Re: Hash values of downloaded files
Marcus wrote: @Andrea: I don't know where to find this text part. Have you found it in the meantime? Ah, I see now. Brian's example of an ambiguous sentence was from your mail (where you repeated the process using your own words), not from the website. Well, at this point I think we'll have to wait for Brian to give specific suggestions on how to reword http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html then. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Hash values of downloaded files
Am 11/27/2016 04:22 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Patricia Shanahan wrote: Can you suggest an alternative wording that would be clearer? I think we could change the problematic wording reported by Brian "[c]ompare it with the value of the downloaded hash file" into "[c]ompare it with the content of the downloaded hash file" I also suspect that the fact that *.md5 files cannot be opened in a straightforward way in Windows contributes to the confusion, since the user can't immediately see that the .md5 file is just one line of text with information. @Andrea: I don't know where to find this text part. Have you found it in the meantime? Thanks Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Hash values of downloaded files
Patricia Shanahan wrote: Can you suggest an alternative wording that would be clearer? I think we could change the problematic wording reported by Brian "[c]ompare it with the value of the downloaded hash file" into "[c]ompare it with the content of the downloaded hash file" I also suspect that the fact that *.md5 files cannot be opened in a straightforward way in Windows contributes to the confusion, since the user can't immediately see that the .md5 file is just one line of text with information. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Hash values of downloaded files
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
Re: Hash values of downloaded files
Am 11/26/2016 01:22 PM, schrieb Brian Barker: At 22:44 24/11/2016 +0100, Marcus Noname wrote: Am 11/24/2016 10:25 PM, schrieb Brian Barker: I've been hearing from a intending user of OpenOffice who was repeatedly finding the hashes on his downloads did not match. He (I think he was a "he") had repeatedly downloaded form different mirrors but could not get a match. He even, he says, tried other versions and other operating systems. Clearly there was something wrong at his end. Can you guess yet? as you don't write from where he has done the downloads, this could be a source of error. Thanks for this. That was the first thing I checked, of course - and yes, he was using the official site. 1. Download OpenOffice from here [1]. Er, where? No footnote! But that's not the problem ... sorry, I wanted to add the "http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html; webpage. [your long explanation] ... or in shorter words. He has generated the hash value of the downloaded installation file *and* of the hash file (*.md5 or *.sha256 file extension) itself. And then finally compared both with each other. OK, this indeed doesn't work. Unfortunately, you missed to tell us the user's operating system and how he has generated the has value. So, I assume he is working on Windows and has used a tool. Then you can find the following paragraph on the instructions webpage "http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html#hash_win;. Point #4 says to open the hash file to get the value. For me that is pretty clear. But I'm not a native speaker, so maybe there is room for misunderstanding. Or do you mean another section of the instruction webpage? Then please tell us. PS: Please don't take it personally. However, I haven't heard ever about doing the hash comparison this way. And when I look *into* the *.md5 or *.sha256 hash file I would see that this is the value that I need to compare with the generated one. Thanks Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Hash values of downloaded files
At 22:44 24/11/2016 +0100, Marcus Noname wrote: Am 11/24/2016 10:25 PM, schrieb Brian Barker: I've been hearing from a intending user of OpenOffice who was repeatedly finding the hashes on his downloads did not match. He (I think he was a "he") had repeatedly downloaded form different mirrors but could not get a match. He even, he says, tried other versions and other operating systems. Clearly there was something wrong at his end. Can you guess yet? as you don't write from where he has done the downloads, this could be a source of error. Thanks for this. That was the first thing I checked, of course - and yes, he was using the official site. 1. Download OpenOffice from here [1]. Er, where? No footnote! But that's not the problem ... 2. Download the hash file from the same webpage ... Now you are teaching me how to do this, so let's be clear. You know what to do. I know what to do. Even the naive user now knows what to do. Originally he made a mistake, but he eventually realised what he had done. I understand the mistake and why he made it. You don't (yet) understand what he did or why the web site instructions are perhaps not clear enough to prevent this mistake by users. I'm hoping I can get you (or whoever) to understand this and perhaps improve the web site. Sorry, I don't understand what he has done. Comparing the file with itself? No, of course not. I think that the fact that you found my description (which I've re-read and I'm sure is clear) didn't lead you immediately to an appreciation of the problem only goes to show how the necessary wording can be confusing. That's my point. Incidentally, did no-one else want understand my point? Let's look at your description instead of at the web site. At point 3, you say to "generate the hash value from the downloaded OpenOffice file". At point 4, you say to "[c]ompare it with the value of the downloaded hash file". There are two tiny words there that differ between the instructions: you mean something very different by a value *from* a file and a value *of* a file. In the first case you mean a value derived from a file by processing it through a program; in the second you mean to refer to a value stored in a file. Can you see that a user might easily miss that very important distinction? 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. If there are any mistakes or room for improvements, then please tell us. I thought I had. The web page separately sets out instructions for different methods of deriving the hash value. In the couple of lines at the top, there is only one sentence explaining the purpose. There is simply no statement that the hash file already contains the *answer* that should match what is derived from the file being checked. The later use of expressions such as "both hash values do not match" and "both hash values match" gives a strong impression that we are comparing like with like. There are two hash values, we are being told, which should match. It's not surprising that a user expects to derive two hash values in the same way. It would be better not to call both values "hash values" but to distinguish between the hash value (derived form the file being checked) with the "comparison value" or "check value" or "correct result" or whatever contained in (and not derived from) the hash value file. Brian Barker - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org