https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337277
--- Comment #6 from kreuzritter2...@gmx.de --- (In reply to postix from comment #5) > Wouldn't it be better (no hash collisions) and faster to use a bit-by-bit > comparison over a hash function? I agree. An bit-by-bit comparison would be sufficient in most cases. But, offering the option to display a hash could be helpful too. Imagine you have downloaded two different versions of a Linux distribution and their ISO file names are identical. You want to clean things up a bit and therefore delete one. But only the older one. And you want to keep the current one, which you downloaded days ago. But you no longer know exactly which of the two files was the more recent one. Unfortunately, the date is also identical because it was lost during a copying process. On the distribution's download page, you can display the hash of the latest version. If you move a file to the folder where the other file with the same name is located, but no longer know exactly which is the more recent one, then at this point at the latest, it would be useful to display the hash before moving and overwriting. Because you can then compare it with the hash on the download page. So how about the following option: If the file name is identical, a bit-by-bit comparison is performed first. You are then asked which file you want to keep, with the option of pressing a button called "show hash" to display the hashes of both files. When the user then presses this button, the hash of both files is also displayed. Now he can decide which file he wants to keep based on the information gained from the calculated and displayed hash for each file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
