My point is, "Hey, I'm a stupid user, who rarely follows directions
placed in my face anyway. I need my hand held, my teeth brushed, my
a** wiped, and a drink of water before I'm happy." Surely the time
and effort to place this check in the pminstall code can't be more
than what I'm wasting away right now.
Again, any hestitation or excuse not to do this automatic check in
pminstall is simply "newbie hazing", IMHO.
garlic@garlic.com wrote:
> It would be nice if Livingston just PUBLISHED the check sums. Its not
> hard to build a file
> with the checksums
>
> cksum * > checksums
dtrucken@zsassociates.com wrote:
> Yep, It happened to me too. Before I realized what happened, I called
> LE
> Tech support. They told me the unit was fried and sent a RMA unit.
> About
> an hour later it dawned on my what I did, but it was too late to
> cancel the
> RMA. Oh well. I guess it just contributes to higher costs for every
> customer of LE....
>
> There seems to be two fixes, one a different file extension as
> suggested
> below, and two a CHECK SUM check in the pminstall program BEFORE the
> image
> is sent to the PM3. Certainly the checksum of the non-binary image
> can't
> match the checksum of the binary image! If the pminstall program said
>
> something like: "Hey you idiot, you're trying to load an OS with a
> checksum
> that isn't valid." I would have saved lots of time, shipping costs,
> and
> frustration. My Cisco routers do this, and I'm very grateful for it.
>
> (I guess I can chalk it up to newbie hazing.)
>
> Dave
>
>