[sf-lug] Meeting of November 7, 2021 and some updated iso files.
bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com
Mon Oct 25 20:39:05 PDT 2021
It was meant for this list and got sent to another list
as well as accidentally to Rick Moen,
which amplifies my statement that my illness is getting
the better of me. Worse and worse all the time.
Also my copy of Tb is harder to use lately and this is a real
On 10/25/21 18:43, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 10/25/21 15:46, Rick Moen wrote:
>> Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):
>>> /Redo Rescue is one for which I have found no checksums. Too bad as
>>> //sounds like a potentially useful live utility distribution./
>> SourceForge.net, these days, tries to direct your attention away from
>> the files displays and pushes you towards direct download of the latest
>> ISO _only_, but a few seconds of poking around can re-find the files
>> listing, in this case
> More than a few seconds of poking around were done but SF does not
> help with these matters as you suggest.
> When I feel up to it I may investigate. My experience with
> the previous version has cooled my enthusiasm over its possible
>> (There ya go!)
>> Disappointingly, the ISOs and their SHA256SUMs are not _signed_, so you
>> have only the word of BizX, LLC d/b/a Slashdot Media that their their
>> security is studly and that the ISO isn't a trojaned third-party fake
>> that will hax0r your network, steal your lunch, leave the toilet seat
>> up, and open a subspace channel to V'ger.
>> You should be extremely wary of unsigned ISOs, and meanwhile should
>> disclose to anyone you give ISOs to that you have done nothing to verify
>> their authenticity, only that you downloaded them intact, fake or not.
>> (Vetting checksums does _nothing_ about the authentication problem,
>> since a trojaned fake will be accompanied by a matching fake checksums
>> file. And I've explained all this to you before.)
>>> Recently we have had notable updates but some are difficult to find
>>> checksums for then i discover that the downloaded file does not match
>>> the given checksums.
>> If your download doesn't match the provided checksum, then there are
>> three possible explanations:
>> 1. The download was corrupted.
>> 2. The distro maintainer posted incorrect checksums.
>> 3. You're doing checksum verification wrong.
>> No matter which of those three applies, you should IMO distrust the
>> download completely.
> I am fully aware of the unreliability of files for which no
> checksums are
>>> /4MLinux 37.1 took me about half an hour to locate the checksums and
>>> //the download failed the checksum.
>> Maybe you should use 'wget -c' rather than clicking in a Web browser,
>> Bobbie. I mean, seriously, you've been doing this for decades, and I'll
>> wager good money you still aren't using a reasonable and reliable
>> download tool.
> Only about 1.6 decades. My tools fit my level of capability to
> use them.
> Before Linux I used the Amiga and downloads were of a much smaller
> and I think it was ftp I used then via a 2400 baud modem then eventually
> a 56 K modem. It was not until I started using Linux seriously about
> 2010 that I began to download iso files. I had to switch to a DSL
> line to
> do this efficiently. That was quite a change for me. So were checksums
> as the Amiga had none that I knew of.
>> BTW, 38.0 is out.
>> Also, I find no such thing as a version 37.1 ISO in public availability,
>> despite what their blog says about a 37.1 point release. However, it's
>> possible that installing 37.0 and then upgrading gets you to 37.1.
>>> Searching for the checksums I found//
>>> //a lot of negative comments about its performance.//
>> The complainers I saw were trying to run it version with X11 on machines
>> with ludicrously low amounts of RAM, or complaining (in 2021) about lack
>> of an IA32 version. Really, the system minimum of 128MB RAM (for liveCD
>> operation, even!) should not have been an obstacle for a long time.
> I can only agree. Over the years I have been involved with
> computing I have
> made a practice up increasing the size of my ram. Early on this was
> of course
> quite expensive but now 16 GB of 64 bit ram simms costs less than 64
> of 32 bit ram simms did for the Amiga accelerator card. However
> frequently we
> are dealing with very low income folks who find it difficult to
> allocate money
> for a backup drive and reasonable amounts of ram. Until the recent
> supply chain
> backup the money it cost was worth a lot more then than now.
> One of my early machines was a Dell 4000 Inspiron and I was only
> able to take
> the ram to 584 Megabytes while the video ram was 8 Megabytes. Still I
> to run Mandriva on it and by simply remembering that it had been made
> to run
> versions of Microsoft program launcher before XP I reduced the graphic
> and had few problems.
>>> //Sooner or later 4M version 38 will be out and maybe it will be
>> I don't believe the complaints, actually. Suspect they aren't even
>> reading the FAQ (https://4mlinux.com/faq.txt).
> Yes unwillingness to read simple directions and FAQ are a problem
> and most
> users seem to have viewed a video files on that well-known service.
> As always thank you for your input on these matters but it seems
> that I will not be attending too many more meetings or doing much
> more in this line of attempting to support what appears to be a
> moribund LUG. I will miss it but my energy flags and I have to
> take afternoon naps.
> After the last meeting in person I was very tired and needed to eat
> and take my medications by the time I got home then I went to bed.
> So what are your feeling about the possibility of in person meetings
> of Linux Users Groups in the future. I will say that while over in the
> San Joaquin valley my acquaintance Bernardo is still holding
> Commodore and Amiga meetings as well as helping to organize
> larger shows/conventions in LA or Las Vegas.
> Bobbie Sellers - going back to bed with a reasonable good book.
More information about the sf-lug