Webconverger 210 Does not boot

[gonedivin...@gmail.com]

Howdy, 

Downloaded latest version of WC twice and get the same issue on all CD's. After booting from the CD, I see:

ISOLINUX 6.01 2013-07-04 ETCD

on the screen, and it sits there doing nothing. 

PC is a Dell Optiplex GX 620 with 1GB RAM.

Any ideas?

[Kai Hendry]

Hey there!

In Webconverger 21, I did update the bootloader to syslinux 6 which I
did test boot in Virtualbox, though it's conceivable it does not work
in your case.

Could you please try:
http://archive.webconverger.com/webc-20.0.iso

Kind regards,

[gonedivin...@gmail.com]

Afternoon Kai, 

Grabbed V20 and it installed, almost. 

Got the enclosed error.  

Thanks. 

[Kai Hendry]

Hello again,

Could you please try another USB stick? It looks like it has trouble
accessing / reading a file from the disk and hence the I/O error.


Kind regards,

[gonedivin...@gmail.com]

Downloaded V20 again and reburned the CD to make sure it was not a corrupt ISO. 

It errored out again, but this time gave me a memory error. I tested it and found a stick that had multiple errors. Replaced it and reloaded the V20. It installed fine. 

Suggestion: It would be nice if you included MD5 sigs for your ISO's so we can test the validity of the ISO download before burning. 

Cheers and thanks for the help. 

[Kai Hendry]

On 25 July 2013 21:22, <gonedivin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It errored out again, but this time gave me a memory error. I tested it and
> found a stick that had multiple errors. Replaced it and reloaded the V20. It
> installed fine.

Ah good.

> Suggestion: It would be nice if you included MD5 sigs for your ISO's so we
> can test the validity of the ISO download before burning.

That doesn't help us when you have bad media.

I do generally put in md5s in the release notes. I guess I could put a
md5s in the download directory somehow, but if people use the CDN they
would be oblivious to this. https://github.com/Webconverger/dl

I have a colleague who shipped the wrong signed md5s for a product for
ages and no one noticed. Ideally download managers could somehow do a
"double check" on a file and URL.

Kind regards,