View Full Version : Always downloads bad md5sum

December 24th, 2013, 05:24 PM
I've been trying for two days now to install Lubuntu on an old compaq armada m700. I've burned about 4 CDs of various versions of the alternate installer and all of them end up with corrupt .deb packages. I never thought to check the md5sum hashes, because up until today I've NEVER burnt a bad image out of dozens of distros.

But now, for no reason I can ascertain, EVERY DISC IMAGE FROM EVERY MIRROR OF EVERY VERSION OF EVERY FLAVOR OF UBUNTU I DOWNLOAD HAS A BAD CHECKSUM. I have tried ubuntu 12.04, lubuntu 10.04, 12.04, alternates and desktop, lubuntu 13.10 desktop and alternate, and both direct downloads and torrents, multiple times each. I'm using the winM5Sum utility as per the Ubuntu instructions and the calculated MD5sum matches the list on the Ubuntu hashes list. When compared, the checksums are ALWAYS different.

Absolutely no matter what, I am ALWAYS downloading a bad ISO image.

Does anybody know what may be causing this, outside an act of god?

Lars Noodén
December 24th, 2013, 05:29 PM
I can't guess at the cause but perhaps you could try downloading via a torrent. That has built in checksumming so when it is finished downloading, you have a valid copy every time.


December 24th, 2013, 05:46 PM
That's weird because I've already tried the torrents. Still produces bad images.

December 24th, 2013, 06:51 PM
Just a thought -- you're sure the hashlist is for the same versions you are downloading?
If you've tried the torrents, and different mirrors, I don't know what the problem could be, unless some bad local interference, or a bad disk.

December 25th, 2013, 09:05 PM
I have had this problem of bad downloads several years ago. Maybe not as badly as yours, but still only some of the downloads came out correct. After many experiments, I was sure the signal was already bad when coming into my home, and I informed my provider (one of the largest and most "elite" here in Holland), with all information that I had assembled. They did not answer, but when I tried again a week later all was well, and it remained well after that.

So maybe this is the solution for your problem too: at your provider.

I switched my provider though, a few years after that (not only for this). Not answering is not the way to go and treat your customers, especially not after the amount of investigation that I did, saving them a lot of work and time.