On 10/9/23 05:07, Dmitry wrote:
Hi, Brad.
The issue with a broken download link was in browser cache. It preserved
link
to previous 12.1 version in html. After force update by F5 the issue was
resolved.
P.S. It is so uncommon when robust technologies with low resource
consumption
are used
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 09:56:43PM +0700, Dima Estudiante wrote:
> > Tastes can be so different :)
>
> Looks like our tastes quite the same.
> - Plain HTML with Caching is a robust but now days rare used.
> - SPA widely used, but with high resource consumption.
Glad I'm not alone :)
Cheers
--
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 07:39:44AM -0700, Mike Castle wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 6:11 AM wrote:
>
> > Gah, no. As a user I hate those with all my guts. Page "state" is
> > distributed in some intransparent way across client and server and
> > there is no way to refer to "something" via an
> Tastes can be so different :)
Looks like our tastes quite the same.
- Plain HTML with Caching is a robust but now days rare used.
- SPA widely used, but with high resource consumption.
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 6:11 AM wrote:
> Gah, no. As a user I hate those with all my guts. Page "state" is
> distributed in some intransparent way across client and server and
> there is no way to refer to "something" via an URL.
Many modern SPAs track state via URL, so they can be referenced.
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 07:07:09PM +0700, Dmitry wrote:
[...]
> P.S. It is so uncommon when robust technologies with low resource consumption
> are used, with SinglePageApplications no need to press F5, full data set
> downloaded per each request.
Gah, no. As a user I hate those with all my
Hi, Brad.
The issue with a broken download link was in browser cache. It preserved link
to previous 12.1 version in html. After force update by F5 the issue was
resolved.
P.S. It is so uncommon when robust technologies with low resource consumption
are used, with SinglePageApplications no need
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 21:20:04 +0700
Dmitry wrote:
Hello Dmitry,
>https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-cd/debian-12.1.0-amd64-netinst.iso
Appears to have been updated/corrected. Now works, d/l'ing Debian 12.2
after recent point release.
Transitional error, I suspect - Debian
Hi!
At the main page https://www.debian.org/, the Download link with Debian
logo at the right part of the page is broken.
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-cd/debian-12.1.0-amd64-netinst.iso
Leads to "Not Found". The requested URL was not found on this serve
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 08:14:52PM +, Edwar Saliba Junior wrote:
> Hello!
> I'm looking for Debian version 11.7 on the official website, but I didn't
> find any link to download this one.
> Could you tell me the correct URL to download please?
>
You could try:
https://cdi
On 6/28/23, Edwar Saliba Junior wrote:
> Hello!
> I'm looking for Debian version 11.7 on the official website, but I didn't
> find any link to download this one.
> Could you tell me the correct URL to download please?
Hi!, I hope this two, in order, could be what you're looking for:
Hello!
I'm looking for Debian version 11.7 on the official website, but I didn't find
any link to download this one.
Could you tell me the correct URL to download please?
In advance, thank you very much!
Edwar Saliba Júnior
On Mon 12 Jun 2023 at 19:26:41 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2023-06-12 at 18:55, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 19:18:15 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> >> On 2023-06-11 at 17:36, David Wright wrote:
>
> >>> There are several sources:
> >
> > [ snipped the back and forth ]
> >
David Wright wrote:
...
> That's just plain wrong. What was added to bookworm,
> the current stable release, on Release Day was a an
> official number (12 in this instance). Please stop
> trying to sow confusion about codenames.
ok.
songbird
David Wright wrote:
> songbird wrote:
...
> I can't understand that paragraph. Too many "this", "that"
> and "it"s to know what refers to what.
haha, that's ok, just let it go.
>> release notes may not be written and some cases may
>> even be forgotten about.
>
> Which release doesn't have
> Using "stable" in your sources.list is idiotic, and you should not do
> it. Ever.
I guess I'm an idiot, then.
I find it quite convenient because it says exactly what I want: I want
those machines to run Debian stable, whichever version that "stable"
happens to be at any particular time.
On 2023-06-12 at 18:55, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 19:18:15 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2023-06-11 at 17:36, David Wright wrote:
>>> There are several sources:
>
> [ snipped the back and forth ]
>
> I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously your not being acquainted
On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 19:23:02 (-0400), songbird wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> > songbird wrote:
> ...
> >> except that is a misconception for those who are running
> >> testing. we're not upgrading to a new release.
> >
> > I don't understand. Suite testing was codenamed bookworm until today,
On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 09:46:49 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2023-06-11 at 09:34, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 09:20:41AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> >> On 2023-06-11 at 09:02, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> >>> Using "stable" in your sources.list is idiotic, and you should
>
On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 19:18:15 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2023-06-11 at 17:36, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 09:32:04 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> >> On 2023-06-11 at 09:05, David Wright wrote:
>
> >>> It would seem very simple, the first time this happens, to
> >>>
I do. You also have years of Debian
experience, and a degree in computing, I believe. Probably
a good candidate for running testing.
> can you point me to any official statement from the
> project as a whole which says that testing is released
> and there are official images for people
On Sun, 2023-06-11 at 15:24 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 2:12 AM Tixy wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
> > > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade. Also see
> > >
David Wright wrote:
> songbird wrote:
...
>> except that is a misconception for those who are running
>> testing. we're not upgrading to a new release.
>
> I don't understand. Suite testing was codenamed bookworm until today,
> and now testing is codenamed trixie. Why is that not a new release?
lse running to mess with my machine (as i do
not run auto updates).
can you point me to any official statement from the
project as a whole which says that testing is released
and there are official images for people to download?
i know of daily and weekly builds of the installer and
some i
On 2023-06-11 at 17:36, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 09:32:04 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2023-06-11 at 09:05, David Wright wrote:
>>> It would seem very simple, the first time this happens, to
>>> configure this in APT. I typed man apt-get (my preferred
>>> method),
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 10:37:45PM +0100, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 05:58:50 (-0400), songbird wrote:
> > Tixy wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > >> Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
> > >> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade. Also see
>
On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 05:58:50 (-0400), songbird wrote:
> Tixy wrote:
> > On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >> Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
> >> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade. Also see
> >> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/uptodate.html .
> >>
>
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 02:01:34PM -0400, Default User wrote:
> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade could use a tune-up, particularly
> the part about editing /etc/apt/sources.list, which IMHO could be
> worded a little more clearly.
It is a wiki, so you can do that.
If you can
On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 09:32:04 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2023-06-11 at 09:05, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 08:12:49 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> >> On 2023-06-11 at 07:50, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>
> >>> If you track "testing" (something which has been deprecated for
>
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 3:35 PM Brian wrote:
>
> On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 15:24:16 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 2:12 AM Tixy wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > > Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
> > > >
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 03:24:16PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 2:12 AM Tixy wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
> > > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade. Also see
> > >
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 2:12 AM Tixy wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
> > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade. Also see
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/uptodate.html .
> >
> > Maybe it's time for a
On Sun, 2023-06-11 at 07:11 +0100, Tixy wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
> > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade. Also see
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/uptodate.html .
> >
> > Maybe it's time for a
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 08:12:49AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>> The same thing applies to those who track 'stable' by that name. Using
>> the symbolic names for the releases, rather than the actual codenames,
>> *is semantically different* and the tools *should treat it
On 2023-06-11 at 09:34, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 09:20:41AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2023-06-11 at 09:02, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>> Using "stable" in your sources.list is idiotic, and you should
>>> not do it. Ever.
>>>
>>> This is not a "use at your own risk"
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 09:20:41AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2023-06-11 at 09:02, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 08:12:49AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> >> The same thing applies to those who track 'stable' by that name.
> >> Using the symbolic names for the
On 2023-06-11 at 09:05, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 08:12:49 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2023-06-11 at 07:50, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>>> If you track "testing" (something which has been deprecated for
>>> a while)
>>
>> What? Since when? This is the first I remember
On 2023-06-11 at 09:02, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 08:12:49AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> The same thing applies to those who track 'stable' by that name.
>> Using the symbolic names for the releases, rather than the actual
>> codenames, *is semantically different* and
On Sun 11 Jun 2023 at 08:12:49 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2023-06-11 at 07:50, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 05:58:50AM -0400, songbird wrote:
> >> Tixy wrote:
>
> >>> Or maybe the wiki page should be deleted, or just say go RTFM,
> >>> i.e. read the release notes
The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2023-06-11 at 07:50, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
...
>> If you track "testing" (something which has been deprecated for a
>> while)
>
> What? Since when? This is the first I remember having heard of this.
ditto...
> Certainly the "continuously usable testing" thing seems
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 08:12:49AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> The same thing applies to those who track 'stable' by that name. Using
> the symbolic names for the releases, rather than the actual codenames,
> *is semantically different* and the tools *should treat it differently*.
Using "stable"
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 06:52:59PM -0400, songbird wrote:
> > > =
> > > # apt-get update
> > [...]
> > > Reading package lists... Done
> > > E: Repository 'http://deb.debian.org/debian-debug testing-debug
> > > InRelease' changed its 'Codename' value from 'bookworm-debug' to
> > >
On 2023-06-11 at 07:50, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 05:58:50AM -0400, songbird wrote:
>
>> Tixy wrote:
>>> Or maybe the wiki page should be deleted, or just say go RTFM,
>>> i.e. read the release notes for the release you want to upgrade
>>> to.
>>
>> except that is a
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 05:58:50AM -0400, songbird wrote:
> Tixy wrote:
> > On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >> Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
> >> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade. Also see
> >> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/uptodate.html .
> >>
Tixy wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
>> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade. Also see
>> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/uptodate.html .
>>
>> Maybe it's time for a complete refresh of those documents.
>
> Or
Jeffrey Walton writes:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 2:12 AM Tixy wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> > Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
>> > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade. Also see
>> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/uptodate.html .
>>
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 2:12 AM Tixy wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
> > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade. Also see
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/uptodate.html .
> >
> > Maybe it's time for a
On Sat, 2023-06-10 at 23:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Debian's wiki says to use apt-get:
> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade. Also see
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/uptodate.html .
>
> Maybe it's time for a complete refresh of those documents.
Or maybe the wiki page
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 8:13 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 06:52:59PM -0400, songbird wrote:
> > =
> > # apt-get update
> [...]
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > E: Repository 'http://deb.debian.org/debian-debug testing-debug InRelease'
> > changed its 'Codename'
On Sat, 10 Jun 2023, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 06:52:59PM -0400, songbird wrote:
=
# apt-get update
[...]
Reading package lists... Done
E: Repository 'http://deb.debian.org/debian-debug testing-debug InRelease'
changed its 'Codename' value from 'bookworm-debug' to
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 06:52:59PM -0400, songbird wrote:
>> =
>> # apt-get update
> [...]
>> Reading package lists... Done
>> E: Repository 'http://deb.debian.org/debian-debug testing-debug InRelease'
>> changed its 'Codename' value from 'bookworm-debug' to
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 06:52:59PM -0400, songbird wrote:
> =
> # apt-get update
[...]
> Reading package lists... Done
> E: Repository 'http://deb.debian.org/debian-debug testing-debug InRelease'
> changed its 'Codename' value from 'bookworm-debug' to 'trixie-debug'
> N: This must be accepted
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 06:52:59PM -0400, songbird wrote:
> David Christensen wrote:
> > debian-user:
> >
> > $ date
> > Sat Jun 10 14:50:40 PDT 2023
> >
> >
> > The "Download" link on the Debian home page is currently brok
David Christensen wrote:
> debian-user:
>
> $ date
> Sat Jun 10 14:50:40 PDT 2023
>
>
> The "Download" link on the Debian home page is currently broken:
>
> https://www.debian.org/
>
> -> Download
...
there are also other artifacts happe
Peter Ehlert wrote:
...
> have a little patience
> https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=773925#p773925
:) i have that. :) thanks for the link...
songbird
On 6/10/23 14:51, David Christensen wrote:
debian-user:
$ date
Sat Jun 10 14:50:40 PDT 2023
The "Download" link on the Debian home page is currently broken:
https://www.debian.org/
-> Download
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-cd/debian-11.7.0-amd6
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 02:51:00PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> debian-user:
>
> $ date
> Sat Jun 10 14:50:40 PDT 2023
>
>
> The "Download" link on the Debian home page is currently broken:
>
> https://www.debian.org/
>
> -> Download
>
debian-user:
$ date
Sat Jun 10 14:50:40 PDT 2023
The "Download" link on the Debian home page is currently broken:
https://www.debian.org/
-> Download
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-cd/debian-11.7.0-amd64-netinst.iso
404 Not Found
Not Found
The
On 15.05.2023 15:19, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2023-05-15 10:25:45 +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
I see. That explains why I can request source package
"golang-github-xenolf-lego/testing" directly and get the right one.
So, in my case, I won't be able to reliably get a source package(-s)
On 2023-05-15 10:25:45 +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
> On 15.05.2023 05:43, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > But my point is that your database is obsolete, because if you ask
> > the version from testing, apt thinks that it is 3.2.0-3.1, while it
> > should be 4.9.1-1. You need to fix that.
>
On 15.05.2023 05:43, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2023-05-14 14:17:05 +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
[...]
I think you haven't noticed that I requested for "4.9.1-1" version from
"testing" specifically,
You can't. You can either request some given version, e.g. 4.9.1-1
(but this will work
On 2023-05-14 14:17:05 +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
> On 14.05.2023 10:06, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2023-05-14 00:15:39 +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
> > > Hello, fellow Debian users.
> > >
> > > When I need to build a backport of a package, I sometimes find it
> > >
On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 02:17:05PM +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
> hence why the command was "$ apt source lego/testing" not just "$ apt source
> lego".
> There is no reason for building a backport package for "stable" using a
> source package from "stable"...
If you're trying to build a
On 14.05.2023 10:06, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2023-05-14 00:15:39 +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
Hello, fellow Debian users.
When I need to build a backport of a package, I sometimes find it difficult
to obtain actual source package(-s) from Debian repos using console.
Following advice
On 2023-05-14 00:15:39 +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
> Hello, fellow Debian users.
>
> When I need to build a backport of a package, I sometimes find it difficult
> to obtain actual source package(-s) from Debian repos using console.
> Following advice from a wiki page [1], after "apt
once and for all?
I know I can go to a packages website [2] and manually download ".dsc"
file and feed it to "dget" utility, or download source files directly
from said website, but there has to be a better way.
Some useful info:
$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list | grep -iE &q
ote:
> Debian.org/download does not work. Not a single link works. All it says is
> “unable to connect”. I get this issue on every browser I use
Do you have http testing tools like curl by your hands? It would be useful to
take a look at what they say.
Is Debian.org/download ok on your en
Works for me too here in Sweden with Telia as an ISP
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:42 AM Corentin Bardet
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Debian.org/download does not work. Not a single link works. All it says
> is “unable to connect”. I get this issue on every browser I use
>
> Debian do
Hi,
> Debian.org/download does not work. Not a single link works. All it says is
> “unable to connect”. I get this issue on every browser I use
Debian download page does work here from France.
Kevin Price , le 12 sept 2022 :
> Your IPv4 address 17.58.6.50 is allocated to Apple Inc.
Am 12.09.22 um 01:09 schrieb Tom Zarcone:
> Debian.org/download does not work. Not a single link works.
So double-check https://www.debian.org/download again.
All it says is “unable to connect”. I get this issue on every browser I use
Do you happen to be in a country whose government restri
On 2022-09-11 at 19:09, Tom Zarcone wrote:
> Debian.org/download does not work. Not a single link works. All it
> says is “unable to connect”. I get this issue on every browser I use
Works flawlessly for me, with all of Firefox, w3m, and wget.
(https://debian.org/download redirects to
Debian.org/download does not work. Not a single link works. All it says is
“unable to connect”. I get this issue on every browser I use
On Ma, 18 ian 22, 11:35:04, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> Looking at that example, I note that it starts with the variable name
> "currentDirHandle". I think it's intended, although not explicitly
> stated, that the directory path specified in that function call is
> *relative*; that would let the API
On 2022-01-18, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
>
> The problem is that a user would normally only expect a browser to
> save a file to the file-system in two cases:
>
> (a) when the user has explcicitly chosen to download something, and
>then chooses where to put it
>
> (b) when
On 2022-01-18 11:23:14 -0500, songbird wrote:
> Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
> > songbird wrote:
> ...
> >> but what i do is set where files are saved in a
> >> specific directory and leave it at that
> >
> > That works fine while you can be sure that a browser is only
> > saving downloaded files. What
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022, at 16:35, The Wanderer wrote:
> So this could potentially be dangerous if the user chooses a directory
> location that's high enough in the directory tree to have important
> files already underneath it, but not if the user chooses e.g. a
> dedicated Downloads directory.
I'd
ram that is doing the accessing
> > just like any other program you run.
>
> The problem is that a user would normally only expect a browser to
> save a file to the file-system in two cases:
>
> (a) when the user has explcicitly chosen to download something, and
>then choose
Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
> songbird wrote:
...
>> but what i do is set where files are saved in a
>> specific directory and leave it at that
>
> That works fine while you can be sure that a browser is only
> saving downloaded files. What about when if can do anything
> it likes to any file/folder?
On 2022-01-17 at 15:55, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022, at 05:19, songbird wrote:
>
>> you are right, but i just wanted to say that for some sites the
>> behavior is to generate a unique file name if they find one that
>> already exists with the same name and for other sites it is
s exist? I don't like the
>> sound of that.
>
> you are running the webpage on your browser so it is your
> own computer and your own program that is doing the accessing
> just like any other program you run.
The problem is that a user would normally only expect a browser to
sa
Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022, at 05:19, songbird wrote:
>
>> you are right, but i just wanted to say that for some sites
>> the behavior is to generate a unique file name if they find
>> one that already exists with the same name and for other sites
>> it is not. i think this is
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022, at 05:19, songbird wrote:
> you are right, but i just wanted to say that for some sites
> the behavior is to generate a unique file name if they find
> one that already exists with the same name and for other sites
> it is not. i think this is dependent upon the website
Kamil Jońca wrote:
> songbird writes:
>
>> Kamil Jońca wrote:
>>>
>>> Recently I recognized strange behaviour during pdf download with
>>> firefox.
>>> 1. When I enter target name with colon - this colon is replaced with
>>> space.
>>
Greg Wooledge writes:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 05:47:13PM +0100, Kamil Jońca wrote:
>> Recently I recognized strange behaviour during pdf download with
>> firefox.
>> 1. When I enter target name with colon - this colon is replaced with
>> space.
>
> Probab
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 05:47:13PM +0100, Kamil Jońca wrote:
> Recently I recognized strange behaviour during pdf download with
> firefox.
> 1. When I enter target name with colon - this colon is replaced with
> space.
Probably because colons are not allowed in filenames on Microso
songbird writes:
> Kamil Jońca wrote:
>>
>> Recently I recognized strange behaviour during pdf download with
>> firefox.
>> 1. When I enter target name with colon - this colon is replaced with
>> space.
>
> no idea because i usually replace
Kamil Jońca wrote:
>
> Recently I recognized strange behaviour during pdf download with
> firefox.
> 1. When I enter target name with colon - this colon is replaced with
> space.
no idea because i usually replace any strange characters
in file names with underlines before savi
Recently I recognized strange behaviour during pdf download with
firefox.
1. When I enter target name with colon - this colon is replaced with
space.
2. When target file exists - firefox does not ask to replace it but
create file with number.
(for example: I have already file.pdf, then firefox
Thank Keith and David!
Sorry, i've not been able to receive replies from both of you on time
because of mail service problem
Thank Dan and Stefan!
file system is ext3, it has no 2G limit IMO
i've installed curl, it doesn't have such bug
On Wed 01 Dec 2021 at 20:26:19 (-0500), lou wrote:
> http://ftp.sunet.se/cdimage/archive/10.11.0-live/i386/iso-hybrid/
>
> i use wget to download, length is 2G though ftp.sunet.se shows 2.6G
>
> ftp.funet.fi has same problem, live gnome image is more than 2G, i
> can't get it w
lou wrote:
> http://ftp.sunet.se/cdimage/archive/10.11.0-live/i386/iso-hybrid/
>
> i use wget to download, length is 2G though ftp.sunet.se shows 2.6G
>
> ftp.funet.fi has same problem, live gnome image is more than 2G, i can't get
> it with wget
>
> http://ftp.fu
On 2/12/21 12:26, lou wrote:
http://ftp.sunet.se/cdimage/archive/10.11.0-live/i386/iso-hybrid/
i use wget to download, length is 2G though ftp.sunet.se shows 2.6G
ftp.funet.fi has same problem, live gnome image is more than 2G, i can't
get it with wget
http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/Linux/mirrors
http://ftp.sunet.se/cdimage/archive/10.11.0-live/i386/iso-hybrid/
i use wget to download, length is 2G though ftp.sunet.se shows 2.6G
ftp.funet.fi has same problem, live gnome image is more than 2G, i can't
get it with wget
http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/Linux/mirrors/debian-cdimage/current-live
ISO images it is the only download opportunity.
Be it 18 DVD sized images
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-dvd/
or 4 BD sized images (25 GB)
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-bd/
or 2 BD DL sized images (50 GB)
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian
On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 11:23:46AM -0400, Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
There was one download manager that sold itself because it focused on
being able to continue on without having to restart the download.
Whatever that one in-browser manager was, that was my HERO for a
number of years... until I
I forget if it was 28 or 33 kbps)
> and
> felt it was now reasonable to download an entire CD, doing it in 6 or 7
> nights
> (stopping it every morning to use the Internet for other stuff, restarting
> it
> every night.)
>
> (Wait, hopefully, that wasn't me that did that,
onable to download an entire CD, doing it in 6 or 7 nights
(stopping it every morning to use the Internet for other stuff, restarting it
every night.)
(Wait, hopefully, that wasn't me that did that, maybe it was my grandfather
;-)
On 29/8/21 5:50 μ.μ., Thomas Schmitt wrote:
But because i dislike their stop-me-if-you-can download, i rather did
wgethttps://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/mx/iso/MX/Final/MX-19.4_x64.iso
and got as SHA256
469f63c7170e20cfe4c1e8996f6e2acf56509c068c08322aaed3ec3a6c9e254f
It's a nice isohybrid
Hi,
ellanios82 wrote:
> > - bewildered, have been trying to download :
> > MX-19.4_July_x64.iso
> > from
> > <https://sourceforge.net/projects/mx-linux/files/latest/download>
> > however, the > 469f63c7170e20cfe4c1e8996
1 - 100 of 2591 matches
Mail list logo
