The Apple Wiki talk:Ground rules

New rules on credit
Chronic, I think it would be a good idea to discuss and vote on this new rule before going forward with it. My feeling is that it is deliberately antagonistic toward the dev team (and illogical) and deserves some discussion and a vote before it goes forward. The dev team and myself personally have contributed much to this wiki, either directly or indirectly. Are you trying to make us feel unwelcome? --Planetbeing 22:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't agree with Chronic here. I thank you guys for your contributions, and if you had the exploit first, you get credit. Credit is set in stone as soon as the exploit is revealed, and is given to as many people who discovered it independently. For example, we share credit on the 5.8 BL hack, since we both discovered it, even though I was the one to publish you had it first and I acknowledge that. And seriously, who the hell cares? I just want the information out there. --geohot 22:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Added protection to page --geohot 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea
Perhaps my action was too sudden. Let me present my points, and you can present yours:
 * Chronic Dev and you (planetbeing) worked on 0x24000 hack. MuscleNerd found that the vulnerability existed, but did nothing implementation wise. We had it all ready and implemented, and while he is awesome for being able to find it, it kind of does not make sense to put his nae in the credits. To be fair, since he did find the CERT thing, although it is kind of generic it is probably worth splitting into a separate page for the implementation versus the exploit itself.
 * This also works the other way around. I discovered arm7_go independently, but removed my credit because MuscleNerd and the rest of you guys packaged it up into a working jailbreak. Did you notice that?
 * The whole hash thing is annoying. It was good for NitroKey's leak, I'll admit, but here is an example I really don't like. We went through the bootrom with geohot, found the exploit, and had him test it out to be sure it still existed and didn't have a fix hidden in some bdev routine. It did not, and the exploit still worked. Then, two hours later, for some reason dev decided to completely ignore the fact that geohot actually verified it, and instead posted their analysis of bootrom as if they hadn't seen geohots post (oh, and there was a hash of it the analysis!). We don't use hashes, but we technically knew before you that it worked and was still there, we just thought it would actually be better to verify that it worked. Sure, we could assume that you all just didn't see geohotz post at all, but then again what would have made you want to hash the notes? I guess I could not count that point though, as that would imply that I would need to assume that you expected him to post first or something.
 * I understand that I definitely should have posted something on this page regarding this matter first, and I take full responsibility, but just because somebody has op in #iphone, totally unrelated to The iPhone Wiki or anything that I have said in the room or any rules I have broken in there, does it mean that they should be able to still ban me?

Hardware?
What about hardware information on the iPhone? Is this desired in here? I found no articles, although there are a lot available on the internet, like on ifixit. I had to take my iPod Touch 1G apart today and needed infos on this. I could have provided my own good photos etc. But I'm not sure if this kind of info belongs in here or not. Maybe you should clarify that. This kind of infos are mostly not directly related to hacking, but more on repair etc., but could potentially also be useful for hackers. If yes, this is desired, then could you propose a structure for these pages? One page for every device (dividing it if too big) or one page for each type of instruction (dividing it by device if necessary)? --http 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)