[sf-lug] (forw) Re: Meeting of November 7, 2021 and some updated iso files.
rick at linuxmafia.com
Mon Oct 25 21:46:15 PDT 2021
Quoting Bobbie Sellers:
> More than a few seconds of poking around were done but SF does not
> help with these matters as you suggest.
Well, now you know: If a project's on SF.net, then you can always just
start at the sf.net main page, search the project name, and navigate
from the project page to Files and see everything they currently offer.
> I am fully aware of the unreliability of files for which no checksums
> are available.
You're not addressing what I said, Bobbie. You were saying that, for
some "notable updates", that "the downloaded file does not match the
given checksums". A mismatch from the provided checksum is a red flag,
something rather worse than a file "for which no checksum [is]
available" -- which is an entirely diferent situation.
> Only about 1.6 decades.
That's decades. ;->
> My tools fit my level of capability to use them.
If your tools produce apparent download corruption, then your tools are
in need to some scrutiny and reconsidertaion. Especially if other
people might depend on your downloads.
> Before Linux I used the Amiga and downloads were of a much smaller
> size 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.
Popular download protocols (zmodem and others) did inline checksumming
of the file chunks as they went. (I built/owned/ran a popular San
Francisco BBS in those years.)
> 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.
Once again, https://sfbay.craigslist.org/ . Didn't we already have this
conversation when you said you needed to buy a really terrible,
very-expensive-to-run inkket printer, and I replied by posting at least a
half-dozen or more good, used B&W laser printers offered at that very
moment on https://sfbay.craigslist.org/ that cost _much_ less than what
you spent on the bad inkjet?
I'll caution that adding RAM to an existing machine (to max it out)
sometimes makes economic sense, sometimes not.
> 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.
That's (i.e., what is and is not moribund is) difficult to judge before
resumption of something like normality, I think.
The far side of the pandemic will look different in many subtle ways, I
don't doubt. I'm deferring judgement about what's likely to continue
and in what guise.
> So what are your feeling about the possibility of in person meetings
> of Linux Users Groups in the future.
Well, for one thing, I've been holding them here every month in West
Menlo Park (outdoors in my spacious back yard) since May 8th.
The in-person _portion_ of those CABAL meetings (interacting with remote
people on Jitsi Meet) has been open to all persons proving vaccination
I am pondering whether CABAL may go temporarily back to Jitsi Meet-only
during winter. Relevant data will include the "nowcast" data trends
at https://calcat.covid19.ca.gov/ -- which has remained very cheering --
and use of the https://www.microcovid.org/ modelling tool.
For indoor venues, the nature of the space is IMO also very relevant.
E.g., if BALUG were meeting at Henry's Hunan Restaurant on Natoma
Street, SOMA again, I'd be glad to attend with attendees showing proof
of vaccination, as it's an airy, uncrowded place.
(That Henry's location is currently open lunch hours only, FYI.
The Henry's at 4753 Mission in Excelsior might do for a BALUG over
dinner pending the Natoma one restarting dinner service, but I've not
scouted out the location.)
If the trend about infection continues, especially following FDA's
expected Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for ages 5-11, widely
expected the first week of November, then even breakthrough infection
for us vaccinated people in crowded indoor venues will soon cease to be
a significant threat -- in the Bay Area. That EUA has strong potential
to be a game-changer. E.g., my county's vax rate for all ages is nearly
stalled at 72.3%, which is good but not good enough to make the problem
go away quickly. However, the vax rate for _eligible_ residents (age
12+) is 90.4%. If parents respond as I expect to that EUA, then within
two months San Mateo County will have licked the problem. (Stats for
other Bay Area counties are similar.)
More information about the sf-lug