Talk:Jailbreak/2011

"Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 2.x?"

The exploits used for jailbreaking iOS 1.x are broken down by firmware version. I'd like to accomplish the same thing for the 2.0 and onward section, since it's formatted much differently. But then I thought to myself, "This is going to be a huge revision that may receive sharp criticism. Let me make a talk page entry for this." So that's what I did…

So, in other words, would it be fine if the "Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 2.0+" section was changed to something similar to the "Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 1.x" section? --Dialexio 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Wouldn't it be easier to also separate them by major revisions? Like have a 2.X section, a 3.X section, a 4.X section, and soon to be 5.X? --JakeAnthraX 02:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course! I was planning to do that, too. :P --Dialexio 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

4.3.5 / 4.2.10

I've changed references to 0.9.8b3 to 0.9.8b7 for 4.3.5 tethered jailbreaks (see latest iPhone Dev rs iOS5beta posting). Should the Main Page be changed to reflect that an official jailbreak is available? Or will this only be changed on release of an untethered exploit being made available? Also fixed an error in which a reference to 0.9.6rc18 was existent with a question mark. Now changed to the accurate version of rs beta that needs to be used for 4.3.4 on that device. I've left 0.9.8b3 for 4.3.4 simply because that was the first release supporting it. Hope this is okay. blackthund3r 04:57, 31 August 2011 (MDT)

Actually it should list the lowest and highest version number that supports the listed firmware version, not just the latest. That's why all other pre 4.3.3 versions for redsn0w have ranges. -- http 00:57, 1 September 2011 (MDT)

3GS separation

From a jailbreak point of view, the 3GS with old and new bootrom are totally different devices. Can we separate that into two tables? -- http 12:48, 14 December 2011 (MST)

5.x PwnageTool bundles

The list says there are PwnageTool custom bundles for 5.0 for iPad and iPhone 4 (GSM) available. Is that correct? -- http 05:06, 19 December 2011 (MST)

see pwnbundles.com --Zmaster 06:45, 19 December 2011 (MST)

That site doesn't list any bundle for iOS 5.0, while this page says iOS 5.0 can be jailbroken with PwnageTool and a custom bundle. Is this just meant theoretical or what? -- http 10:32, 19 December 2011 (MST)

Clutter

Some of the tables (notably the iPhone 3GS section) are beginning to appear crammed. I think we could break up the tables a little more, based on firmware versions, to alleviate this issue. Thoughts? --Dialexio 18:51, 28 December 2011 (MST)

What about dropping the table all together:

== [[m68ap|iPhone]] ==
* 1.0.0
** iBrickr
*** Untethered: 0.5-0.91

or

== [[m68ap|iPhone]] ==
* 1.0.0
** iBrickr (Untethered): 0.5-0.91

--5urd 19:00, 28 December 2011 (MST)

Sounds good to me. Unless somebody wants tables, I'll switch over to this proposed format sometime around the weekend. --Dialexio 21:08, 28 December 2011 (MST)

There is one more that I would like better: the first option but list all versions:

== [[m68ap|iPhone]] ==
* 1.0.0
** iBrickr
*** 0.5 (Untethered)
*** 0.6 (Untethered)
...

Its a bigger job, but it is better IMO --5urd 22:42, 28 December 2011 (MST)

One more (the tools area is listed like list option three, but w/o the link. The link is on the second column. The "5.0.1" can be like ==== 5.0.1 ====): File:JB Option.png --5urd 22:47, 28 December 2011 (MST)

I do like the tables and I don't see a big need to change anything (except updating). A list won't bring much advantage and just increase page size. But the last proposed version of 5urd, a table that lists all tools in their versions for each firmware (still per device) wouldn't be bad if you want to change something. Please see also my request above about separating devices for old/new bootrom. --http 02:59, 29 December 2011 (MST)

It will make it vertical instead of horizontal (which is better) and it would allow someone to link to the firmware version with the ToC if we make the version number a header (see above comment). I can do it later today. --5urd 12:01, 29 December 2011 (MST)

I would actually like to see the new table format on Firmware and Beta Firmware --5urd 16:08, 29 December 2011 (MST)