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
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
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
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
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
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
