The iPhone Wiki:Community portal

See also: Unsolved problems

iPhone-Elite

I think we should include all this old stuff before it gets lost: code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/. I mean the wiki articles there. Most infos should be already here, but I'm sure a lot of things are missing too. --http 15:02, 26 June 2012 (MDT)

Boot-args cleanup

We need to clean up the boot-args pages. First the technical part: What I understand is that iBoot loads the kernel. And when loading it, it can pass some parameters to select certain behavior. So this only works with an iBoot or bootrom exploit. I understand that in earlier firmware versions there was simply an iBoot variable, but that doesn't exist or work anymore, now passing theses args requires a different or patched iBoot. There are various parameters in different kernel versions. The description for these arguments is scattered over various places:

• Kernel#Boot-Args A section with the latest boot arguments list. This should be a short introduction and having a link "main article".
• Boot-args (iBoot variable) separate page for boot arguments, but mainly for the iBoot variable that doesn't exist any longer
• Boot arguments (redirect)
• Talk:Restore_Mode describing the iBoot variable problem
• Various pages referencing boot-args, like Research: Re-allowing unsigned ramdisks and boot-args with the 2.* iBoot (here we should have a link on the second title)
• My earlier comment Talk:Kernel#boot-args
• This comment here.

So what do we want to do about this mess? I suggest to move the current Kernel content to the redirect page Boot arguments (or to another new page, maybe boot-args). The current content of Boot-args (iBoot variable) and all other content should get merged into there. Then change all references to this new page and on the Kernel page write just something short with "main article there". What do you think? --http (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I like Boot Arguments. --5urd (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

One addition: Maybe we should use boot-args as the main page, because all links are written like that. --http (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The iPhone Wiki re-design

The design of the iPhone wiki is now quite old and I think it should be updated. I made a concept. --Jaggions (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If anything add an iPhone 5 to the logo but everything else is ok. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't change the logo to an iPhone 5, especially with iOS 7 and a new iPhone (that will probably look the same as the 5, admittedly) around the corner. I contemplated updating the CSS for iOS 7's UI but decided not to because of the UI's supposed volatility (during the beta period) and I don't have a live version to toy around with. (I personally don't like its current state, but that's not a factor in why I'm not changing it yet.) --Dialexio (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we not do flat? --Haifisch (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking. When iOS 7 finally comes out, we could change the CSS to look like that instead. --5urd (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

iOS 7 looks ugly. We do not want it like that. Maybe a bit more modern but nothing much. --iAdam1n (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You may not want it like that. That's your opinion. --5urd (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

We could make a poll, and see if most users agree or disagree. --Jaggions (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea looks nice. But before we make any changes, let's wait until iOS7 comes out. And I'd prefer to just add another skin instead (if possible). I'm still using the classic MonoBook skin by the way. You shouldn't impose design changes to everyone. --http (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with skins is that geohot needs to set them up... An idea I have is that we copy the Vector skin verbatim to a new skin (iOS6) and move the modifications (not general stuff) to Mediawiki:iOS6.css. Then we can do another verbatim copy to iOS7 and modify Mediawiki:iOS7.css. We could then set the default skin to either iOS6 or iOS7 so you don't need to be logged in to see them like currently. Then if someone doesn't like them, like you, just change your settings to your preferred skin. The only way around needing geohot is if he opens up the credentials to FTP or whatever to someone. --5urd (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I like 5urd's suggestion. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What about just removing the text-shadow element for now? I think pages would be easier to read without it. Here's an example: File:Noshadow.png. Britta (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah removing the shadow will make everything seem more flat but like http I'm still using the classic MonoBook skin --Jaggions (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Dump page

I have been thinking, should we make Dump to list N88ap/Device Tree etc? We seem to have quite a few dumps but it seems silly not to have them all on one page. What do you all think? --iAdam1n (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hacker page

I would like to be added to the list of hackers for my work with the Private Dev Team and the Chronic Dev Team in addition to my release of the Phoenix Semi-Untethered. --Ph0enix (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you find any exploits? --Haifisch (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No. phyrrus9, a team member found the vulnerability. I am the one who exploited it. --Ph0enix (talk)

I can back up this "claim". I was a part of it. --5urd (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What beta number was 5A308?

I get the reasoning. Apple released one for enterprise use, then one for standard developer use. However, are we sure it was 2.0 beta 6? Why would Apple drop the suffix letter from the build on the same version? In addition, Wikipedia's "iOS SDK" reports that it was 2.0 beta 7 that received the two builds, not beta 6. Wrapping it all together:

5A292g - 2.0 beta 6
5A308  - 2.0 beta ? (Now in the 300s and suffix letter dropped)
5A331  - 2.0 beta 7

The Wikipedia article reports that 5A292g was released May 28. Ok, that's correct here. Wikipedia also reports that (the supposed two) beta 7 firmware was released June 9. Ok, the wiki is also correct for 5A331. However, we report that 5A308 was released on May 29. Now, either we are wrong, or Wikipedia is wrong. Either way, someone is wrong about the beta number and release date of 5A308. Anyone know of anything that can solve this?
The very first version of "Firmware Keys" already lists 5A308 as beta 6. In addition, the revision is dated July 27, so there is no timestamp to help solve this. --5urd (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tried Google, and of the sites I've looked at, they report as 5A308 being "iPhone SDK beta 6", not "iPhone OS beta 6". Here are some excerpts from a MacRumors thread (emphasis mine):

I'm really confused about the 3G rumors relating to iPhone 2.0 Beta 6. (5A308).

Here is the title of one from World of Apple (dated May 29) (emphasis mine):

Apple Releases iPhone SDK Beta 6, iPhone OS 2.0 Build 5A308

This points in the direction of us being right, but can anyone help confirm this? --5urd (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned articles

This is an interesting search: Special:LonelyPages - "The following pages are not linked from or transcluded into other pages in The iPhone Wiki." I'm not sure where all of those articles should be linked, but figuring that out could be a useful project for somebody. Britta (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Key page idea

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to make another category for key pages which do not have a complete key listing which has a bootrom exploit? That way, if people know how to get the keys, it would be easy to know which need to be added to. To me, the age does not matter as some people keep beta IPSW's stored no matter the age. Let me know what you all think. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should create a category for that, because ultimately that list will be empty. Maybe we could list them here (or somewhere else) and then just remove the references as we complete the pages? That way we avoid editing lots of pages without adding anything to them. --http (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Incomplete Key Pages? I could add the links to the pages on there if we agree and then like you said, remove when complete. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to add it to an existing page, as it will get deleted when complete. If you want to keep that page forever (like to list the A5+ devices) then yes, create that new page you mentioned. If it's only for the incomplete pages, adding the list to one of the comment pages is enough. --http (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It is only for pre A5 although it will never be complete. 5urd has an idea but he is away atm so cannot do it which is to make it go to another category if it sees "TODO". --iAdam1n (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

One additional idea: I think redsn0w and/or sn0wbreeze has a list of all keys included in it. You could use that to complete any missing information here or point out any differences. --http (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked redsn0w but it does not have all the keys just a few. sn0wbreeze will likely be the same as it only needs a few files patched. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I went through sn0wbreeze completely about a week ago, and every key it contains has been added here. --5urd (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

5urd made an edit that made it automatically move to if it sees TODO. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Easy tasks for new editors

• Finish converting the remaining error codes listed here http://theiphonewiki.com/wiki/MobileDevice_Library#Known_Error_Codes into the proper mach_return_t codes they should be displayed as. (convert the negative number listed into hex, strip any leading "FF" so it should be in the format "0xe80000" followed by two numbers) --Dirkg (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Key page links for A5+

I was thinking, so we do not clog up wanted pages, I think we should not link to pages for A5+ that have not been created due to it is not possible so we could just use the black text. It is annoying to see all that red when you also click them accidentally. Of course IF ever an exploit is found, this can be changed. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For me it doesn't matter if a few page links are red. We want to link and have them anyway some day in the future. But if you feel better when there are no links, I'm fine with that too. Wait for some other opinions before changing it. --http (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I do prefer it. I will wait until the 7 days are up anyway. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)