Install package checksums
Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team
-
JimboPalmer
- Posts: 2573
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:12 am
- Location: Greenwood MS USA
Re: Install package checksums
You keep talking about a development team. It is a team of one. You wish to engage him in chit chat, but he is busy coding.
Tsar of all the Rushers
I tried to remain childlike, all I achieved was childish.
A friend to those who want no friends
I tried to remain childlike, all I achieved was childish.
A friend to those who want no friends
Re: Install package checksums
Foldingforum.org is a support forum run by volunteers. We encourage people with difficulties running FAH software to ask questions and other volunteers to answer them. How about answering your own question to help others who may have the same question.
In this topic, you're asking for checksums for the .deb installation packages. I suggest you download all three of the installation packages and report the checksums that you obtain. Publish them here. Of course they'll be unofficial but anybody else can compare their checksums with yours and if there's a discrepancy, at least the difference can be reported. (See https://foldingathome.org/alternative-downloads/)
Someday, if an updated client is developed, there will be updates to those packages. When that happens, you can be responsible for updating the information you published in this topic.
In this topic, you're asking for checksums for the .deb installation packages. I suggest you download all three of the installation packages and report the checksums that you obtain. Publish them here. Of course they'll be unofficial but anybody else can compare their checksums with yours and if there's a discrepancy, at least the difference can be reported. (See https://foldingathome.org/alternative-downloads/)
Someday, if an updated client is developed, there will be updates to those packages. When that happens, you can be responsible for updating the information you published in this topic.
Re: Install package checksums
@JimboPalmer - It would appear that you are the developer's manager. It is not my intention to distract the developer from the work that you've assigned him/her.
@bruce - You've added no value to this conversation. Your solution of the user verifying the checksums through multiple downloads is nonsense. If I had needed clarification of MeeLee's previous comment, which is the same as yours, I would have requested it. Instead, I requested a response solely from the someone that is directly associated with the project (due to the fact that other users on this forum were unable to adequately provide a solution), e,g, a person on the development team (which now I understand is just one person), or a member of the Pande Group. I don't believe that is you, or @JimboPalmer, so it is unclear why you continue to respond except to harass.
@gbowman - Until the development process follows standard up-to-date security practices, this project will not be one that I will be participating in. It is unfortunate, because I do believe that the Pande Group's cause is a worthwhile one. However, the discussion on this post raises serious security concerns not just about the client itself but also about the workloads that are running on users machines.
@bruce - You've added no value to this conversation. Your solution of the user verifying the checksums through multiple downloads is nonsense. If I had needed clarification of MeeLee's previous comment, which is the same as yours, I would have requested it. Instead, I requested a response solely from the someone that is directly associated with the project (due to the fact that other users on this forum were unable to adequately provide a solution), e,g, a person on the development team (which now I understand is just one person), or a member of the Pande Group. I don't believe that is you, or @JimboPalmer, so it is unclear why you continue to respond except to harass.
@gbowman - Until the development process follows standard up-to-date security practices, this project will not be one that I will be participating in. It is unfortunate, because I do believe that the Pande Group's cause is a worthwhile one. However, the discussion on this post raises serious security concerns not just about the client itself but also about the workloads that are running on users machines.
Re: Install package checksums
I was asking YOU to find a way to be helpful. You're always welcome to help solve a problem but you are not welcome to keep making demands and arguing about things that you've been told are not likely to change. You're choosing to be unhelpful.
Your threat to quit FAH won't convince anyone to do things your way, either. Everyone needs to decide if FAH is something they're interested in doing or not. FAH will continue to strive for better/faster scientific results and each FAHCore is carefully checked when it's updated.
I'm closing this topic. At this point, it's not helpful for anyone seeking support.
Your threat to quit FAH won't convince anyone to do things your way, either. Everyone needs to decide if FAH is something they're interested in doing or not. FAH will continue to strive for better/faster scientific results and each FAHCore is carefully checked when it's updated.
I'm closing this topic. At this point, it's not helpful for anyone seeking support.
Posting FAH's log:
How to provide enough info to get helpful support.
How to provide enough info to get helpful support.