A User just marked three different questions and three different answers as duplicates and I challenge anyone to review them.

  1. Heimdall errors, “ERROR: Failed to detect compatible download-mode device.”
  2. Heimdall errors, “ERROR: Partition ”recovery“ does not exist in the specified PIT.”
  3. Heimdall errors, “ERROR: Failed to confirm end of file transfer sequence!”

According to @t0mmb13b, 1 is a dupe of 2. 2 is a dupe of 3. And, 3 is a dupe of 1 and 2. This is nothing short of a total failure to read any of them. I took time to enter these errors into android.stackexchange.com. I didn't do it for me, I did it for others that may run into these problems with Heimdall. They're all self-answered. And, all of these shared a similar format in the title for easy disambiguation by visitors and search engines. All of these errors are caused by different symptoms so I'll summarize them here.

The numbers correspond to the above

  1. This is caused by the device not being in download mode. The device must be put in a different mode.
  2. This is caused by the command's partition argument being lowercase. This is really awkward for a Linux/GNU guy, because heimdall (5) breaks convention, that --argument is the same as --ARGUMENT, what should have happened is that heimdall should have done --partition_name "ARGUMENT" instead. For those who make these most basic-assumptions about Linux utilities, Heimdall is likely to cause confusion. The error message heimdall produces is also useless for most people.
  3. This is caused by a bug in a release candidate of heimdall. It simply needs to be updated. Why is this important if it's just a release candidate then? Simple, heimdall is frozen at 1.4rc1 in the Ubuntu repository.

Users need to read the questions and answers before they comment. This kind of closing of questions and answers just discourages involvement. The onus can't be on the submitter to explain why his stuff is different when the judge, jury, and executioner was simply too lazy to read.

  • 2
    Notice for future readers: The downvotes are a result of the insults contained in the initial revision of this post. Otherwise it's fine to raise such a topic on meta. Just keep it polite. – Flow Aug 14 '13 at 15:30
  • Isn't it slightly inauthentic to roll back my original commentary while at the same time making notice of alleged negative undertones? I mean, it seems like if the problem is resolved you should let the question stand as it sits -- people aren't upvoting or downvoting past-revisions unless a user alerts them to those revisions. – Evan Carroll Aug 14 '13 at 21:27
  • 5
    "alleged"? "undertones"? You insulted a user in the original revision. The commentary is just a notice to readers who are wondering why there are so many down votes on the question. – Flow Aug 14 '13 at 22:14

Having read the original revision of your post, I'm a little surprised that such an experienced user wouldn't have a better way of dealing with his posts being VTC'ed. Things may be different in the crowded, shouty city of Stack Overflow, but ASE is above all a friendly site. Mistakes happen sometimes, and if we think someone has made a bad call, we try to persuade them civilly and rationally, without name-calling or hyperbole. It's a struggle sometimes, and everyone has an off day now and then, but it makes the site more rewarding for everyone and ultimately more involving. If you think you can manage to join us in a friendly discussion, then we can help resolve any problems together. If you can't manage that, then the warning that we are discouraging your involvement won't trouble us greatly.

I must admit that I was a little uncertain when I read your posts. We've occasionally had problems on ASE with users posting several similar questions to promote a commercial product, or some very confused users trying to get a tutorial by asking about one step at a time (e.g. "How do I install adb?" "What custom ROM can I use for this device?" "How do I install Odin?" "How do I connect this device to my computer?" "How do I unlock the bootloader?" etc. instead of simply "How do I install a custom ROM?"). And we sometimes get one user re-posting the same completely off-topic question over and over, with slightly different wordings, to try to get it considered on-topic.

For this reason, when I saw a succession of (on the face of it) similar questions, all self-answered, all from the same user, I was immediately on the alert: not because of anything particularly wrong with the questions, but because we've had problems with similar-looking questions. It took me quite some reflection, and reading the questions several times, to convince myself that you're "on the level" (i.e. that you're posting in good faith, and that you understand we're not trying to be Wikipedia). The regular users on the site are quite a mix: some (like me) are developers, some make a living through Android in various ways, and some are just keen users who don't touch the command-line if they can help it. Given all of these factors, I'm not at all surprised that a close-vote was thrown in haste.

As you're an experienced user on other SE sites, I know you don't really believe that one close-vote constitutes an "execution". But if it troubles you so much, I can think of some things you might do next time to avoid even that:-

  1. Phrase your question as a question. None of your posts contains a question. They're all just error messages and transcripts of terminal sessions. If you weren't answering your own question, we'd say, "What are you asking? Is it 'what does the error mean?' or 'how can I get past it?' What are you trying to achieve when you get this error?" In fact, if your aim is to make posts that are useful to future visitors, I'd recommend that you add those details now, to make the questions more understandable. It should have the side-effect of making it easier to see that they're not the same question.

  2. If you're planning something a little out-of-the-ordinary, such as a 'dump' of useful information on one topic, it doesn't hurt to drop into our chat-room and let us know that you're going to do it. Or ask on meta, "I just did some stuff with Heimdall. Is it OK if I post a series of questions and answer them myself, to document the problems I overcame?" (The answer will certainly be yes: the idea's not to get permission, but to alert us.) It's not necessary, but that way, it won't be a surprise to the regulars, and we are less likely to jump to conclusions or get 'trigger-happy'.

To reiterate: I don't think there's anything wrong with your questions. On ASE, we're just not used to getting helpful content in this manner. When we get several similar posts from one user, it's more commonly spam or otherwise unhelpful. I can see why you might be irritated that someone made a bad call in this case, and if you can rise above that irritation and stay civil, we'll respect you all the more for it.

  • 1
    +1 for the conclusion! I also had a little hard time with those questions, in the very same way. I'd even make the numbered lists first sentence bold to emphasize :) – Izzy Aug 14 '13 at 12:01
  • I don't see what is out of the ordinary about either questions that indicate an error, and are not preceded by "What causes this", or "How do I resolve", nor do I see what is out of the ordinary about dumping useful resolutions to OSS-problems. If I asked either of those questions you suggest, "what does this error mean", or "how do I get past it", I'd have to self-answer twice as many prompts to give the same amount of information. Maybe I was too standoffish in trying resolve someone else's mistake but there was nothing whatsoever wrong with the content, or the submission. – Evan Carroll Aug 14 '13 at 19:40
  • The better question remains (1) why are these questions still marked as dupes having been defended, and no one claiming otherwise? And, (2) why is that no one is mentioning or reprimanding the user who mistakenly duped 3 questions on a topic he didn't understand, clearly having not read them? – Evan Carroll Aug 14 '13 at 19:42
  • 7
    @EvanCarroll: What kind of reprimand would be proper for such a situation? You put it pretty accurately yourself, he "mistakenly duped 3 questions..." but it's not like some kind of great moral injustice took place here. The questions were never even closed since other community members disagreed with the suggested dupe (and defended your questions), so the close votes will decay harmlessly. Isn't that the close system working as intended? What were you intending to accomplish by attempting to crucify a user for a mistake that thus far has had no meaningful impact? – eldarerathis Aug 14 '13 at 20:14

Your initial post was way to offensive. I am considering to delete it all together and taking additional measures, but first I want say a few words.

There is absolutely no need to insult anyone. A user voted on some of your questions, so what? Nothing happened, and even if something had happened: Everything within the Stackexchange network can be reverted.

Users need to read the questions and answers before they comment. This kind of closing of questions and answers just discourages involvement. The onus can't be on the submitter to explain why his stuff is different when the judge, jury, and executioner was simply too lazy to read.

Why is it a problem to explain why you think your questions aren't duplicates, if somebody else doesn't think so? What's wrong with a discussion to find a consensus? Besides, nothing has happened, there was no 'executioner' involved.

  • 2
    Full ack. Though from time to time one of us (mostly me ;) look like a little "trigger-happy", we are far from being careless. What you (Evan) call "too lazy to read" is rather an indicator that your postings have not been clear, and were hard to understand/follow/read. – Izzy Aug 14 '13 at 12:05
  • 3
    @EvanCarroll to be honest: All I've noticed was a small mis-match in the title. The entire content confused me (which I ascribed to not having a Sammy and not being used to Heimdall); but the one question I looked at (device not detected) essentially contained the answer to one of the other questions, just preceded by 2 or 3 lines matching the question. So all I had was a vague feeling. But as said, not being familiar with Heimdall I decided to "skip over" in the review queue, as I felt I didn't understand enough of it. – Izzy Aug 14 '13 at 19:02

Alright, let's see here what I interpreted, to let others see.

Links enclosed for reference:

$ sudo adb reboot download then proceed to flash it.

heimdall flash --RECOVERY ./clockworkmod_6.0.3.2_jfltespr.img --no-reboot

  • Heimdall errors, "ERROR: Failed to confirm end of file transfer sequence!" - Screen dump, no question asked, heimdall version 1.4.0 RC 1, with log indicating sudo heimdall flash --RECOVERY ./recovery.img --no-reboot - oh! Another flashing problem again, answered with a bug in the Heimdall package that shipped with Ubuntu and having to upgrade the package from official Heimdall site.

That is where I understood all three of them are all linked.

Try understand what others would perceive of your line of questioning in relation to Heimdall, all related to flashing recovery which is why I flagged them as duplicates and vote-closed. I even suggested in a helpful comment to try re-edit the questions by consolidating them, in that last linky posted.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .