where are the checksums for the iso images

[Guest a23d56]

I downloaded the server 2003 trial iso images. But how am I supposed to

verify them, I don't see any checksums on the web download page. In the

linux world, we like to know what we got.

[Guest Mathieu CHATEAU]

Re: where are the checksums for the iso images

 

Hello,

 

i can' find checksum on their site. Looks like you will have to believe your

CD burning software ;)

 

--

Cordialement,

Mathieu CHATEAU

English blog: http://lordoftheping.blogspot.com

French blog: http://www.lotp.fr

 

 

"a23d56" <a23d56@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:82E64BCF-7153-4614-BBAB-51943D830F66@microsoft.com...

>I downloaded the server 2003 trial iso images. But how am I supposed to

> verify them, I don't see any checksums on the web download page. In the

> linux world, we like to know what we got.

>

>

[Guest John Kelly]

Re: where are the checksums for the iso images

 

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:11:13 +0200, "Mathieu CHATEAU"

<gollum123@free.fr> wrote:

>i can' find checksum on their site. Looks like you will have to believe your

>CD burning software ;)

 

That's not the point.

 

I want to verify my downloaded image *before* burning it to CD, and I

need a published checksum for comparison. That is normal procedure in

the linux world.

 

Must I have faith, and merely hope I had no errors in my download? Is

that standard procedure in the MS world?

 

 

--

Internet service

http://www.isp2dial.com/

[Guest DevilsPGD]

Re: where are the checksums for the iso images

 

In message <upvng31eqlho48jmhki92q64gj6ec9qq8q@4ax.com> John Kelly

<jak@isp2dial.com> wrote:

>Must I have faith, and merely hope I had no errors in my download? Is

>that standard procedure in the MS world?

 

In short, yes. When was the last time you actually saw a corrupted

download?

 

--

You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.

[Guest John Kelly]

Re: where are the checksums for the iso images

 

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:49:44 -0600, DevilsPGD

<spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

>>Must I have faith, and merely hope I had no errors in my download? Is

>>that standard procedure in the MS world?

>In short, yes.

 

That's pathetic.

 

>When was the last time you actually saw a corrupted download?

 

If it seems inconceivable to you, then we have nothing further to

discuss.

 

 

--

Internet service

http://www.isp2dial.com/

[Guest DevilsPGD]

Re: where are the checksums for the iso images

 

In message <hm1og316jcdn39vpjrbpcgmvk8ejonti49@4ax.com> John Kelly

<jak@isp2dial.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:49:44 -0600, DevilsPGD

><spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

>

>>>Must I have faith, and merely hope I had no errors in my download? Is

>>>that standard procedure in the MS world?

>

>>In short, yes.

>

>That's pathetic.

 

Perhaps if Linux has trouble downloading files reliably, you need to

check checksums to make really really sure you got the file.

>>When was the last time you actually saw a corrupted download?

>

>If it seems inconceivable to you, then we have nothing further to

>discuss.

 

And yet, you didn't answer the question. I download a couple hundred GB

per month, much of it for work. Virtually all of it has checksums as

part of the process (RAR files, mostly)

 

I can specifically recall the only time I've ever had issues, and I

eventually tracked it down to bad RAM.

 

TCP already checks that no bytes are corrupted by using a checksum, so

at least to me, comparing against another hash at the end seems somewhat

redundant IF you trust your mirrors.

 

Obviously if you're accepting third party donations of webspace, it's

far more critical to verify the file you got is the one you wanted.

 

--

You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.

[Guest Ryan Hanisco]

Re: where are the checksums for the ISO images

 

Re: where are the checksums for the ISO images

 

Everyone calm down...

 

I can understand wanting to check the files for correctness in the download,

but more importantly that they haven't been hijacked or infected in any way

before unleashing them on your network. Of course, there is something to be

said about segmenting trial software from your production networks too.

 

This isn't an issue of Linux using public space or not being secure, but

more one of wanting to be sure you have what you expect -- especially

important in an open source world where things are rapidly evolving and sent

to release.

 

You are right that I am not finding them on the server 2003 R2 trial, but

they are there for the Virtual server images as well as demo software. I ma

thinking the 2003 ISO may be the exception rather than the rule.

--

Ryan Hanisco

MCSE, MCTS: SQL 2005, Project+

http://www.techsterity.com

Chicago, IL

 

Remember: Marking helpful answers helps everyone find the info they need

quickly.

 

 

"DevilsPGD" wrote:

> In message <hm1og316jcdn39vpjrbpcgmvk8ejonti49@4ax.com> John Kelly

> <jak@isp2dial.com> wrote:

>

> >On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:49:44 -0600, DevilsPGD

> ><spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> >

> >>>Must I have faith, and merely hope I had no errors in my download? Is

> >>>that standard procedure in the MS world?

> >

> >>In short, yes.

> >

> >That's pathetic.

>

> Perhaps if Linux has trouble downloading files reliably, you need to

> check checksums to make really really sure you got the file.

>

> >>When was the last time you actually saw a corrupted download?

> >

> >If it seems inconceivable to you, then we have nothing further to

> >discuss.

>

> And yet, you didn't answer the question. I download a couple hundred GB

> per month, much of it for work. Virtually all of it has checksums as

> part of the process (RAR files, mostly)

>

> I can specifically recall the only time I've ever had issues, and I

> eventually tracked it down to bad RAM.

>

> TCP already checks that no bytes are corrupted by using a checksum, so

> at least to me, comparing against another hash at the end seems somewhat

> redundant IF you trust your mirrors.

>

> Obviously if you're accepting third party donations of webspace, it's

> far more critical to verify the file you got is the one you wanted.

>

> --

> You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.

>