Printable View
hi
im brand new to knoppix and linux in general and have just downloaded the .iso file. However i'm told that the file is 4MB instead of the near 700MB size i was told when i started to download it. What's wrong? or will it all be ok when i burn it using Nero 5?
I need to get knoppix to try and get my files off WinXP that wont boot!
thanks
Welcome to Knoppix.net.
It is most certainly supposed to be just under 700MB. Check out the http://www.knoppix.net/wiki/Downloading_FAQ as it has answers to question you might have. Also search the forums for 'burn' or 'burning' as other people have already asked & answered many questions about getting & burning the Knoppix CD ISO image.
i went ahead and burned the .iso to CD and have just put it into my broken laptop. Everything was going well but now am stuck here:
audit(1119382597.253:0): initialized
Welcome to the KNOPPIX live Linux-on-CD!
Scanning for USB/Firewire devices...Done
Accessing KNOPPIX CDROM at /dev/hdc..._
What's gone wrong? Its a partial download right?
First please check the md5sum of the downloaded ISO file. Such infomation is indeed listed at the Downloading FAQ that I linked to. You must confirm the md5sum as it will let you & us know that you correctly downloaded the ISO file.
See http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/...ing_howto.html for info on checking the md5sum. The string of letters & numbers that you create must match the one listsed http://debian.ams.sunysb.edu/knoppix...-27-EN.iso.md5
Back up a bit. Did you determine why you think that the ISO is 4 meg when it should be almost 700 meg? How sure are you of that size?Quote:
Originally Posted by ireland
Did you download by BitTorrent or from a mirror. If you downloaded from a mirror you absolutely have to check the md5 sum before burning. Did you do that? Was it right? If you download by BitTorrent you also got the md5 file. Wile it's not as important to make the check when using BitTorrent (BitTorrent does it's own checks on every segment), if you have any doubt about the file that you downloaded you might as well run the check and know for sure rather than asking people who really can't know if your download is bad or not.
If you checked the MD5 sum then you know if the file is good or not. If you can't be bothered then why should others expend effort in trying to help you when you ignore the advice that you are given? And if you ignore the advice to check the md5 sum, should we assume that it's likely that you're deciding to ignore other important key steps too?
UnderScore thanks for the links ive checked them out and now no what to do, great help!
Harry Kuhman obviously you know your stuff here, but im new so maybe you could lay off a bit. i might have over looked something but i value any support and the effort that is put into it, so please dont come attacking me. i'll look over what u said and see what im doing wrong.
A large and growing number of people post very similar questions to what you posted. Almost always it turns out that they have not searched the forums at all or even looked at recent posts before they ask the same questions over and over again. That's come to almost be expected around here, but we do like to point out the documentation section and the importance of searching the forums in the hope that it might give some lurker a little insight on how they can help themselves and get answers much faster than by repeating a question and waiting for an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireland
A much more frustrating issue is when we post an answer back to someone who didn't search and they just seem to ignore it. The md5 check seems to be the most common thing that people just ignore. The number of times it's been pointed out as important only to be ignored for days while a poster keeps asking the same questions amazes me. Why people seem to think "I don't know what that is therefor I should just ignore it and keep asking for help" is something I find hard to understand. In your case, James pointed you right to the downloading faq. We get these same questions day in and day out, so it's not unreasonable that he would have given you a link to the document with the right information in it rather than typing out that informatin as he did in his second post. It's reasonable to expect that when someone asked for assistance gives you a link that you will follow the link and read it. The MD5 sum is covered in the faq that the link pointed to, it's the third item.
Yes, I get frustrated and a bit gruff when I see the help that is given ignored. I actually started writing my previous post before James posted his second post, when he had only posted the ilink to the faq and you still asked if the file was bad or not. It was not intended as a personal attack, just something to stress that the importance of reading the faq pointed out was real, and to focus on the part of the faq that would resolve your problem. If it came across as a personal attack I appologize, but if you search these forums for md5 you'll find many many cases where the suggesting to check the md5 sum was made in less emphatic ways and was completely ignored. If you can provide any insight on any other way we can inform people of the importance of this simple step, or explain why people like yourself just ignore that step even when they are trying to determine if their file is corrupt or not, please share it with us. That would be extremely helpful.
If I had known that James was already getting back to you when I wrote my post I would have just stayed out of this. Understanding Underscore's second post was not yet on the forum when I wrote my post, what do you feel would have been the more productive way to help guide you or anyone along? Just ignore you completely? Post the same link that James did? Make the same statement about checking the md5 sum that I have come to learn by past experience will be ignored? I'm certainly not beyond improvement, but the only thing I've found so far that seems to get someone's attention is a post like I made above. If you know a btter way, tell me. Or even better, lead by example and help some other people here with burning issues once you resolve it for yourself.
If you're dowloading other than by torrent, you really do need to use a decent download manager: doing it through a browser is asking for trouble.
firstly, ill just reply to the outstanding stuff.
i gotta confess i didnt do a good search in the forums, i typed in some vague searches and gave up after a few trys i did look at the documentation section before i started to download but didnt take it all it - my fault.Quote:
A large and growing number of people post very similar questions to what you posted. Almost always it turns out that they have not searched the forums at all or even looked at recent posts before they ask the same questions over and over again. That's come to almost be expected around here, but we do like to point out the documentation section and the importance of searching the forums in the hope that it might give some lurker a little insight on how they can help themselves and get answers much faster than by repeating a question and waiting for an answer.
i overlooked the importance of the md5 check because id never heard of it and didnt know how to use it.Quote:
The md5 check seems to be the most common thing that people just ignore. The number of times it's been pointed out as important only to be ignored for days while a poster keeps asking the same questions amazes me
i know the attack wasnt personal 1/2 the problem was me beening uptight cause i dont want to loose the important stuff on my laptop and its all XP's fault.
secondly heres today new problem. i started to d/l knoppix off another, differnt mirror site last night, left the machine on and came down about an hour ago to see that hte download has completed, or so it told me. the dialogue box said 686MB in 5h 53min from cslab.vt.edu i then went start>run>command and typed the location of where i had saved the .iso file to. following that i typed "md5sum -c KNOPPIX_V3.8.1-2005-04-08-EN.iso" it told me that there was an error in the exe file. i was using md5sum.exe which was in the same folder as knoppix_xxx.iso.
i have asked and recieved the trouble so now im going to look into a decent download manager as i do not have torrent installed on the machine. thanks for that advice.Quote:
If you're dowloading other than by torrent, you really do need to use a decent download manager: doing it through a browser is asking for trouble.
There are so many things wrong with this it's hard to know where to start. You don't want to check an exe file, you want to check an ISO. You don't look inside the ISO for anything (at this point you don't even trust the ISO). You download a tiny md5 file from the same mirror that you got the ISO from and use a Windows or DOS tool to check the ISO that you downloaded. I like MD5summer but there are plenty of MD5 test programs. I just found out last night that recent versions of Quickpar will do the MD5 test for you, and will do it in a cleaner way than the GUI of some MD5 programs. So if you have a current copy of Quickpar then you already have a program that will do the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireland
Had you used BitTorrent the check would not be needed. BitTorrent contains it's own checksums that verify the download. And it is not only more reliable but faster than the mirrors. BitTorrent does deliver the md5 file too in the package so you can do the test if you wish. At this point I see no reason for anyone other than those behind firewalls that they can not control to use the mirrors (such as those stealing bandwidth from work). Of course, the poeple who skip past advice to check the md5 sum because they have never used md5 are likely to skip past the advice to use the most widely used download tool on the planet because they have not used it before, so I'm likely wasting my time here.
IMHO, download managers are a nightmare. Most are plagued by adware and spyware add-ons. They often cause serious problems for their victims, er..., users. So what if you don't have BitTorrent installed? You don't have the download manager installed. I sure hope you didn't rush and install one before I could respond, and do so without researching what it's going to infect your system with. Why do that when BitTorreent is far more popular and is said to now be the most widely accept IP protocol on the Internet? It's very simple to set up:Quote:
Originally Posted by ireland
- Get a copy here. I would go for 4.02 but you can try the beta if you want.
Run the simple and fast installer.
If you have a router (and shame on you if you are running a high speed service without one, consider getting one right away. Tun off your computer now, go out and buy one. I mean this!) then you need to forward a few ports to your BitTorrent system. How you do this is router dependent and covered well here. You can just forward ports 6881 to 6889 to the IP address you will run BitTorrent from. My router, like almost all but the oldest routers, has a feature that lets outgoing traffic trigger port forwarding. This is very handy for me since I can set up BitTorrent as a "triger application" and then no matter what computer I run BitTorrent from, the proper ports get forwarded to it. So I just create a entry in the table that watches for trigger traffic, when it sees an outbound packet on ports 6881 to 6889 it forwards that range to the system that sent the outbound packet. All done.
I shouild mention that the above port triggering approach is a simple way to do it, but it only would allow one system behind the firewall to use BitTorrent at any one time. There are certainly ways to set up BitTorrent and the firewall so that multiple users could use BitTorrent at the same time. There seems to be no need to go into them here.
The bottom line is that BitTorrent is the right way to do it. Even if it took a little more work to use it would be the right way. But it does not take more work over dealing with some of the damn download managers
i thought i was checking the .iso file but using teh command feature along with the md5sume.exe. anyway thats all behind me.Quote:
There are so many things wrong with this it's hard to know where to start. You don't want to check an exe file, you want to check an ISO.
instead of going tor a download manager i went for BitTorrent. this seems to be the right idea. following the advice from the download faq section i went for BitTornado. things seem to be going preety well, slow but steady and there have been a few stops/restarts in downloads but hopefully it'll do the md5 for me and things will be great!
i do have a router (belkin wifi 54g) i read the link you provided but would the port forwarding increase the speed and is it an aditional extra or a need to have bit of stuff. i just want the download to finish so i can burn the .iso (slowly at 4x) on Nero to get cracking!Quote:
If you have a router (and shame on you if you are running a high speed service without one, consider getting one right away. Tun off your computer now, go out and buy one. I mean this!) then you need to forward a few ports to your BitTorrent system. How you do this is router dependent and covered well here. You can just forward ports 6881 to 6889 to the IP address you will run BitTorrent from. My router, like almost all but the oldest routers, has a feature that lets outgoing traffic trigger port forwarding. This is very handy for me since I can set up BitTorrent as a "triger application" and then no matter what computer I run BitTorrent from, the proper ports get forwarded to it. So I just create a entry in the table that watches for trigger traffic, when it sees an outbound packet on ports 6881 to 6889 it forwards that range to the system that sent the outbound packet. All done.
Port forwarding is important and will speed up your download. BitTorrent is, by design, slow for leechers who are not willing to share the parts they already have with other users. It still allows you to get the file, but very slowly. This is well covered in the BitTorrent faq. Once you forward the ports and use available upload capacity, your download gets faster. Just make sure that you don't swamp your upload channel completely, that can slow your download by slowing your ability to ask for segments. In version 4.x of the official BitTorrent client there is a handy slider right in the GUI that controls your upload speed. I have DSL and have 256k bit upload capacity available. If I push the slider all the way to the right my download does slow. But if I keep it at 24k Bytes/sec or there abouts, my download is very fast, and the uploading has no significant effect on surfing or other activity either.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireland
You can shut down BitTorrent after it says the download is done (not when it hits 100%). But many people leave it up to keep sharing their capacity with others. It really doesn't have an ill effect. If everyone used more download capacity than upload capacity, the system would fail. Fortunately, many people are will to contribute their available upload capacity to help distribute what they got. And you can even shut down for a while, do other things, even reboot and try that new Knoppix CD, but start Bittorrent again later - it can still serve the file that you downloaded. So I frequently download before I go to bed and let Bittorrent run both overnight and until I need to reboot. Then the next night or two (or whenever I think about it) I'll also start up Bittorrent and let it share what I got. As long as people use it this way the system will work well and be very fast. BitTorrent can also, by the way, be shut down durning a download. Don't delete the partial file. When you come back and restart it, it will figure out what parts it has and what parts it needs, will start sharing what it has, and will get the rest of what it needs to complete the file.
thanks for all the help ive now got into knoppix! yet the best bit it yet to come. my hard disk does not appear on the desktop and i cant find it anywhere! i have booted via failsafe
hi;
@ireland; how are you making out ?
If rescueing NTFS, there may be more involved than what I can help you with, but I can try to help you rescue any Fat16/32 partitions you have
@Harry;
just want to let you know -- the info you posted is informative even to me - I already knew the md5 stuff (learned from reading awhile back when I d/l Knoppix 3.6 from a mirror) and was a bit leary of BitTorrent and if it's possible to get infected (adware/spyware/malware) from using it (as I'm leary of almost all d/l apps). But you've given a lot oif useful info concerning using BitTorrent - just wanted to say all your explanation wasn't done in vain :)
Thanks. There's been some FUD spread lately (belived by many to have Microsoft behind it because it's recently been identified as another part of the Internet that they ignored and lost control of) about BitTorrent and viruses, trojans, worms and the like. The bottom line is that BitTorrent itself is very safe. However, if you download bad files from dubious trackers and questionable torrents, you can certainly deliver viruses, spyware or worse with BitTorrent just like you can with any other downloading tool. If you download what is supposedly a movie or song but you get an install program and run it, well, shame on you. I use BitTorrent primarily for ISOs. I get them from trusted sources and I still inspect them with a tool like ISOBuster before burning. I often leave BitTorrent up unattended seeding while I'm away from the computer. I feel I'm acting safely.Quote:
Originally Posted by |enouf|
Don't consider yourself hidden when you download files with BitTorent, even the new "trackerless" version. If you are downloading illegal songs or movies you can still be caught, you are broadcasting your IP address in very trackable ways. But if you use BitTorrent for legal uses and from trusted sources and take normal reasonable precautions, you should be perfectly safe.
I should add that some third party BitTorrent clients do indeed contain adware/spyware or other evil stuff. The original and offical client from BitTorrent.com does not and does not seem likely to in the future. If you elect to use a different client you should at least research if it is known to contain any nasty extras.