<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hey all!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As I reinstall my hub node after it got compromised this morning, I find myself a little confused at just which download option I should use for an amd64 architecture machine.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The site seems to recommend DIAL RC1, but RC *<b>usually</b>* means Release Candidate – meaning it’s not quite ready for prime time, but getting close to release. I would not usually consider a “RC” release to be the recommended release under any circumstances. The other problem comes from looking at the file modification dates on the dvswitch.org server:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The RC1 file – amd64-i386-DIAL-RC1.tar.gz – is dated Nov 15, 2016<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The other file – dial-allstar-netinstall.iso – is dated Jan 22, 2017<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So it *<b>seems</b>* that the RC1 is older than the other one, while still being the recommended install – but the name would not tend to agree, as the RC should be a candidate for release as a newer version, so should be newer than the existing “stable” version – and the stable version should be the recommended download – or at least this is how it would work in most open source projects.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>What am I missing? And once installed, is there any danger in using the Debian “apt-get update” command to update the packages for the underlying Linux OS to their newest versions?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Jeremy, NQ0M<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>