Search Results

Search found 3 results on 1 pages for 'mghg'.

Page 1/1 | 1

Why does integrity check fail for the 12.04.1 Alternate ISO?

- by mghg

I have followed various recommendations from the Ubuntu Documentation to create a bootable Ubuntu USB flash drive using the 12.04.1 Alternate install ISO-file for 64-bit PC. But the integrity test of the USB stick has failed and I do not see why. These are the steps I have made: Download of the 12.04.1 Alternate install ISO-file for 64-bit PC (ubuntu-12.04.1-alternate-amd64.iso) from http://releases.ubuntu.com/12.04.1/, as well as the MD5, SHA-1 and SHA-256 hash files and related PGP signatures Verification of the data integrity of the ISO-file using the MD5, SHA-1 and SHA-256 hash files, after having verified the hash files using the related PGP signature files (see e.g. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/HowToSHA256SUM and https://help.ubuntu.com/community/VerifyIsoHowto) Creation of a bootable USB stick using Ubuntu's Startup Disk Creator program (see http://www.ubuntu.com/download/help/create-a-usb-stick-on-ubuntu) Boot of my computer using the newly made 12.04.1 Alternate install on USB stick Selection of the option "Check disc for defects" (see https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/CDIntegrityCheck) Steps 1, 2, 3 and 4 went without any problem or error messages. However, step 5 ended with an error message entitled "Integrity test failed" and with the following content: The ./install/netboot/ubuntu-installer/amd64/pxelinux.cfg/default file failed the MD5 checksum verification. Your CD-ROM or this file may have been corrupted. I have experienced the same (might only be similar since I have no exact notes) error message in previous attempts using the 12.04 (i.e. not the maintenance release) Alternate install ISO-file. I have in these cases tried to install anyway and have so far not experienced any problems to my knowledge. Is failed integrity check described above a serious error? What is the solution? Or can it be ignored without further problems?

Read the article
Problem with XeTeX (LaTeX) and system fonts

- by mghg

I have started to use an enterprise specific class for LaTeX, but have got a problem with usage system fonts in Ubuntu. The class uses the fontspec package, I have therefore been instructed to use XeTeX (i.e. the command xelatex instead of latex or pdflatex). However, the command xelatex testfile.tex results in the following message: ! Package xkeyval Error: `TeX' undefined in families `Ligatures'. See the xkeyval package documentation for explanation. Type H <return> for immediate help. ... l.61 \newfontfamily\headfont{Arial} ? The class has previously been used on Mac and Windows and the font setup is as follows: \newfontfamily\headfont{Arial} \newcommand\texthead[1]{\headfont #1} \setromanfont{Georgia} \setmainfont{Georgia} \setsansfont[Scale=MatchLowercase]{Verdana} It has been suggested that since XeTeX makes use of system fonts and the class file has worked flawlessly on Mac and Windows, the problem might be that Arial is not a name used in Ubuntu. I have tried to exchange Arial with Ubuntu Light in the setup code above, but that have not been any improvement. Any suggestions please on how to move forward?

Read the article
How to obtain a S/MIME certificate for e-mail encryption?

- by mghg

There are parties, e.g. enterprises, that uses S/MIME certificates for e-mail encryption. To my understanding Thunderbird has support by default for S/MIME. But I have not found a way to obtain a personal S/MIME certificate to be used on a Ubuntu system. Thus my question: How to obtain a S/MIME certificate for e-mail encryption? Moreover, is it correct to believe that Thunderbird has support by default for S/MIME? I am fully aware of PGP, GnuPG and OpenPGP for public-key cryptography and secure e-mail communication. In my opinion, it is very useful that OpenPGP is installed by default on Ubuntu systems. But I need to find a method to communicate securely with parties that use S/MIME and not PGP/GnuPG/OpenPGP.

Read the article

1