Active Topics

 


Reply
Thread Tools
Posts: 113 | Thanked: 303 times | Joined on Dec 2013 @ Germany
#91
I think they did it as a security measure. It is pointless to do some security not based on encryption if you can boot any kernel you want. Will unlock my bootloader if you can boot anything because it sucks hard for kernel development in this state.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to djselbeck For This Useful Post:
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#92
Originally Posted by djselbeck View Post
I think they did it as a security measure. It is pointless to do some security not based on encryption if you can boot any kernel you want. Will unlock my bootloader if you can boot anything because it sucks hard for kernel development in this state.
No, no go, fastboot oem unlock gave same permission error when trying to boot
Come on Jolla, FIX this !
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post:
Posts: 113 | Thanked: 303 times | Joined on Dec 2013 @ Germany
#93
Thanks for trying. So this really sucks. Best thing for the moment is to replace your recovery with a better one so you can at least do some recovery.

You have to replace your recovery with dd in booted state
 

The Following User Says Thank You to djselbeck For This Useful Post:
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#94
Originally Posted by djselbeck View Post
Thanks for trying. So this really sucks. Best thing for the moment is to replace your recovery with a better one so you can at least do some recovery.

You have to replace your recovery with dd in booted state
Tweeted JollaHQ and stskeeps with a link to your post, I hope to pay attention
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post:
Posts: 113 | Thanked: 303 times | Joined on Dec 2013 @ Germany
#95
This is a very evil attitude from Jolla. At least an unlocked bootloader should be able to boot our own images directly. one major disappointment follows another one
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to djselbeck For This Useful Post:
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#96
Originally Posted by djselbeck View Post
This is a very evil attitude from Jolla. At least an unlocked bootloader should be able to boot our own images directly. one major disappointment follows another one
should have kept my money for the neo900.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
Posts: 113 | Thanked: 303 times | Joined on Dec 2013 @ Germany
#97
Perhaps we should reflash our backuped p17 which holds the bootloader. From previous posts you can see that sha-sums were identically between devices. But this involves a great risk which I'm at the moment not willing to do.
 
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#98
Wow, just noticed, that update LOCKED my bootloader again, and fastboot -i 0x2931 oem unlock no longer works.
Jolla just went from some-what-open to CLOSED!
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post:
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#99
Originally Posted by djselbeck View Post
Perhaps we should reflash our backuped p17 which holds the bootloader. From previous posts you can see that sha-sums were identically between devices. But this involves a great risk which I'm at the moment not willing to do.
I have a backup of my device as well
With this sh.. I really dont care if I brick this device
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post:
Posts: 113 | Thanked: 303 times | Joined on Dec 2013 @ Germany
#100
Than I recommend flashing the busybox telnet recovery to recovery and experiment with this recovery.

At the moment this is the only control we have at boot level.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to djselbeck For This Useful Post:
Reply


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:26.