Thread: People who do not use cssu, why? First post updated 1.17
View Single Post
woody14619's Avatar
woody14619 is offline woody14619
2012-01-16 , 19:57
Posts: 1,455 | Thanked: 3,309 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Rochester, NY
#128
Originally Posted by szopin View Post
KP can be uninstalled, as good as BackupMenu (kudos to the author) is I did once get my device in non-bootable state when restoring very old backup, so risk is there.
The point is, you can backup your system and try CSSU without fear by taking a snapshot, then installing and trying it. Yes, installing a PR1.2 snapshot after updating your kernel will cause issues, because it can't find the modules it wants on the device. That has more to do with updating the kernel than BackupMenu, and shows that while KP can be uninstalled, it can cause issues on uninstall (including breaking things) if you don't use it's uninstall app. You can also brick your device by uninstalling KP with HAM or apt-get, requiring a kernel re-flash from a PC to make it right again.

Originally Posted by szopin View Post
Here is a quote from merlin's CSSU stable announcement thread:
Yes... It's almost identical language to most things that have a stable and testing branch. What's in stable has been tested and is working well, where what's in testing may in fact break things from time to time. It's the same warning on extras-devel and extras-testing vs extras. (You know, extras-devel/testing, where you got KP from...)

The point of the OP in creating this thread was asking why some people were still not using CSSU now that there's a stable release. It was a given when there was only a testing release, since it could in fact break things on occasion. Do you not understand that?

Originally Posted by szopin View Post
It was mentioned many times here how people were angry at Nokia breaking things with 1.3, including a fix that results in the same, with only ssh+screen+vim/less scenario fixed is not worth it for me to keep on-topic (especially that editing rc files is an optional solution, check the bug's thread). So you might repeat magical bugfixes that are great, this one example is of a not so great decision.
What are you talking about? "including a fix that results in the same"? I can't parse what you're trying to say here. What bug are you referring to?

As for "magical bugfixes", there's nothing "magical" about them. There are several, documented along with check-ins and code. Things are far more stable IMHO than under PR1.3. And I'm not alone in that assertion.

Originally Posted by szopin View Post
Also hildon stability/leak is fixed by KP alone it seems.
Really? To quote others, where is that at? Can you show me a post or a patch that show that? While possible, I somehow doubt that a kernel patch fixed a leak in a user-world program like hildon-desktop. Far more likely it was a library or a direct change to hildon itself (via CSSU or one of the pre-CSSU releases of changes made by MAG).

I still don't get why you trust the community to change your kernel, but not some user/system apps. It would seem there's far more risk in accepting kernel patches (which are not labeled as stable). It's like trusting your neighbor to change your engine out, but not paint your car. Sounds a little backwards.
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to woody14619 For This Useful Post: