what's the latest validation image for BB-xM?

in aid of what i posted about a while back, i'm now summarizing some
basic info for the xM, and i want to start with a list of known good
bootable images, starting with a validation image.

  it *seems* that this is the current state of validation for the xM:

http://beagleboard-validation.s3.amazonaws.com/deploy/201008201549/sd/list.html

those images are about a year and a half old but, to be fair, basic
validation wouldn't have changed all that much. is that what most
people would consider the canonical xM validation images? thanks.

rday

Here is what ships with the board.

http://circuitco.com/support/index.php?title=BeagleBoard-xM

Gerald

heh. at the risk of being annoyingly pedantic, the above is
*exactly* the reason i'm trying to summarize a lot of stuff for, in
this case, the xM. if you look at the links to the zip files partway
down the page, there's a mismatch in the names, "xMc" versus "XMC".
so that link in point 1. to the 3_30 zip file appears to be broken.

  so the proper zip files names appear to be XMC_3_30.zip and
xMc_4_25.zip. it's little things like that that end up frustrating
people.

rday

OK. Thank you for the input. I will take a look at it.

Gerald

actually, i don't think even *that's* correct. the micro SD card
that came with my new xM is labelled "beta 4-26". what's at that site
is 4_25. once again, it's these little things that don't quite sync
up that have the potential for frustration for beginners.

rday

OK. So does these differences in capitalization and dash vs. underline cause people to get the wrong files? I have not heard any cries of despair to date over this from those that have used the site, but I will certainly have it corrected to prevent any issues with beginners.

Gerald

i admitted those were picky observations, but i might as well just
finish off the pedantry as there are a number of things on that page
that have the potential to confuse:

1) the first link to the 3_30 zip file is just broken, the second is
correct

2) the mismatched naming between "xMc" and "XMC"

3) the fact that the reader is invited to download *either* the 3_30
*or* the 4_25 zip file, with no explanation as to which is the better
choice

4) while the links *appear* to link to the same zip files, the first
links say nothing about "beta" while the second links have the string
"Beta" in their filenames, despite the fact that the zip files
themselves don't appear to be beta release

5) what's currently shipped with the xM is 4-26, which is not
mentioned anywhere on that page that i can see.

  this is why i feel the need to summarize a lot of this stuff for
myself and make sure that it all actually works -- because of trivial
typoes like this that just cost time.

rday

I will add it to my list and get to it as soon as I can.

Gerald