to these websites from the Fedora download page would require that the project page be a generic one like sf.net. Linking to random personal webpages or commercial webprojects without getting explicit permission from them. Bandwidth costs a huge amount. That is a liability. Linking to particular mirrors is a bad idea too especially when they are overloaded since the users wont be able to reach those webpages anyway.
[snip]
Redhat could have just mirrored the sha1sum.exe file itself to the Fedora website. It is not huge (20 *Kbytes*) and is GPLed. Rather than trying to get other people to mirror it on Redhat's behalf. Redhat would not have even noticed the bandwith bump: The utility is smaller than the downloads page itself with its images and stylesheets.
Google!!
:)
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Benjamin Franz Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 10:37 AM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: Fedora Download Page Useless
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Rahul Sundaram wrote: [snip]
Linking to these websites from the Fedora download page would require that
the project page be a generic one like sf.net. Linking to random personal webpages or commercial webprojects without getting explicit permission
from
them. Bandwidth costs a huge amount. That is a liability. Linking to particular mirrors is a bad idea too especially when they are overloaded since the users wont be able to reach those webpages anyway.
[snip]
Redhat could have just mirrored the sha1sum.exe file itself to the Fedora website. It is not huge (20 *Kbytes*) and is GPLed. Rather than trying to get other people to mirror it on Redhat's behalf. Redhat would not have even noticed the bandwith bump: The utility is smaller than the downloads page itself with its images and stylesheets.
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Rahul Sundaram wrote: [snip]
Linking to these websites from the Fedora download page would require that the project page be a generic one like sf.net. Linking to random personal webpages or commercial webprojects without getting explicit permission from them. Bandwidth costs a huge amount. That is a liability. Linking to particular mirrors is a bad idea too especially when they are overloaded since the users wont be able to reach those webpages anyway.
[snip]
Redhat could have just mirrored the sha1sum.exe file itself to the Fedora website. It is not huge (20 *Kbytes*) and is GPLed. Rather than trying to get other people to mirror it on Redhat's behalf. Redhat would not have even noticed the bandwith bump: The utility is smaller than the downloads page itself with its images and stylesheets.
A clarification. We can consider linking to other projects to help users migrate to Fedora but noone is required to mirror such utilties on the behalf of Red Hat. If such utilities exist in a open source project page, it is the obvious answer. sha1sum.exe serves the purpose but I would prefer linking to a GUI program since it would be what is convenient and expected by Windows users. Neverthless mirroring the executable itself isnt a bad idea. I will look into that. Thanks
regards Rahul
At 8:36 AM -0700 7/3/05, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Rahul Sundaram wrote: [snip]
Linking to these websites from the Fedora download page would require that the project page be a generic one like sf.net. Linking to random personal webpages or commercial webprojects without getting explicit permission from them. Bandwidth costs a huge amount. That is a liability. Linking to particular mirrors is a bad idea too especially when they are overloaded since the users wont be able to reach those webpages anyway.
[snip]
Redhat could have just mirrored the sha1sum.exe file itself to the Fedora website. It is not huge (20 *Kbytes*) and is GPLed. Rather than trying to get other people to mirror it on Redhat's behalf. Redhat would not have even noticed the bandwith bump: The utility is smaller than the downloads page itself with its images and stylesheets.
"Me too." I hope you can do it right away if not sooner (say, on 9 June 05 ;), as leaving it out makes it hard to install FC4 from MSWindows.
Also, the links to the Release Notes and Release Notes Errata should emphasise that the Errata are the /complete/ and current Release Notes, not just some changes:
"current updated release notes, with enhancements and bug fixes for the notes in the link above." ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com ' http://www.georgeanelson.com/
At 7:26 PM +1000 7/3/05, Vytas Valas wrote:
I went to the trouble of downloading the DVD iso file for 32 bit systems. The webpage says to use a program called shalsum to check the download. There is NO PLACE AT ALL on the download page or anywhere else I can see to find the shalsum program to check the download prior to trying to burn it to a DVD disk. I doubt I am alone in feeling mislead by the RedHat people when their webpage says use a program which is NOT available.
Well, I was interested in trying Linux but if the very download page is this useless then I can only guess the rest of the online "support" must be just as bad. Why tell downloaders to use a program you don't make available for download???????
You couldn't find shalsum because it's a 1 not an L. Indeed, the release notes don't list where to get sha1sum, and they should (and use the "release notes errata" for the up-to-date release notes). Pleas submit a bug using the link in section 2 of the Release Notes.
As far as shouting, alternatives for emphasis -- without using HTML, which many of us won't see anyway -- are *bold* and /italic/. So, "There is /no place at all/ on the download page".
In your terms, you are correct about the "support". My expectations were much lower, only that the contents of the webpage would be accurate and commands listed on it would work, and they haven't quite been met either. :| So it goes. If you don't like spending lots of time fiddling around trying to do something that seems like it should be simple, and doing that hundreds of times over, then probably Linux and FC are not for you.
Searching the Fedora list archives doesn't work. Even though that has been established on this list, people will still say you should have done it -- obviously they don't take their own advice. Instead, search a mirror, such as:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fedora-list&r=1&w=2
or use a Google site search:
sha1sum site:www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list
Google doesn't index every day, wile MARC seems to be always up-to-date.
As far as sha1sum goes, well, if you had Linux already, you'd have it already. More usefully, a Google search for "sha1sum windows" turns up the Gnu version. (In this case, Copy & Paste are also your friend, what with the typo. I admit that a Google search for shalsum isn't helpful, and Google doesn't suggest any useful alternate spelling.) You should expect sha1sum to give errors for the files you don't have. If the sum for the file you do have doesn't match, you might look into using rsync to repair the download rather than starting over; you might have to poke around to find a download mirror that will let you rsync with it (and I haven't done it myself; you'll need to search the list mirror).
If you do decide to proceed with FC, note that there is a bug in mediacheck for FC3 and FC4 that will probably require the nodma option listed in the FC4 release notes; this doesn't mean that the actual install needs nodma. Also, for FC4, if the installer crashes early on, try it again entering a garbage command at first, and then the real command (it's a bug). Some video cards don't work; see list mirrors for posts on that and what file to replace as a workaround. If you need to compile programs, some won't compile yet with GCC 4, so you might need GCC 3.2:
yum install compat-gcc-32 ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com ' http://www.georgeanelson.com/