Hello, I know Fedora try to be more user friendly, and the website design that points to the various download options reflects that. But I think one signficant thing is missing: the CHECKSUM file is not easily accesible. How can a novice user know how to check that his/her download is correct and not corrupted ?
Following the link to get fedora from the main page, I ended on this page: http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-options#formats Since I want to get the full DVD install, I follow the link to: http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/14/Fedora/x86_64... x86_64-DVD.iso
That goes to a page that tells me that the download would start shortly (and it did), but no information about how to check the correctness of the downloaded file.
There's this box that says: "What should I do with this ISO file?" and a link to instruction. The second page on the instruction ask to "Verify the download", but again, no link to point to the CHECKSUM, or how to even verify the download.
Sure, I can figure out just fine that I can browse the download directory manually, get the CHECKSUM, and verify it with 'sha256sum' utility. But how about Aunt Tillie ? How about people who uses Windows to download and may not have the utility handy ? should there be at least a link to the CHECKSUM file, or even just display the hash there on the download page, and a quick instruction on how to check the download ?
Thanks -- AC
On 01/18/2011 05:39 PM, Armelius Cameron wrote:
Hello, I know Fedora try to be more user friendly, and the website design that points to the various download options reflects that. But I think one signficant thing is missing: the CHECKSUM file is not easily accesible. How can a novice user know how to check that his/her download is correct and not corrupted ?
this should really be addresses to web page designers.
they have gone thru web pages and *prettified* them with little concern to what they contain, other than what makes them sparkle.
by adding more links in pages, they get more pages to *prettify*. they care little about convince.
<snip>
But how about Aunt Tillie ? How about people who uses Windows
<snip>
until some people get there heads out of their butts and put what is needed on pages and cut out all the links, 'aunt tillie' can use a torrent download, which is self checking.
and yes, 'aunt tillie' can get torrent downloader for msbsos.
On 01/18/2011 11:31 PM, g wrote:
until some people get there heads out of their butts and put what is needed on pages and cut out all the links, 'aunt tillie' can use a torrent download, which is self checking.
and yes, 'aunt tillie' can get torrent downloader for msbsos.
Grotesque language isn't necessary or helpful. If you have suggestions on improvements, drop a mail to webmaster AT fedoraproject.org.
Rahul
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 18:01 +0000, g wrote:
torrent download, which is self checking.
Only against changes to the content of the file being downloaded (that what you started to download, is the same as what the uploader provided).
You need to *separately* check the file against another source, to be sure that you've downloaded a copy of the original, not something that's been tampered with.
I don't download ISOs and install very often. So every time I do this, I have to look up instructions, and hunt around for them and the right checksum file. I agree with the original poster that, from time to time, the website does suck.
I've seen the website being well written, then later changes have made it hideous to use. It keeps on changing. The website authors seem more interested in how it looks, rather than what it says.
On 01/19/2011 05:59 AM, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 18:01 +0000, g wrote:
torrent download, which is self checking.
Only against changes to the content of the file being downloaded (that what> you started to download, is the same as what the uploader provided).
You need to *separately* check the file against another source, to be sure that you've downloaded a copy of the original, not something that's been tampered with.
thank you for clarification. my misunderstanding was from what i had read on this list in past year or so.
I don't download ISOs and install very often.
i have had that same good fortune. up to now anyway, with upgrading from fc8 thru to f12.
i missed updating f12 and eol hit before i could update.
i decided to skip f13 and when i looked for f14 and checksum files, they were no where to be found. tho i am sure they are around somewhere.
So every time I do this, I have to look up instructions, and hunt around for them and the right checksum file.
it would be nice if fedora site was setup so that everything, releases, iso files, software packages, new and archives, where accessible via a better, single, ftp layout. but then, it is difficult to *prettify* an ftp page, so why should they spend the time.
"http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/" is pretty much 'straight forward'. so why can same not be done for *new*?
even better, set up an "ftp://fedoraproject.org/pub/"
I agree with the original poster that, from time to time, the website does suck.
from wrong end too.
I've seen the website being well written, then later changes have made it hideous to use. It keeps on changing. The website authors seem more interested in how it looks, rather than what it says.
i agree 100%. changes to site pages are worse than kde changes. :)
they do not understand that there is no "for" in "kiss".
Tim:
So every time I do this, I have to look up instructions, and hunt around for them and the right checksum file.
g:
it would be nice if fedora site was setup so that everything, releases, iso files, software packages, new and archives, where accessible via a better, single, ftp layout. but then, it is difficult to *prettify* an ftp page, so why should they spend the time.
"http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/" is pretty much 'straight forward'. so why can same not be done for *new*?
even better, set up an "ftp://fedoraproject.org/pub/"
As much as I dislike absolute step-by-step instructions, particularly as they (usually) leave you in the lurch when you can't do one of the steps, it's not that hard to make a page that says:
1. Download the files. Here are some sources: <link to download page, with list of mirrors, a seeding link for a torrent, etc.>
2. Check your download is correct. Here are some instructions for checking on Linux or Windows or Mac, and the checksums you use to check the file with <link>.
NB: I think the checksum should probably only be on the main site, so no checksums are around for supporting hacked downloads. It also provides a good metric for how many people do check the file.
3. Burn your ISO to disc, here are some instructions for different burning software <link>. Or, here are some instructions to leave the ISO on a disc you can access in some way, and boot up and install from a hard disc <link>. Or, here are some instructions for installing over a network <link>. And here is a page going into more details about the different ways you can install <link>.
4. Once installed, there's a few things you should probably configure, straight away, here's a set of brief start up instructions that explain the post-install steps <link>.
5. If you're a newcomer, you might want to read the starter's guide to using Fedora <link>.
--------------------------------
Now, some of that stuff changes from release to release, so you'd had links to pages within that release's notes (checksums, specific instructions, etc.). Other things don't, so you'd have generic notes about, how to download large files from websites, how to burn the ISO on Windows software, outside of the release-specific parts of the website, for example.
A decent webmaster can write that up wrapped in appropriate HTML sections so they can apply CSS to it, and re-style it every time they want to follow the latest fad, without having to re-write all the content. i.e. They can pretty it up, without lousing up the instructions that people need to see.
Or, the alternative of making the pages up from a database. So that pages insert <basic install instructions> or <explicit install instructions> depending on the page needs. Which, also, makes it easier to have various different types of instruction pages, that all show exactly the same instructions. No confusion, no errors on one page that don't appear on another...
I've seen it come and go, over time. But there really needs to be a one-page place to start the ball rolling, and it needs to be easy to find (both from the homepage, and by search engines *). You can link to pages with more information, for those who need more information. But for those that just need reminding of the order of steps, the first page might well do. Likewise, "further information" pages can have a 5 point quick outline of what to do at the top, and an in-depth coverage of all those steps, below, for the same reason (some people just need a prompt, others need full instructions).
* Most people find pages via search engines. And that usually means straight into a page within the site, not the homepage. That only works well when the site is authored well. But can fail terribly when a site has multiple similar pages, in some way, but where only one of them is really suitable. When building a site where you keep old pages, you need to author them, right from the start, with prominent version numbers, dates, and links to the current version. Links that continue to work when the "current version" changes.
e.g. On all pages, the current install guide link would always be "/install-guide", whereas links between archived old pages are "install-guide" (within the tree, not from the root).
On 01/19/2011 11:02 PM, Tim wrote: <snip>
As much as I dislike absolute step-by-step instructions, particularly as they (usually) leave you in the lurch when you can't do one of the steps, it's not that hard to make a page that says:
<snip>
*well said*.
now, if they will only *do it*.
g wrote:
they do not understand that there is no "for" in "kiss".
It's late here, so pardon my terseness, but in the spirit of free software, patches are welcome. Or, as the websites team says:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/ShowUs
On 01/20/2011 04:24 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
g wrote:
they do not understand that there is no "for" in "kiss".
It's late here, so pardon my terseness, but in the spirit of free software, patches are welcome. Or, as the websites team says:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/ShowUs
i _do_not_claim_ to be a web page designer.
Tim, "ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au", posted a reasonable theme for page layout.
why not follow it or consider adopting general layout?
in comparing old pages, that work well, to what your group has now put up, it appears that more time was spent on "prettifying" than was spent on making pages concentrated and supplying all of what is actually needed.
i do not deny that design team has spent a lot of time in putting together what they have. yet, it is wasted time when someone, especially someone new to fedora, has to jump thru 3, 4, or even 5 pages looking for what they need and still not find it.
this is not to say that design team has not put forth a good effort to accomplish what you have. but what is advantage, or gain to it if what is needed is not presented.
page;
http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-all
is very well laid out and easy to follow. 'alternative downloads' is great, but there needs be a link to a 'pub' like;
http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/
is, that links to *all* of what is new.
http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/ is a good. but, putting what is new under;
http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/
is very misleading. "alt" and "fedora-secondary" do not tend to indicate finding releases 9 thru 14.
just as;
http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/
is misleading.
from;
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/archive
/quote
Noun
archive (plural archives)
1. A place for storing earlier, and often historical, material. An archive usually contains documents (letters, records, newspapers, etc.) or other types of media kept for historical interest. 2. The material so kept, considered as a whole (compare archives).
/etouq
On 01/20/2011 11:16 AM, g wrote:
On 01/20/2011 04:24 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
g wrote:
they do not understand that there is no "for" in "kiss".
It's late here, so pardon my terseness, but in the spirit of free software, patches are welcome. Or, as the websites team says:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/ShowUsi _do_not_claim_ to be a web page designer.
You do not need to be, You can forward instructions and suggestions to webmaster AT fedoraproject.org
Rahul
Armelius Cameron wrote:
There's this box that says: "What should I do with this ISO file?" and a link to instruction. The second page on the instruction ask to "Verify the download", but again, no link to point to the CHECKSUM, or how to even verify the download.
There are links to the CHECKSUM files and instructions (suitable for Aunt Tillie even) on the "Verify the download" page, which you noted but perhaps did not check out?
Sure, I can figure out just fine that I can browse the download directory manually, get the CHECKSUM, and verify it with 'sha256sum' utility. But how about Aunt Tillie ? How about people who uses Windows to download and may not have the utility handy ? should there be at least a link to the CHECKSUM file, or even just display the hash there on the download page, and a quick instruction on how to check the download ?
The verify page also has a link for windows users.
Hi Armelius,
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 12:39 -0500, Armelius Cameron wrote:
Hello, I know Fedora try to be more user friendly, and the website design that points to the various download options reflects that. But I think one signficant thing is missing: the CHECKSUM file is not easily accesible. How can a novice user know how to check that his/her download is correct and not corrupted ?
From talking to numerous novice users in the design of the site I'm not
convinced that a checksum file is something that novice users are aware of or much concerned about. The main download link points directly to Fedora's main server, not a mirror, so they'd be downloading the checksum from the same source as the payload anyway. When you burn the iso to media it has a built-in media check as well which would protect against corruption (although in observing user installs, I've found a lot of folks simply skip that as well.)
Following the link to get fedora from the main page, I ended on this page: http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-options#formats Since I want to get the full DVD install, I follow the link to: http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/14/Fedora/x86_64... x86_64-DVD.iso
That goes to a page that tells me that the download would start shortly (and it did), but no information about how to check the correctness of the downloaded file.
There's this box that says: "What should I do with this ISO file?" and a link to instruction. The second page on the instruction ask to "Verify the download", but again, no link to point to the CHECKSUM, or how to even verify the download.
There is a link to 'Verify download' on every one of the download pages in the right-hand column. That being said, it doesn't appear on the post-download splash and we would be happy to consider adding a link to the verify page (https://fedoraproject.org/en/verify ).
Sure, I can figure out just fine that I can browse the download directory manually, get the CHECKSUM, and verify it with 'sha256sum' utility. But how about Aunt Tillie ? How about people who uses Windows to download and may not have the utility handy ? should there be at least a link to the CHECKSUM file, or even just display the hash there on the download page, and a quick instruction on how to check the download ?
I need to point out that I'm not happy about women being used as examples of novice users. Again though, 'Uncle Bob' likely doesn't know or care about checksums.
~m
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 11:22 -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
There is a link to 'Verify download' on every one of the download pages in the right-hand column. That being said, it doesn't appear on the post-download splash and we would be happy to consider adding a link to the verify page (https://fedoraproject.org/en/verify ).
Proposal -
Mockup: http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/webdesign/fedoraproject.org/verify/verify.png
HTML/CSS: http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/webdesign/fedoraproject.org/verify/css-html.tx...
What do you think, Armelius?
~m
Proposal -
Mockup: http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/webdesign/fedoraproject.org/verify/verify.png
Shouldn't the teddy bears be penguins? :-).
On a more serious note: A lot of people (me for sure) like to know what they are getting into before they just blindly download something. I'd rather be able to read the instructions ahead of time instead of only discovering them after I complete the download.
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 11:53 -0500, Tom Horsley wrote:
Proposal -
Mockup: http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/webdesign/fedoraproject.org/verify/verify.png
Shouldn't the teddy bears be penguins? :-).
On a more serious note: A lot of people (me for sure) like to know what they are getting into before they just blindly download something. I'd rather be able to read the instructions ahead of time instead of only discovering them after I complete the download.
The instructions are also available along the sidebar on every download page:
http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora
(See "What will I need?" and "What Do I do?" - there's also a link to verify there as well)
We thought having those instructions in the splash page in addition was important, because one of the more prominent complaints we received in our usability testing and community feedback process for the website is that it took too many clicks to get to a download. So we added a download now button to the front page, but since that goes directly to the download there isn't much opportunity to provide instructions. The splash is that opportunity.
That being said, you do *not* need to complete the download before you can read the instructions. They are easily read on the splash page before you decide to download the ISO at all. Try it now. You can simply hit cancel on the download dialog that your web browser pops up, or move it to the side to read the text before hitting 'Save.'
~m
Hi Máirín,
2011/1/20 Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org:
Proposal -
Mockup: http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/webdesign/fedoraproject.org/verify/verify.png
I wanted to add something, I didn't find the verify link in the sidebar in the least bit difficult to find in the first place. However although your proposal to put it in the splash is an excellent enhancement, I feel it would be more effective if you could put it next to / below the "If not, click the link below ...". That should increase the visibility.
I understand your motivation for the design is to make it easy for users, new and old alike, to get the latest version of Fedora. However as the designer you are in a unique position to inculcate good habits into users like checking downloads for corruption / tampering. So maybe taking the approach to gradually guide the user to these best practices would be a better motivation rather than give into their demands for making things simple and in the process reducing the use of these security measures?
Just a thought. And thanks for the beautiful work. :)
Hi Suvayu,
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 23:10 +0100, suvayu ali wrote:
2011/1/20 Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org:
Proposal -
Mockup: http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/webdesign/fedoraproject.org/verify/verify.png
I understand your motivation for the design is to make it easy for users, new and old alike, to get the latest version of Fedora. However as the designer you are in a unique position to inculcate good habits into users like checking downloads for corruption / tampering. So maybe taking the approach to gradually guide the user to these best practices would be a better motivation rather than give into their demands for making things simple and in the process reducing the use of these security measures?
Just a thought. And thanks for the beautiful work. :)
Point well-taken and thank you for the lovely compliment. I'm just a bit worried about adding more things-to-learn / more software-to-download / more things-to-do / more time taken to the workload of the types of users we're trying to capture to make software freedom more ubiquitous:
http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/app% 20design/anaconda/comic/anaconda-comic_1.png
Note this reflects a version of the installation process that is more idealized than the reality. The biggest challenge in not losing folks before they even give Fedora a chance is making it easy when they have to figure out how to get the ISO to optical media or to USB (the latter which can be really challenging.) Weighing the pros and the cons here, I'd rather have someone running Fedora and be less prone to viruses and security break-ins rather than lose them altogether when they give up trying to learn ISOs, liveusb creation, checksum checking, and GPG all in one go. Do you know what I mean? What is more harmful for them? I think the chances of them giving up because of the difficulty in the process (even without checksum verification) is far greater than the chances of the fedoraproject.org media getting tampered with.
~m
Hi Máirín,
2011/1/21 Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org:
Point well-taken and thank you for the lovely compliment. I'm just a bit worried about adding more things-to-learn / more software-to-download / more things-to-do / more time taken to the workload of the types of users we're trying to capture to make software freedom more ubiquitous:
http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/app% 20design/anaconda/comic/anaconda-comic_1.png
That comic illustrates your point very well. I have had many such friends switch over to using linux, the only difference being I was around to help.
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 13:03 -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
The biggest challenge in not losing folks before they even give Fedora a chance is making it easy when they have to figure out how to get the ISO to optical media or to USB (the latter which can be really challenging.) Weighing the pros and the cons here, I'd rather have someone running Fedora and be less prone to viruses and security break-ins rather than lose them altogether when they give up trying to learn ISOs, liveusb creation, checksum checking, and GPG all in one go.
If you encourage the "just click and don't think mentality," you perpetuate much that's wrong with that other OS. The trick is to explain it succinctly (i.e. *accurately*, and quickly).
e.g. What's an ISO disc image file, and what do I do with it? It's an compilation of files, the files contained inside it will be placed on a disc. The ISO file will not be simply copied to the disc, as a file. You will use CD/DVD burning software that takes an ISO file, and uses it to create a disc. This disc will contain hundreds of files, and will be self-bootable. The install will start when you boot from this disc.
It really needs to be a short paragraph. Exactly how to do it, is another step. If they can understand the explanation, it's much more likely that they'll be able to successfully do it.
They don't have to learn it all in one go. They need brief explanations of what the options are, enough so that they can understand at least one of them. So they can pick which one to use.
You can't cater for the completely clueless. If they don't know what "booting" is, they're going to have to learn that first. And, to be blunt, if they don't know that is, I don't think they know enough about computing to change OSs, nor install a new one. That's why new computers come with pre-installed OSs, for those who just want to buy a box.
I don't think USB is going to get easy until all the various OSs make it easy to right-click a USB drive and "make this drive bootable," and you put files onto the drive that will be auto-booted. i.e. The first file, the one it boots, would have a common file name.
The idea of a bootblock that handles that is better, but that requires bootblock writing features that aren't available to ordinary users, like dragging one or two files to a disc are. You'd really need a "download a Fedora installer for Windows" and another for Mac, that'd intelligently find the USB drive the user plugs in when prompted, so it only writes to the right drive, then puts everything on it.
On Sat, 2011-01-22 at 20:16 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 13:03 -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
The biggest challenge in not losing folks before they even give Fedora a chance is making it easy when they have to figure out how to get the ISO to optical media or to USB (the latter which can be really challenging.) Weighing the pros and the cons here, I'd rather have someone running Fedora and be less prone to viruses and security break-ins rather than lose them altogether when they give up trying to learn ISOs, liveusb creation, checksum checking, and GPG all in one go.
If you encourage the "just click and don't think mentality," you perpetuate much that's wrong with that other OS. The trick is to explain it succinctly (i.e. *accurately*, and quickly).
That's far from the goal. It's more, "enable people to try Fedora and not end up wasting their time, frustrating them, and leaving them hating Fedora afterwards without even giving it a fair shot mentality."
e.g. What's an ISO disc image file, and what do I do with it? It's an compilation of files, the files contained inside it will be placed on a disc. The ISO file will not be simply copied to the disc, as a file. You will use CD/DVD burning software that takes an ISO file, and uses it to create a disc. This disc will contain hundreds of files, and will be self-bootable. The install will start when you boot from this disc.
It really needs to be a short paragraph. Exactly how to do it, is another step. If they can understand the explanation, it's much more likely that they'll be able to successfully do it.
Your example is far from a short paragraph.
They don't have to learn it all in one go. They need brief explanations of what the options are, enough so that they can understand at least one of them. So they can pick which one to use.
We have all of that on the page right now. We have simply left out verification.
You can't cater for the completely clueless. If they don't know what "booting" is, they're going to have to learn that first. And, to be blunt, if they don't know that is, I don't think they know enough about computing to change OSs, nor install a new one. That's why new computers come with pre-installed OSs, for those who just want to buy a box.
The woman in the comic clearly knew what 'booting' was, just had never referred to it as 'booting' before. More common language is, "start up" or "turn on" or "load." In general though, her remark in that frame was more to point out the 1980's sexiness of our current syslinux splash can be intimidating if that makes sense.
I don't think USB is going to get easy until all the various OSs make it easy to right-click a USB drive and "make this drive bootable," and you put files onto the drive that will be auto-booted. i.e. The first file, the one it boots, would have a common file name.
The idea of a bootblock that handles that is better, but that requires bootblock writing features that aren't available to ordinary users, like dragging one or two files to a disc are. You'd really need a "download a Fedora installer for Windows" and another for Mac, that'd intelligently find the USB drive the user plugs in when prompted, so it only writes to the right drive, then puts everything on it.
Yeh, I agree. One thing I've been thinking of is offer LiveUSB creator for Linux / Mac / Windows as the default install. It automatically downloads the ISOs for you. I think it will need a lot of work before we can do that, though.
~m
pe, 2011-01-21 kello 13:03 -0500, Máirín Duffy kirjoitti:
Point well-taken and thank you for the lovely compliment. I'm just a bit worried about adding more things-to-learn / more software-to-download / more things-to-do / more time taken to the workload of the types of users we're trying to capture to make software freedom more ubiquitous:
http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/app% 20design/anaconda/comic/anaconda-comic_1.png
OT: Could you please give me her phone number? I have a business for her. What tools were used to create this astonishing artwork?
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 11:22 -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
From talking to numerous novice users in the design of the site I'm not convinced that a checksum file is something that novice users are aware of or much concerned about.
Ignorance is no excuse, as they old saying goes, and it's something that needs brought to their attention, with the full how and why.
The main download link points directly to Fedora's main server, not a mirror, so they'd be downloading the checksum from the same source as the payload anyway.
And the non-main download links...?
It was always the recommendation, before, to not download from the main site, to spread the load around the mirrors.
When you burn the iso to media it has a built-in media check as well which would protect against corruption
Only against corruptions at that point, not against malicious damage. If someone's capable of releasing a compromised ISO, they're capable of making it claim to pass its own self checks.
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 10:41 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 11:22 -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
From talking to numerous novice users in the design of the site I'm not convinced that a checksum file is something that novice users are aware of or much concerned about.
Ignorance is no excuse, as they old saying goes, and it's something that needs brought to their attention, with the full how and why.
The main download link points directly to Fedora's main server, not a mirror, so they'd be downloading the checksum from the same source as the payload anyway.
And the non-main download links...?
Novice users most likely won't use those.
It was always the recommendation, before, to not download from the main site, to spread the load around the mirrors.
Yeh, it was our intention to have mirror manager generate a URL for those download buttons that made the most sense given geographical location, but that got dropped due to not having the time. It would be worth bringing up again.
When you burn the iso to media it has a built-in media check as well which would protect against corruption
Only against corruptions at that point, not against malicious damage. If someone's capable of releasing a compromised ISO, they're capable of making it claim to pass its own self checks.
Agreed completely, I was just pointing out that if media corruption was a concern the checksums addressed that there was another way (as ignored as it typically is) to complete that without the checksums. It doesn't replace assurances against malicious tampering for sure.
~m
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 01:06:27PM -0500, M?ir?n Duffy wrote:
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 10:41 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 11:22 -0500, M??ir??n Duffy wrote:
From talking to numerous novice users in the design of the site I'm not convinced that a checksum file is something that novice users are aware of or much concerned about.
Ignorance is no excuse, as they old saying goes, and it's something that needs brought to their attention, with the full how and why.
The main download link points directly to Fedora's main server, not a mirror, so they'd be downloading the checksum from the same source as the payload anyway.
And the non-main download links...?
Novice users most likely won't use those.
It was always the recommendation, before, to not download from the main site, to spread the load around the mirrors.
Yeh, it was our intention to have mirror manager generate a URL for those download buttons that made the most sense given geographical location, but that got dropped due to not having the time. It would be worth bringing up again.
Ah, but it does. :-) The URLs look like: http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/14/Live/i686/Fed... http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/14/Fedora/x86_64...
which has the goodness of MirrorManager behind it, issuing a HTTP 30x redirect to the best mirror it can.
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:51 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 01:06:27PM -0500, M?ir?n Duffy wrote:
Yeh, it was our intention to have mirror manager generate a URL for those download buttons that made the most sense given geographical location, but that got dropped due to not having the time. It would be worth bringing up again.
Ah, but it does. :-) The URLs look like: http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/14/Live/i686/Fed... http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/14/Fedora/x86_64...
which has the goodness of MirrorManager behind it, issuing a HTTP 30x redirect to the best mirror it can.
Ooooh sweet, I didn't know that was working!! That is awesome!
~m
-
Armelius Cameron -
g -
Hiisi -
Matt Domsch -
Máirín Duffy -
Rahul Sundaram -
Suvayu Ali -
Tim -
Todd Zullinger -
Tom Horsley