rpcameron's post me me think a little more whether there is a way to 'hide' e.g. FB package.
Initially I thought as well that the name is picked up from apt/dpkg so there is little to do, but then considering that from the UI you don't get the package name but a nice display name Facebook, plus the f-ing icon... where is that coming from?

So actually I found it is possible to make FB disappear, by editing the file /var/lib/dpkg/status (first make a copy of it!) then search for "Package: facebookqml" and then couple of lines below there is the field "Section: user/communication".
Now, if I remember right, the UI shows everything that is under "user" section, so I tried to change that field into something else, like "hidden/communication".
(After a reboot) Facebook disappeared from the list.
This way, apt/dpkg can still see the package is installed so no major drama should follow from the change, but the Application UI won't show it among the list of packages.
I guess the change will last until next the package gets upgraded (i.e. for the case in question likely forever)

Similar change should be possible with package twitter-qml.

There are dependency issues as the harmattan metapackage among others depends on them. I said "suppose" because I haven't tried removing those dependencies by hand from /var/lib/dpkg/status. After doing that it would be possible to remove only the twitter and facebookqml packages using dpkg and leave others be.

It is possible that everything would work and FB+twitter simply disappear from menus and apps that use them, but it could also be that integration isn't only at the package level and that removing facebookqml and twitter packages completely breaks some functionality on the phone. (webupload, contacts). So try at your own risk and be ready to reflash.

Yes, there's support for XMPP OOTB as Harmattan uses empathy as it's IM backend. To add your account you simply use the commands provided in my previous post.

Is there any way to flash from DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.235.1_PR_235* to DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3_PR_001?
The device (a relative's 16GB N9) is already updated over the air to PR1.3....
I know it's usually not do-able, but I vaguely recall there being some kind of hack to get round the "no low PR to higher PR" rule.
Otherwise my only bloody option for non-telco fw & eMMC images seems to be Country Variant Australia, which at PR_299 is even lower than PR_235!*
http://mrcrab.net/nokia/Nokia_N9.htm...n=40.2012.21.3

*Australian telco variant

no...
10chars

As in:
Or as in:
If the former, can you point to somewhere where this is well & truly put to bed.

TIA.

^BUMP @thedead/anyone? Thank-you.

After carefully combing through all N9 40.2012* images at MrCrab...
The only images that aren't branded & with a PR not much higher than PR_235 that I could see, are as follows:

Country Variant, Australia
62A0A79D_DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.280.04.1_PR_LEGACY_280_ARM_RM-696_PRD_signed.bin
6BF042E3_DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.280.1_EMMC_280

AND

Country Variant, Sweden
E10C8FCB_DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.299.1_PR_LEGACY_299_ARM_RM-696_PRD_signed.bin
DF5035B2_DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.SEAP.16_EMMC_SEAP.bin
Like the image set above it, I think this is meant to be a country variant (for Sweden), although it's not clearly marked as such!

I've since downloaded most of them, but haven't yet finished Australian Country Variant eMMC.
At 1.86GB it's way bigger than the Swedish Country Variant eMMC, which is 1.55GB...*
Why's that, are both likely to be up-to-date & simply have different content (but same core) because they're from different regions?

*UPDATE*
Had a closer look at a bunch of Northern EU & Norway images, I noticed a few things...
Their fw images are slightly larger than the 2 country variant fw images above, 1.16GB Vs 1.14GB.
But their eMMC images are the same size as the Swedish country variant's eMMC image.
Had a look at all 40.2012* Telstra images (variant used on this N9), sizes of all fw & eMMC images match that of the Australian country variant listed above.

*sizes as referenced from the site, actual size when downloaded to local storage is slightly different

Why am I getting downgrade disallowed here, I can understand why I wasn't allowed to flash up to PR_001, but now I'm flashing down from PR_235 to PR_280:

Jacks-rMBP:N9_Flash root# flasher -f -F 62A0A79D_DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.280.04.1_PR_LEGACY_280_ARM_RM-696_PRD_signed.bin
flasher 3.12.1 (Oct 5 2011) Harmattan
WARNING: This tool is intended for professional use only. Using it may result
in permanently damaging your device or losing the warranty.

USB device found at bus 29, device address 6.
Device serial number is N/A
Found device RM-696, hardware revision 1603
NOLO version 2.3.6
Version of 'sw-release': DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.235.1_PR_235
Sending ape-algo image (7103 kB)...
100% (7103 of 7103 kB, avg. 31018 kB/s)
Suitable USB interface (phonet) not found, waiting...
USB device found at bus 29, device address 6.
Device serial number is
Raw data transfer EP found at EP2.
Ping attempt 1 (250 ms)
Server application: 1.7.2
Found product RM-696 rev. 1603
Server implements softupd protocol version 1.8
Image SW version DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.280.04.1_PR_280
Image moslo not present
Image mmc not present
Image tar skipped
Image config skipped

Battery level 50 %, continuing.

image [state progress transfer flash speed]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[_] cert-sw [init 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] cmt-2nd [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] cmt-algo [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] cmt-mcusw [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] xloader [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] secondary [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] kernel [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] rootfs [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
ERROR: SU_GET_UPDATE_STATUS_REQ terminated with error code 10: Security failure

image [state progress transfer flash speed]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[f] cert-sw [init 0 % 1 / 1 kB NA ]
[ ] cmt-2nd [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] cmt-algo [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] cmt-mcusw [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] xloader [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] secondary [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] kernel [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
[ ] rootfs [pending 0 % 0 / 0 kB NA ]
Fetching error list:
========================================
bb5_rdc_cert_read failed
bb5_rdc_cert_read failed
bb5_rdc_cert_read failed
bb5_rdc_cert_read failed
bb5_rdc_cert_read failed
bb5_rdc_cert_read failed
Downgrade disallowed (1342066089)
[Pipe 0] Finishing in error state with status 10
========================================

ERROR: Failed to flash images

Wanted to try PR_280 1st, but because I received the above error I've proceeded with PR_299.
It's completed without issue, but I just need to finish-off downloading the eMMC image now >.>
Then I can finish the entire "comprehensive reset" procedure...
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _
*UPDATE*
Jacks-rMBP:N9_Flash root# flasher -f -F E10C8FCB_DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.299.1_PR_LEGACY_299_ARM_RM-696_PRD_signed.bin
flasher 3.12.1 (Oct 5 2011) Harmattan
WARNING: This tool is intended for professional use only. Using it may result
in permanently damaging your device or losing the warranty.

USB device found at bus 29, device address 6.
Device serial number is
Raw data transfer EP found at EP2.
Ping attempt 1 (250 ms)
Server application: 1.7.2
Found product RM-696 rev. 1603
Server implements softupd protocol version 1.8
Image SW version DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.299.1_PR_299
Image moslo not present
Image mmc not present
Image tar skipped
Image config skipped

Battery level 53 %, continuing.

image [state progress transfer flash speed]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[x] cert-sw [finished 100 % 1 / 1 kB NA ]
[x] cmt-2nd [finished 100 % 95 / 95 kB NA ]
[x] cmt-algo [finished 100 % 789 / 789 kB NA ]
[x] cmt-mcusw [finished 100 % 6050 / 6050 kB 3418 kB/s]
[x] xloader [finished 100 % 23 / 23 kB NA ]
[x] secondary [finished 100 % 94 / 94 kB NA ]
[x] kernel [finished 100 % 2714 / 2714 kB 1942 kB/s]
[x] rootfs [finished 100 % 1170333 / 1170333 kB 10755 kB/s]
Updating SW release
Success

************************************************** ************************************************** **************************************************

Jacks-rMBP:N9_Flash root# flasher -f -F E10C8FCB_DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.299.1_PR_LEGACY_299_ARM_RM-696_PRD_signed.bin -F DF5035B2_DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.SEAP.16_EMMC_SEAP.bin --flash-only=mmc
flasher 3.12.1 (Oct 5 2011) Harmattan
WARNING: This tool is intended for professional use only. Using it may result
in permanently damaging your device or losing the warranty.

USB device found at bus 29, device address 6.
Device serial number is
Raw data transfer EP found at EP2.
Ping attempt 1 (250 ms)
Server application: 1.7.2
Found product RM-696 rev. 1603
Server implements softupd protocol version 1.8
Image SW version DFL61_HARMATTAN_40.2012.21-3.299.1_PR_299
Image cmt-2nd skipped
Image cmt-algo skipped
Image cmt-mcusw skipped
Image xloader skipped
Image secondary skipped
Image kernel skipped
Image moslo skipped
Image rootfs skipped
Image tar skipped
Image config skipped

Battery level 58 %, continuing.

image [state progress transfer flash speed]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[x] cert-sw [finished 100 % 1 / 1 kB NA ]
[x] mmc [finished 100 % 1946679 / 1946679 kB 19509 kB/s]
Success

So all done, albeit far from ideal... >.>
If anyone has a inkling, I'd appreciate some input in response to post #25, & subsequent findings/posts.

It would be nice to know the original release dates for those variants, but I think one possibility is that variant 235 has been released *after* 280 and it happen to have a sw-cert that is newer.
I don't know all the details about the swcerts, but I do remember that the system is running some cross-checks about the validity of the certificates (which have e.g. a field 'valid from'), so it's possible that operation that you were trying implied a 'downgrade' in swcert version, and because of that it was blocked.

Makes sense, any rationale for the different Fw/eMMC image sizes between different variants that I noted?
Also, can you point to something that explains exactly why it's absolutely impossible to flash from [e.g.] PR_299 -> PR_235?