I just downloaded it again with NetBSD's default ftp client, and
here's the result:

xdsl014% more CKSUM 
541844079 19871751 gnusrc.tgz
4239437267 3128353 sharesrc.tgz
3990339416 14680053 src.tgz
2174563477 14234946 syssrc.tgz
xdsl014% cksum syssrc.tgz
1364204055 14234946 syssrc.tgz
xdsl014% 

I'm not using any proxy that I'm aware of. This is driving me nuts.

Oh, wait a second, this is really strange. Check this out:

xdsl014% cksum syssrc.tgz
2174563477 14234946 syssrc.tgz
xdsl014% cksum syssrc.tgz
1968121871 14234946 syssrc.tgz
xdsl014% cksum syssrc.tgz
3474568828 14234946 syssrc.tgz
xdsl014% cksum syssrc.tgz
129996323 14234946 syssrc.tgz
xdsl014% cksum syssrc.tgz
344507478 14234946 syssrc.tgz

Will the real cksum please stand up?

Any idea what could explain this behavior on the part of cksum? 

Hmmm, and here's what md5 has to say about it:

xdsl014% md5 syssrc.tgz 
MD5 (syssrc.tgz) = f0c6b8e1e1fef0eb7df57ec2d9355f6
xdsl014% md5 syssrc.tgz
MD5 (syssrc.tgz) = 5fc22d1db410b80e5f03cccceda48ad5
xdsl014% md5 syssrc.tgz
MD5 (syssrc.tgz) = 01bc2a33de5719fe13f68842fb451114
xdsl014% 

I'm open to any suggestions. This has me very confused.

Uh oh, more surprises:

xdsl014% uname -a
NetBSD xdsl014.serv.net 1.4 NetBSD 1.4 (JEHOX) #0: Sun Sep 19 15:06:14 PDT 1999     czyz@xdsl014.serv.net:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/JEHOX i386
xdsl014% 

I'm absolutely positive that I installed NetBSD 1.4.1, not NetBSD 1.4,
on this box, on a completely fresh hard drive. How could I have begun
running a NetBSD 1.4 kernel, or does NetBSD 1.4.1 not identify itself
as 1.4.1?

Well, despite the fact that I've got a ton of questions, my system
appears to be running well. It'd be nice to be able to compile a new
kernel though...

-Zach Fine
czyz@serv.net



>>>>> "Jon" == Jon Miner <miner@doit.wisc.edu> writes:

    Jon> Dunno, maybe you do have a bad disk.  When I get it,
    Jon> everything comes out right.

    Jon> Are you downloading it in ASCII or something odd like that?

    Jon> also, why not just use the NetBSD default ftp client?  It
    Jon> works just fine (not to say anything bad about ncftp, for
    Jon> interactive sessions I always use it.. I love command
    Jon> completion..).