Talk:IBoot (Bootloader)

Commands used as an exploit vector

the armv7 go and stop do not have vectors you just point at the kernelcache and boot --liamchat 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

the usb_control_msg(0x21, 2) Exploit has a vector and there may be lots of tiny write zones in iboot --liamchat 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Article name

I'm not a big fan of the new name, so I'd like to propose a name change to "iBoot (Stage 2 Bootloader)." Would this be fine with others? --Dialexio 00:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For me it was just important to separate the two iBoot's. That was very confusing. For me your suggestion would be ok. --http 06:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for making such a change without discussing first. I was excited about the fact that disambiguation pages work now and wanted these two things to separate long ago. Cydia Application is also not the ideal name. I'll discuss the next time first. --http 06:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fine. :) I'll get to changing it now. Actually... would "iBoot (bootloader)" be a better name? The name probably doesn't need to be specific about which bootloader it is; it's mentioned in the article. --Dialexio 19:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would use uppercase for the Bootloader as it is a title. Not sure though. And yes, you can leave "Stage 2" away if there only exists one bootloader. But isn't the Bootrom the "Stage 1 Bootloader"? In that case I wouldn't leave it away. --http 22:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The stage 1 bootloader is actually LLB. However, I still don't believe that the "Stage 2" part should be included in parentheses; putting "(bootloader)" or "(Bootloader)" is sufficient enough to differentiate between this article and the bootrom's article. --Dialexio 23:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok LLB. Does LLB also have versions that begin with iBoot? Or is it included in the Stage 2 part? --http 23:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

LLB's version does indeed begin with "iBoot." It's the same version number as iBEC/iBoot/iBSS from the same firmware. --Dialexio 23:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bootrom, LLB, iBEC, iBSS and iBoot all have the tag iBoot in their version numbers as they are part of the iBoot family, but iBoot(2nd stage bootloader) is the only one internally referred to as iBoot --Lilstevie 07:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. What do you mean with "internally referred"? Are there leftover strings or symbols or did Apple tell something like this? And why is the version info string of the Bootrom also labeled as IBOOT then? We still need to differentiate at least Bootrom and this article. We could mention LLB, iBEC and iBSS on the disambiguation page also. And even if LLB is "stage 1", we don't want to rename that. So yes, a short name like Dialexio's "iBoot (Bootloader)" would probably be the best idea then. An alternative would be to rename this article back to "iBoot" and begin with something like "for more meanings of iBoot see disambiguation page" (which needs a new name then). But I think that then we have almost the same situation as before - iBoot in Bootrom context will not be found. So I prefer the version to rename this article to "IBoot (Bootloader)". --http 10:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

iBEC and iBSS are not in the bootchain they are used to restore / update the device so they can be named the Stage_1_recovery and Stage_2_recovery and they are used to mount a ramdisk to jailbreak also if we are going to rename the bootchain can we rename it in order ( e.g how they did it for the Boot process of a nintendo wii )

Bootrom = Stage_1_Bootloader

LLB = Stage_2_Bootloader

IBoot = Stage_3_Bootloader

Kernelcache = Stage_4_Bootloader --liamchat 19:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for the Wii, Nintendo actually gave the bootloaders/bootrom the names "boot0," "boot1," and "boot2." "Stage 2 Bootloader" isn't Apple's name for iBoot. --Dialexio 01:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Version listing

This is getting pretty long and hard to navigate unless it is organized in some way. I am proposing that we do it the same way we do the Baseband Device pages (ex: MDM6600) where is is a wrapped <pre /> with a fixed width font... --Balloonhead66 19:17, 29 October 2011 (MDT)

I don't think that it's difficult to navigate (and I'm fine with how it is for now), but I suppose it could use a (small?) face lift. --Dialexio 23:56, 29 October 2011 (MDT)

I think it should remain as it is. Maybe even change the baseband pages to a listing like this. -- http 16:56, 30 October 2011 (MDT)

In putting it in the

, I found some missing builds and added them in. I changed it because it was hard to identify which was which... Also, some were incorrect... --Balloonhead66 20:17, 15 November 2011 (MST)