# Dish should BACK OUT the L211 software load



## Robert_S (Sep 25, 2004)

I watch everything via time shifting with the DVR. Even a football game I will hit pause (or record) and come into it 1 hour later so I can skip commercials.

However, with the latest issue around audio drop-outs, video freezes, and the like (I guess we are calling this jittery video).... it has made watching anything from the DVR useless. Last night, I had one recording that had either audio drop-outs or video freezes every minute or two. This is literally impossible to watch. I tried the change format trick and also the power button reboot - nothing seemed to work.

I am in the software industry and I would consider this a show-stopper bug. This makes the entire DVR function useless. I would rather drop back to L188 and at least have my DVR working correctly. Why would dish leave in L211 with such an obvious bug?

Dish... please either fix this issue ASAP or back out L211.


----------



## Allen Noland (Apr 23, 2002)

L211 gave me the ability to actually record ABC,NBC,CBS OTA HD for the first time ever. So I'm not inclined to be in favor of backing it out. Plus, I don't think they can. I'm sure it will be fixed soon.


----------



## Jim Parker (Aug 12, 2003)

I've had my 921 since Dec 31, 2003 and this is the most unstable version for me since about 1.85. I have many of the problems that have been reported by others, including audio and video drops outs, box lock ups, remote control problems, channels in the guide that turned red and said that I was not authorized for that channel, guide channel descriptions that looked like hexadecimal code and timers that misfire.

I don't have any OTA channels, so I did not have many of the problems that other users have had with OTA.

This version is a major step backwards, for me at least.


----------



## kzosat (Aug 22, 2004)

Wow, since 211, my playback problems stopped. Unit seems to be the most stable now for me.


----------



## DrBob (Feb 23, 2004)

Sorry guys - I can't get any OTA so 211 has been a BIG STEP BACKWARDS for me. Before it, I had a stable machine. Now I have lots of problems and nothing worthwhile added for me.

I hope you OTA guys are enjoying your additions, because you, like I, must be having a lot more problems with many other things. I am back to rebooting every other day just to keep my sanity.

Where is the next release to get me back to a stable machine?


----------



## boydivey (Sep 27, 2004)

This release has been great for me. It fixed the biggest issues I had: 1- guide for OTA, 2- no audio dropout on pause, 3- able to record local cbs station. Also, I love the signal strength reading on OTA. 

The receiver has "locked up" once, but I did a reboot and it hasn't happened again. Occasionally I get audio dropouts for about 3 sec., but it probably happens once every two hours.


----------



## Allen Noland (Apr 23, 2002)

Hopefully the release that Mark is testing will resolve the issues.


----------



## William_K_F (Apr 20, 2002)

I was better off with prior release, with this release, I lost the ability to record NBC OTA and recordings are much less reliably done. I'd prefer to roll it back until they have a stable release. For me the last one was much more stable.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

It's not possible to roll back.


----------



## KrazyEd (Oct 8, 2004)

I am on my 4th 921 since July 2004. The first 3 worked for about two weeks, but,
then died. I had very few software issues with any of the first 3, maybe because I
didn't have them long enough. My 4th worked pretty well with 188, but, have had
intermittent problems with 211. I have problems with the audio dropping out now and
then, and, if I hit the info button, the screen goes VERY dark after I hit done, and,
I have to reboot the 921. Those are the only two consistant problems I have now.
Given that we are about at the end of the month, it doesn't look like we will have
an update for January. Any target date for the next release?

Thanks


----------



## n0qcu (Mar 23, 2002)

Mark Lamutt said:


> It's not possible to roll back.


Mark, They've done it on the 2700 in the past. So I would think they could do it on any model receiver.


----------



## Maddogg (Sep 15, 2003)

I've had my 921 since Dec 2003 and this is the most unstable version for me ever. I have many of the problems that have been reported by others, including audio and video drops outs, box lock ups, remote control problems, channels in the guide that turned red and said that I was not authorized for that channel, guide channel descriptions that looked like hexadecimal code and timers that misfire. The box locks up with the DiSH overlay screen in the foreground at least once a night. When this happens, I am unable to see the video in the background. The guide button will work but when the channel switches, the video is still behind the overlay screen. It will not switch to any pre-recorded programs nor can you power off with the remote. This happens AT LEAST once every night and requires a complete power cycle to correct.

This version is a MAJOR, MAJOR step backwards.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

Wow!! I'll consider myself lucky because 211 works great on my 921. I have had no problems. I thought it was a major step forward. Looking forward to the next set of fixes.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

n0qcu said:


> Mark, They've done it on the 2700 in the past. So I would think they could do it on any model receiver.


The 2700 receiver is a bit more basic than the 921 HD DVR. There is always risk backing out an Image in this situation. I am running into the 211 issues, but personally I would rather the resources devoted to rolling back to the last version be devoted to moving to 212.

And I could see reasons that it would not be possible. I would rather not speculate about them, but there are a few that come to mind.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

It is no problem to back out a release, and it doesn't expend extra resources to do it. In this case, just take the image from L189, and call it L212. Everyone will download it thinking they have an update, when really, they are just getting the previous build again. Doesn't take rocket science to figure that out.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

I'm not suggesting that they actually do back it out though. If I am dish, I will get a whole lot more calls from 921 users complaining their guide info suddenly dissapeared than I would leaving L211 in tact a month after it was released.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

jsanders said:


> It is no problem to back out a release, and it doesn't expend extra resources to do it. In this case, just take the image from L189, and call it L212. Everyone will download it thinking they have an update, when really, they are just getting the previous build again. Doesn't take rocket science to figure that out.


Well I have to disagree here. My experience has been that whenever a release is done (Even a back out) you have to do some form of regression testing. That takes resources. Also depending on how a particular image is packaged can determine if this can be done. In some cases, Certain portions of the package may not allow a downgrade. Not sure if this is the case since I have no knowledge of how Dish packages their product and what are the dependencies.

I agree it is not a matter of rocket science, however, it is not as simple as just renaming and releasing. Maybe the company that you work for would allow such a thing. But the companies I personally have worked for would not. Anybody that tried to just rename a version and then send it down without doing some form of regresssion testing and an analysis to make sure that a back out can be performed with the given receiver would not be working here long.

There is such a concept of controlled releases that most companies use. From what I have read, Dish does not have the "Throw it over the fence" release process and tends to control there software release process.

Oh.. and Yes I am sure a lot of people would call about loosing OTA info. Another reason to hold tight for the next release rather than move back.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

Good point WeeJavaDude, yes, it does take some resources to make sure everything is okay. It isn't impossible to do either, and in most cases probably not very hard to do. It all depends how they do their RPM management (because it is fundamentally a unix box).

Dish/Eldon does have some sort of controlled release strategy in play. It was very loose last spring, and they seem to have tightened up the clamps for a release candidate since last August, however, it is still seems to need refining. The jittery video bug seems like a show stopper to me, it didn't exist in previous releases. Loss of remote functionality also didn't exist in previous releases, although not necessarily as critical as the jittery video skipping frames. ZSRs did exist before, and may not have been on their list of bugs to fix for release (thus not necessarily a showstopper).

I think in the end, I think we agree though. It isn't impossible to back it out, more than likely it isn't that hard to do. It is not a good idea to do it either.


----------



## Maddogg (Sep 15, 2003)

Given the level of testing that is obviously (painfully) missing with each new release, what benefit would there be for them "testing" any roll-back?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Maddogg said:


> Given the level of testing that is obviously (painfully) missing with each new release, what benefit would there be for them "testing" any roll-back?


At a minimum it would mimimize the risk where a backout turns the box into a doorstop. None of the software companies I worked for would ever allow a backout without testing. If Dish would, I would be very dissappointed in them as a company.

Imagine if they did what some suggested here and there was a dependency that resulted in making the 921 a doorstop and they did not test this scenerio. Shudder the thought.

So I see at a miminum that benefit and more. However, I don't believe roll-back makes sense for a number of reasons.


----------



## Maddogg (Sep 15, 2003)

Again, given the current level of testing, there is no guarantee that this won't happen anyway. How can ANY software company push out new releases with such severe problems? Without adequate testing, we will continually see new releases that create new problems that require new releases to fix. Good for job security, bad for those of us who have to suffer with this current release that has severely crippled our already limping 921. I know that a roll-back is extremely unlikely, even dangerous, but at this point, my 921 is almost unusable anyway.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

WeeJavaDude is right about that. If the 921 was a simple embedded controller, where you flashed the entire firmware, you might be able to get away with a blanket rollback. However, a linux program doesn't work that way.

Let's say you want to install gimp2 on a linux box. Before it can compile that program, it will need the gtk (stands for gimp tool kit) library before it can compile that program. It will also need the right versions of fontconfig2-dev, gimp-print-dev, gimp2-shlibs, libexif-dev, lifexif-shlibs, libwmf, libwmf-shlibs, among a lot of others. Let's say you decide to revert back to the original gimp program and toss gimp2. All of the libraries that gimp2 depends on, do not necessarily work for gimp. Gimp2 may depend on gimp-print-dev, version 1.1.5, but gimp depends on version 1.1.3, and that library needs to be added, or backed down. You may not even be able to back out that library because another package you have installed also depends on version 1.1.5 of that library.

When the 921 downloads new versions, it does not do what an el-lameo IS department tech does. It doesn't download an image of the entire operating system, and the application. It is more than likely going to give you binary versions of updated libraries and individual applications. So, if you back out a version, you need to be careful you back out all of the dependancies as well. 

If you dont back out a dependency, you will in effect, make the 921 a door-stop. An application won't run if you regress its version, but don't regress its library dependencies.

This can be a lot of work, but in most cases it probably isn't. However, it does require at some testing to make sure the box works, and that all of the application dependencies are sufficient.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Maddogg said:


> Again, given the current level of testing, there is no guarantee that this won't happen anyway. How can ANY software company push out new releases with such severe problems? Without adequate testing, we will continually see new releases that create new problems that require new releases to fix. Good for job security, bad for those of us who have to suffer with this current release that has severely crippled our already limping 921. I know that a roll-back is extremely unlikely, even dangerous, but at this point, my 921 is almost unusable anyway.


I fully understand your frustration. I am running into a lot of the 921 issues myself and my opinion is that a "Back Out" is not a solution as I stated before. Sounds like you agree.

As the customer pain related to bugs, ever release has that risk. If you have noticed with the last release, there are a number of people happy with it and a number of people hitting the issues. I see this with the 811 also and I am not sure why the wide range of user experiences. It could be due to how each individual user uses the box, the topology of the installation, the configuration inside the box, etc. The combinations are limitless.

I know that a number of the Dish bugs in the past have been of the class of "Boy did they miss that one". However, The ones that we are feeling the most pain for with 211 are by no means in that catagory.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

jsanders said:


> WeeJavaDude is right about that. If the 921 was a simple embedded controller, where you flashed the entire firmware, you might be able to get away with a blanket rollback. However, a linux program doesn't work that way.
> 
> Let's say you want to install gimp2 on a linux box. Before it can compile that program, it will need the gtk (stands for gimp tool kit) library before it can compile that program. It will also need the right versions of fontconfig2-dev, gimp-print-dev, gimp2-shlibs, libexif-dev, lifexif-shlibs, libwmf, libwmf-shlibs, among a lot of others. Let's say you decide to revert back to the original gimp program and toss gimp2. All of the libraries that gimp2 depends on, do not necessarily work for gimp. Gimp2 may depend on gimp-print-dev, version 1.1.5, but gimp depends on version 1.1.3, and that library needs to be added, or backed down. You may not even be able to back out that library because another package you have installed also depends on version 1.1.5 of that library.
> 
> ...


jsanders, nice expansion on my thoughts. I am by no means I linux guru, but I have done enough linux installs where I have ran into these dependency issues.


----------

