[Xitami] I'm up and running, but not with 2.5

[Toni McConnel]

Hi, Magus

The big news is, this morning I installed a different version of Xitami 
and had NO TROUBLE logging in to web-based admin with my ID and 
password.  I got this version with Web Hosting Kit Pro, but when I 
realized that the version of Xitami provided is not current (it's 
2.4d9), and the instructions for using MyDomain.com are useless because 
MyDomain.com has completely revised their interface, that's when I 
decided to trash it and start over by downloading Xitami 2.5 directly 
from Xitami site.  So current status is that I am up and running with 
Xitami, but not the latest version.  I am NOT abandoning efforts to run 
2.5, I will continue to try to get it to work.

You asked how I determine if a download is corrupted.  I have a much 
simpler way than the way you suggest.  I simply trash the current 
installation, download again, and if the problem disappears, 
voila--strongly suggests my first installation was corrupted.  Not very 
techie, but hey, it works for me.  8=).  Diagnosis by cure. 

However, I AM using Firefox 1.5, and will take your suggestion to 
download mdhashtool, and will use it as you suggest simply because this 
is something else for me to learn.  You're gonna make a techie out of 
this ol' gal yet, Magus. 

By the way, I also checked Zone Alarm to see if it was interfering 
somehow, but it seems to be OK with Xitami 2.5, which I put in Zone 
Alarm's Trusted Zone.

Toni

Magus wrote:
> Hello Toni,
>
> Saturday, April 7, 2007, 10:03:19 PM, you wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi, Magus,
>>     
>
>   
>> OK, I checked xitami.cfg and admin does =1. I put the defaults.aut
>> file in quotes as you suggest. I am always conscious of case when
>> entering passwords, so that isn't a problem either. I checked the
>> top of the prompt window and it does say "http://127.0.0.1".
>> Unfortunately, still nothing.
>>     
>
>   
>> What just popped into my mind is that I might have a corrupted
>> download of Xitami.  This happens often enough that I should have
>> thought of it sooner.  So next thing I'll do (but probably tomorrow)
>> is trash the whole thing and redownload.  It's gotta be something
>> like that because I AIN'T DOIN' NOTHIN' WRONG that I can see, and I
>> have been diligent in searching for mistakes as well as taking
>> everyone's suggestions. I'll report back when I have done that.  
>>     
>
>   
>> This is making me crazy and it's nice to have folks on this list
>> trying to help, makes it a little less crazy-making.
>>     
>
>   
>> Toni
>>     
>
> You're not the only one this is making crazy Toni, it's not doing all
> that much for my sanity level either. 8=))
>
> How do you propose to check whether or not your download is corrupted?
>
> May I suggest that if you are using Firefox 1.5.xx to download the
> installation archive (zip file) with, that you obtain mdhashtool from
> http://mdhashtool.mozdev.org/installation.html and install it to
> Firefox 1.5.xx. If you are not using Firefox 1.5.xx then I suggest you
> use md5sums from http://www.pc-tools.net/win32/md5sums/ Either tool
> will let you generate a MD5 hash (checksum) from the file you
> download. Follow the instructions for installing md5sums into the Send
> To menu. I find md5sums a handy little free tool beaten only by
> mdhashtool since mdhashtool allows both MD5 checksums, which are known
> to be able to be compromised and SHA1 checksums which have not yet
> been shown to be able to be compromised.
>
> Next you need a md5 checksum to compare to. Since the author of Xitami
> does not provide one, my reference version of Xitami 2.5c2 has the md5
> checksum of 6e1e8c7499a3142498069cea49882f7b.
>
> I generated this checksum by downloading the source code, compiling it
> and archiving the result with WinZip. Next I downloaded a copy of
> xiopen_2_5.zip. Then I ran a MD5 checksum on both. The results were
> identical. I then individually compared the compiled files and the
> downloaded files with Windiff. No differences were found. Both the
> compiled and downloaded versions were run and provided identical
> results. I therefor conclude that the above checksum is highly likely
> to be correct.
>
>