Anyone else like having a hardcopy of operating software? The way the new setup with Diablo works is certainly a good thing - now, four years from now when I am still using my N800 with Diablo and OS2008 feature upgrade 4.2008.30-2, because it worked well enough that I never upgraded it from this point. The OS gets all mangled up, requiring a reflash, and wouldn't you know it, the 4.2008.30-2 update is what makes it (near) perfect, and I have no way to get it because of various issues with time and server changes (for new and improved - though not "proved" OS's). How to acquire this simple file for my records as insurance against future poorly functional releases?

b747mech

Can you explain a bit clearer what you mean? "Hardcopy" to me means a paper printout of something, but I don't think that's what you mean.

Eh, hardcopy - an actual physical storage of the file either on optical disk or magnetic storage, as different from a copy out in the ether on a machine which I do not maintain. Don't get me wrong, I am much impressed with automatic structures involved in the way we get updates over the internet for Linux and Windows. If my OS is wrecked and I want to rebuild it NOW, and the multiple systems and providers I have to go through aren't ALL functional, then I have a broken system until the distant server is up again, or the local cable provider repairs their link, fill in the blank with reason why. An actual file I can install the os, and then fbreader from using the "install from file" feature in application manager is worth more to me than what is a file system (usually well) maintained by someone else. Normally I navigate to the URL of the repository and physically select the file, the update area on the repository now has a username and pass requirement. I find if I wreck something or the newest flash is less able than previous I will rebuild faster from files than scrolling through application manager and resetting the repositories - time saved in the future by taking more time now. Call me old-school...

b747mech

Say! Someone shrunk my Commodore 64 and gave it the abilities of a supercomputer from it's place in time! -->N800

Also run PCLinuxOS for desktop, XP MCE2005 for home theatre

Well, I think you can (in red-pill mode) set hildon-application-manager to not clear it's cache; you could then archive things from there.

Or if you do everything with apt-get, then the cache'll stay (until you do an apt-get clean, of course).

Thank you! - After your above statement I investigated the extra features of application manager when in red pill. Previously, I had read of red pill being an easy way to mangle the OS, so I stayed with blue for the most part. What specifically might the major issues be *not to do* with red pill? Probably covers quite an area, brief outline?

b747mech

Truth be told, Nokia should be packaging up FIASCO images for SSU updates in the future. This one was mostly pushed to fix Modest-related battery consumption issues.

So, a full OS update would still be found in the cache after the auto-reboot? If a complete reflash is done, the new OS image might not be retrievable after restart? This concept is a bit annoying, a separate manner of file acquisition would be most helpful. Maybe a way to image the file system as you would image archive the current state of a regular desktop mechanical hard drive? Then the re-install or re-imageing would be done how? I've gotten used to being able to make a current-state image record of whatever computer I'm dealing with, this tablet complicates my process.

b747mech

What in the world are you babbling about? The tablets complicate nothing, as the FIASCO images provided on tablets-dev are "current-state image records" of the OS releases that can be "re-imaged" by flashing the device with them.

As far as I can tell, you didn't get it the first time. Nokia will be providing full FIASCO images with future SSU updates (alongside the packaging-based updates pushed through the Application manager), and those FIASCO images are your "hardcopy" of the OS.

Um, wouldn't cloning to mmc and doing something like to the resulting memory card using a linux box create a single backup file? I mean cloning after you get everything set up the way you want.

Yep, right, I did not read your statement as meaning the image would be available separately. Good!

b747mech