Talk:Main Page/2021

Mac in the jailbreak table

Why is this in the table? Macs aren't exactly locked up in a BSD jail like iOS devices; they have security to prevent modifying system files by default, but Macs are a more open platform and SIP can be disabled to edit said files. You don't need to run some jailbreaking utility to e.g. change around some system icons in macOS. I presume the intent was to say bridgeOS on Macs with the T2 are susceptible to jailbreaking per the footnote, but the "Supported" row points to "All Macs with the M1". None of the M1 Macs have a T2 chip. The information provided is also for macOS, not bridgeOS. --Dialexio (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That can be fixed but it was added as it's "firmware status" not just "jailbreak status" as should be there. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

HTTPS links on firmwares and OTA's that are hosted on "updates.cdn-apple.com"

I'm writing this topic because Dialexio hasn't been using https. https has been used here on the wiki regularly since 2019 when adding new firmware links that are hosted on Apple's CDN, which host's all of Apple's firmwares released since April 2018, such as iOS 11.3.1 and newer.

back when apple was still using appldnld.apple.com, adding https (https://secure-appldnld.apple.com) would make the links unreliable or not work at all.

but now with http://updates-http.cdn-apple.com, it works just fine to switch to (https://updates.cdn-apple.com).

it is easy as pie to switch the links to use https by using a good text-editing program that has a "find and replace" function. like Notepad++ or Gedit.

is there any good reason we shouldn't be using https on the newer firmwares hosted on Apple's CDN?

- DanTheMann15 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(This should probably be on The Apple Wiki:Community portal instead, but oh well.) It kinda boils down to personal preference; to my understanding, there was never any sort of formal agreement on this. A user simply started converting some links to HTTPS, and I just let them do their thing since I do see benefits of using HTTPS. (At the end of the day though, you're still going to get the same file, especially if you verify its hash.) But personally, I'd rather keep the links the same way Apple provided them— if they gave us an HTTP link, that's what I'll add, and if they gave an HTTPS link, that's what I'll add. I'm not opposed to others changing the links I post to HTTPS as it's still Apple hosting and providing the download links, but I don't feel we should have to go out of our way to add one more step to an already tedious task. You can make an argument that it's for consistency, but that logic can also be used towards converting HTTPS links back to HTTP, and we would also trim the URLs for the older IPSWs so those look more consistent with newer, pre cdn-apple.com releases. --Dialexio (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

i understand where you are coming from, but i will continue to use https on the firmware links i post, since there are more advantages than the other way around, albeit the possible reason why apple gives us http links is likely because https requires valid certificates, which for some reason not everybody has. also it's important to note about HTTPS-Only on some major browsers so http links will not work for those who have that setting enabled. and like i said above, it takes me a fraction of a second to convert the links to https, thanks to Notepad++. perhaps you could add a setting that you can enable in the OTA Catalog Parser that would automatically convert links to https when parsing the links to save time. - DanTheMann15 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

well i'll be darned, apple started providing https links for OTA downloads through pallas now! that'll save time on links going forward, i wonder if they'll do the same on IPSW's, only time will tell. - DanTheMann15 (talk) 21:27, 17 Jul 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup

Can we clean up the front page? It feels like there's an unnecessary amount of jargon that we can afford to simplify. I don't think we need to link to, e.g. the S5L8947 or the MDM9625 on the front page— the links to the Application Processor Baseband Device pages should be sufficient. (We can also probably remove the listing of each and every device under "Hardware" to further save space, but I can understand keeping those.) We also don't need to list every IMG3 or IMG4 tag. --Dialexio (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey there Dialexio, yes i completely agree with cleaning up the front page, as it is full of repeated garbage. what we could do is consolidate the hardware links to the device lists, i'll make a concept on my Sandbox so i can fully show you what i mean. and yeah, we do not need to link the basebands and application processors in the front page, it'll be just fine contained in it's own page but have it's link on the main page be Bolded to make it easy enough to see. as for the stuff at the bottom of the page, i don't see any real need to change it, though i might see something that needs attention as i comb through it. but overall, after you see what i have in mind, you may make the changes as you wish upon the next beta day. - Cheers! --DanTheMann15 (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I like the effort you made on your sandbox page! I hope you don't mind that I made a couple of additional edits that I think we can make, with some comments on why I thought the amendment was for the better. (If you don't like it, feel free to revert it and/or say something here.) --Dialexio (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You have my approval on these changes, they look good, and the comments for anyone editing would be helpful to point them to the relevant page. once we are satisfied with the right Hardware side, we can turn on consolidating the left Software side so that the page is considerably shorter, as for the bottom of the page where Development and Help are, i don't see any immediate changes that i can suggest yet but if they come up i'll let you know, and feel free to make adjustments on the sandbox draft, it's what it's there for so we can see what the difference will look like. --DanTheMann15 (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Eliminating the firmware key links on the device lists

I have a new change to propose,

Mind cutting the firmware key links from the device lists (e.g List of iPhones, iPads etc...) and replacing those links with a "See also" section at the bottom of the pages that has a link to Firmware Keys instead?

I feel it would look MUCH cleaner since it looks messy having it tell the same firmware version twice on devices that have two or more identifiers.

like the iPhone 5s here for example, which has two identifiers:

CURRENT SETUP

• Firmware:
  • Initial firmware: 7.0 (11A466), 7.0 (11A466)
  • Latest firmware: 12.5.5 (16H62), 12.5.5 (16H62)

MY SUGGESTION

Firmwares:

• Initial firmware: 7.0 (11A466)
• Latest firmware: 12.5.5 (16H62)

====== See also ====== (AT BOTTOM OF THE PAGE)

Firmware Keys

---

Notes:

↓ we can also bold the versions and build numbers like this if we need to.

Firmwares:

• Initial firmware: 7.0 (11A466)
• Latest firmware: 12.5.5 (16H62)

let me know your thoughts, feedback is always good. --DanTheMann15 (talk) DanTheMann15 (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I personally like the key page links as they are, but also see why it’d be cleaner. I suppose it would look better if it’s just one listing. —iAdam1n (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)