On 11/26/2016 4:22 AM, Brian Barker wrote:
...
As I explained, the user quite properly derived the hash value of the
installation file. He then - understandably but wrongly - performed the
same process to derive the hash value *of* the hash file - instead of
inspecting the value provided in that file. Not surprisingly, these
values never matched, whatever version he tried or mirror source he used.
You and I will think that this misunderstanding is unlikely, but that is
because we already understand how hashes are used to confirm the
integrity of files in this way. As I mentioned, the web site - at
http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html - uses expressions
such as "If both hash values do not match" and "When both hash values
match", and the use of the word "match" is asking the users to seek
similarity. The values to be compared are not "hash values" in the same
way. It is surely not surprising that this user therefore believed hat
he was being asked to do similar things with both files? In any case,
whatever you and I think, that is what he did. I'm suggesting that we
should believe the evidence.
Can you suggest an alternative wording that would be clearer?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
