Glo Firmware 2.1.5

[kobokobe]

Yea, my Glo updated yesterday to what it said was 2.1.4, but when I checked my device info after reading above posts, it says my software version is 2.1.5

[rjcroy]

My Touch is updating now. I'm in New Zealand with a Touch bought in the US.

..OK. Done. Install went fine. It was updating from a sideloaded 2.1.1 firmware.

Things appear to be working fine. Fast too.

The release notes said it was 2.1.4, but the device information page says its 2.1.5. r43939.

[Mrs_Often]

Originally Posted by jusmee

You are right. The point, that others seem to have missed (or chosen to ignore ), is that, even "side-loaded" upgrades should check that they are installing on the correct device before proceeding.

I agree.

Originally Posted by murg

Sorry, but if you guys aren't even doing the very basic checks involved in determining that the firmware is for the right device. This is a design defect and probably a manufacturing defect as well.

You are operating in an international arena, the consumer protection laws are different in every country. I'm sure that at least one of these countries will find that the design of the firmware update management is a defect. And imagine the PR disaster if your devices are found to have a defective design. People (and by this I mean the press) doesn't really distinguish between firmware and hardware.

Nothing a user does on the user accessible side of the Kobo should result in a broken device. Needing-to-be factory reset is barely acceptable, but broken is completely unacceptable.

If someone goes playing around on the internal side of the device, then they are on their own.

There was also no warning from Kobo that this behaviour would lead to a broken device. There is a big difference between 'incompatible' and 'broken'.

Yep. If something were to break the device, it should not be so easy to do. If it is easy, and you know how easily we can all get the firmware zips because you're aware of this forum, you should build in a safety. Upon restart, the device should check what it's getting to upgrade to, and just simply tell you "Sorry, I don't like this firmware. I'm going to stick with what I have."

Originally Posted by jusmee

A question, if the update file is for Touch only, why name it kobo-update-2.1.5.zip and not something sensible like kobo-touch-update-2.1.5.zip ??

Very good question!!

Originally Posted by PeterT

Probably for the simple reason we the end-users are not meant to be aware of the file location ..

Yeah, well, if we shouldn't be aware of it, it should be more properly hidden.

[echwel]

Originally Posted by Mrs_Often

I agree.


Yep. If something were to break the device, it should not be so easy to do. If it is easy, and you know how easily we can all get the firmware zips because you're aware of this forum, you should build in a safety. Upon restart, the device should check what it's getting to upgrade to, and just simply tell you "Sorry, I don't like this firmware. I'm going to stick with what I have."


Very good question!!


Yeah, well, if we shouldn't be aware of it, it should be more properly hidden.

What is properly hidden? Does Kobo tell us at what location the updatefiles are stored? No, from what I have read I think some sniffing during the updateproces tells some techies where they are. That, I think, they can not stop, because the update uses internet.

Nonetheless, at least they could easily give the updatefiles names that correspond with the type of device they are supposed to be used for. Then there is, for people who anyway still want to side-update, only the problem that devices from the same type, still can have hardwaredifferences.

[SeigneurAo]

Oh come on.
Fact is that nothing remains hidden for long nowadays, deal with it.
It certainly doesn't mean that you're entitled to do whatever dumb thing you can come up with, and still get to complain about it, not to mention call upon the company's responsability over your blunder, especially when they are explicitely advising against the practice.

It IS obvious that the location of the firmwares is not supposed to be known in the first place but hey, this is the Internet, people do tend to nose around and eventually word gets out.
Still Kobo doesn't advertise about this sideloading firmwares thing, they actually do the opposite if anything.

To take a very similar example, you can almost load any rom on any smartphone with ease these days.
Except that you may soft- or hard-brick said device doing so, for instance if you pick a rom meant for another brand/model (rings any bell ?).

The fact it is easily done is only thanks to places like MobileRead, gathering dedicated and passionate people sharing their experiences and knowledge, and not the company‘s fault, neither is it an excuse that you should rush and do it right away.
There are disclaimers dammit, and people are capable of reading and understanding them.
I also assume that they know perfectly well that they're doing something a bit borderline when manually updating. The adult behaviour to adopt there is taking responsability for your actions, not turning into a crybaby whose toy is broken, and all bad company guys are meanies.
You did it to yourself in the first place, they most certainly don't have to pay for it, or remedy it in any way. Be very thankful if they do.

I don't hold Kobo liable for problems existing between the chair and the keyboard, same as I don't think people should be allowed to sue microwave manufacturers when they put their cat in it "in order to dry it", just because the manual doesn't mention you can't.
They sell you a product, period.
Brains not included.

[Mrs_Often]

Calm down SeigneurAo. Nobody's being a crybaby, there's only one person here as far as I know that actually 'broke' their glo by installing the touch's firmware, and he specifically mentioned he's not blaming Kobo for his own fault. And not long after that, he managed to fix his glo himself.

So there aren't any problems.

The only things that are iffy, are that
- kobo mentions the different firmwares are incompatible... not that installing will actually break a device with no option to restore
- the kobo device doesn't check its new firmware update files before installing them.

And yes, I almost agree with you on:

To take a very similar example, you can almost load any rom on any smartphone with ease these days.
Except that you may soft- or hard-brick said device doing so, for instance if you pick a rom meant for another brand/model (rings any bell ?).

...but, such firmwares you find online for phones always state for which phone they are, and which version of that phone. All Kobo's 2.1.5 firmwares have the same name, regardless of which 2.1.5 for which exact device.

[SeigneurAo]

Originally Posted by Mrs_Often

- kobo mentions the different firmwares are incompatible... not that installing will actually break a device with no option to restore

Hmmm unless I'm mistaken there's always a mean to hard reset, using a toothpick with reset button combined with light button (used to be the home one).
They don't mention you will break the device with no option to restore because most likely that won't happen.

Originally Posted by Mrs_Often

- the kobo device doesn't check its new firmware update files before installing them.

Safeguards of this type are manageable, still like another user said I'm not sure I would deem it a very sensible use of developers' time.

Originally Posted by Mrs_Often

...but, such firmwares you find online for phones always state for which phone they are, and which version of that phone. All Kobo's 2.1.5 firmwares have the same name, regardless of which 2.1.5 for which exact device.

Maybe because they're not meant to be seen, let alone be used.

[Mrs_Often]

Originally Posted by SeigneurAo

Hmmm unless I'm mistaken there's always a mean to hard reset, using a toothpick with reset button combined with light button (used to be the home one).
They don't mention you will break the device with no option to restore because most likely that won't happen.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...php?t=194206#9

Right there, it says no hard reset, device is broken. That's the whole uproar here. It wouldn't be a drama at all if you could hard reset after you put the wrong firmware on your device...


Luckily for semhoun, he was smart enough to fix it anyway.

[Chi Cygni]

Oh no. No no no no. Why did I go to FNAC online. Kobo Glo available for order. I have to hold on thight

[SeigneurAo]

Originally Posted by Mrs_Often

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...php?t=194206#9

Right there, it says no hard reset, device is broken. That's the whole uproar here. It wouldn't be a drama at all if you could hard reset after you put the wrong firmware on your device...


Luckily for semhoun, he was smart enough to fix it anyway.

Well he didn't answer the post where you state the hard reset procedure.
As far as we know it does work.

[HarleyB]

I can't believe I'm defending Kobo () and how they have handled this upgrade but on the 6th Oct MDK posted a warning indicating that going forwared there were going to be incompatibilities between various firmwares and some devices.
The warning is repeated on the thread where the firmwares are posted.
If people choose to ignore the warning they have to accept that they may end up with a brick.
In any case the first poster to be told that he had "broke" his Glo was soon given a solution which fixed it.

[Mrs_Often]

Originally Posted by SeigneurAo

Well he didn't answer the post where you state the hard reset procedure.
As far as we know it does work.

He didn't answer indeed. But he did answer the question "is there a hard reset option or is the glo broken" by saying "it's broken." That's more or less the same as saying "there's no hard reset option."

And yes, if the hard reset I mentioned there does indeed work, the whole drama isn't really in its place per se, but, if a kobo rep states there is no hard reset option while there is one, that's a whole new problem...

[Mrs_Often]

Originally Posted by HarleyB

I can't believe I'm defending Kobo () and how they have handled this upgrade but on the 6th Oct MDK posted a warning indicating that going forwared there were going to be incompatibilities between various firmwares and some devices.
The warning is repeated on the thread where the firmwares are posted.
If people choose to ignore the warning they have to accept that they may end up with a brick.
In any case the first poster to be told that he had "broke" his Glo was soon given a solution which fixed it.

Indeed, I agree, Kobo warned for incompatibilities. They did not however warn for permanent breaks. The thread I linked to a few posts up states the glo in question broke, no fixes.

And no, the person who had the break and fixed it (semhoun), was not given a solution. He fixed it himself...

[SeigneurAo]

Originally Posted by HarleyB

I can't believe I'm defending Kobo () and how they have handled this upgrade but on the 6th Oct MDK posted a warning indicating that going forwared there were going to be incompatibilities between various firmwares and some devices.
The warning is repeated on the thread where the firmwares are posted.
If people choose to ignore the warning they have to accept that they may end up with a brick.
In any case the first poster to be told that he had "broke" his Glo was soon given a solution which fixed it.

Yeah and granted, as Mrs_Often stated, he DID react by saying he was the only one responsible for the situation to have arisen.
Actually my rant wasn't at all aimed at him as much as people complaining about the lack of security in Kobo's upgrading process.

[SeigneurAo]

Originally Posted by Mrs_Often

if a kobo rep states there is no hard reset option while there is one, that's a whole new problem...

I can only agree with that.
Remains to be seen if indeed said hard reset does work, or not.
Let's hope nobody gets to test it.

Originally Posted by Mrs_Often

Indeed, I agree, Kobo warned for incompatibilities. They did not however warn for permanent breaks.

What I don't really get there is : what do you expect these "incompatibilities" to result in, if not a broken device ?
Incompatible blood types result in a pretty bad outcome for instance.
Incompatibility may be perceived as a trifle inconvenience, but strictly speaking it's not. It's a serious business. But arguably yes, this word has lost some strength as of late, maybe it's not very appropriate.

I do reckon that they could, and should, make the risks more explicit, as we get more and more to have to explain the obvious (Hey guys, you know, these cigarettes things, they do tend to cause several unpleasant health issues such as, you know, cancer and death. Let's write it on the packs, so that people are finally aware).
It's sad but it's the way it is.