2:49 p.m.
In message <4e233f3bcclists-nospam(a)vigay.com>
Paul Vigay <lists-nospam(a)vigay.com> wrote:
I've just discovered that NetSurf seems to be corrupting binary
downloads....
I've just downloaded autoconf-2.59.tar.gz from
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/autoconf/ and automake-1.9.6.tar.gz from
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/automake/ using NetSurf.
I didn't have SparkFS loaded or anything, and literally saved to the hard
disc and then copied to my Linux box via FTPc. However, gunzip then
wouldn't de-zip the file, saying it was an invalid header.
I then repeated the exact same process using Oregano and it worked fine -
so for some reason when I save .tar.gz files from NetSurf it's failing
somewhere, or corrupting the download.
Always a bit too ready to make assumptions, aren't we Paul? I think
you'll find that the file is intact, except gunzipped during download.
However, this isn't really something that NetSurf should be doing.
--
Peter Naulls - peter(a)chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RISC OS Community Wiki - add your own content | http://www.riscos.info/
5:02 p.m.
New subject: [Netsurf-develop] Re: NetSurf corrupting binary downloads
In article <b2212b244e.peter(a)chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
<peter(a)chocky.org> wrote:
Always a bit too ready to make assumptions, aren't we Paul?
Always a bit too ready to snipe at somebody aren't we Peter?
--
Barry A.
Rugby Union in Manchester:- http://www.broughton-park.org.uk/
6:10 p.m.
New subject: [Netsurf-develop] Re: NetSurf corrupting binary downloads
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Barry Allen wrote:
In article <b2212b244e.peter(a)chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
<peter(a)chocky.org> wrote:
> Always a bit too ready to make assumptions, aren't we Paul?
Always a bit too ready to snipe at somebody aren't we Peter?
Enough, the pair of you. This is not a forum for playground bickering.
John.
6:23 p.m.
New subject: [Netsurf-develop] Re: NetSurf corrupting binary downloads
In article <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0605091009010.14592(a)brand.ecs.soton.ac.uk>,
John-Mark Bell <jmb202(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Barry Allen wrote:
> In article <b2212b244e.peter(a)chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> <peter(a)chocky.org> wrote:
>
>> Always a bit too ready to make assumptions, aren't we Paul?
>
> Always a bit too ready to snipe at somebody aren't we Peter?
Enough, the pair of you. This is not a forum for playground
bickering.
He started it Sir! ;O))
--
Barry A.
Rugby Union in Manchester:- http://www.broughton-park.org.uk/
6:59 p.m.
New subject: [Netsurf-develop] Re: NetSurf corrupting binary downloads
In message <4e24375eceevanallen(a)uko2.co.uk>
Barry Allen <evanallen(a)uko2.co.uk> wrote:
In article <b2212b244e.peter(a)chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
<peter(a)chocky.org> wrote:
> Always a bit too ready to make assumptions, aren't we Paul?
Always a bit too ready to snipe at somebody aren't we Peter?
Fly away Peter, fly away Paul
Ian
--
The one piece of data you're absolutely sure is correct, isn't.
10:56 p.m.
New subject: [Netsurf-develop] Re: NetSurf corrupting binary downloads
In message <4e24375eceevanallen(a)uko2.co.uk>
Barry Allen <evanallen(a)uko2.co.uk> wrote:
In article <b2212b244e.peter(a)chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
<peter(a)chocky.org> wrote:
> Always a bit too ready to make assumptions, aren't we Paul?
Always a bit too ready to snipe at somebody aren't we Peter?
Pot, kettle. My reply was entirely justified. Yours on the other hand
is just a cheap shot with no value.
--
Peter Naulls - peter(a)chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RISC OS Community Wiki - add your own content | http://www.riscos.info/
1:13 a.m.
New subject: [Netsurf-develop] Re: NetSurf corrupting binary downloads
In message of 9 May, Peter Naulls <peter(a)chocky.org> wrote:
In message <4e24375eceevanallen(a)uko2.co.uk>
Barry Allen <evanallen(a)uko2.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <b2212b244e.peter(a)chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> <peter(a)chocky.org> wrote:
>
> > Always a bit too ready to make assumptions, aren't we Paul?
>
> Always a bit too ready to snipe at somebody aren't we Peter?
Pot, kettle. My reply was entirely justified. Yours on the other
hand is just a cheap shot with no value.
I will have to support Barry here. The original comment of
"Always a bit too ready to make assumptions, aren't we Paul?"
was unnecessary and offensive. There are two ways of phrasing this:
(a) By pointing out the faults in the writers personality, which is
what was done.
or
(b) By pointing out the fault in the argument, using a phrase such as:
"Unfortunately there is an assumption here which I do not think is
justified. The assumption is ..."
The advantage of using style (b) is that you do not get the back up of
the person whose argument you have criticised. You can then hope to
continue the discussion without referring, inevitably to one another's
parentage.
I would recommend that you, Peter, try to avoid arguments against the
man (the (a) type) and stick to arguments against the words (the (b)
type).
'Nuff said.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim(a)powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
6346
days inactive
6346
days old
netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Barry Allen -
Ian Lowry -
John-Mark Bell -
Peter Naulls -
Tim Powys-Lybbe