Jump to content

Welcome to Smart Home Forum by FIBARO

Dear Guest,

 

as you can notice parts of Smart Home Forum by FIBARO is not available for you. You have to register in order to view all content and post in our community. Don't worry! Registration is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to sign up. Become a part of of Smart Home Forum by FIBARO by creating an account.

 

As a member you can:

  •     Start new topics and reply to others
  •     Follow topics and users to get email updates
  •     Get your own profile page and make new friends
  •     Send personal messages
  •     ... and learn a lot about our system!

 

Regards,

Smart Home Forum by FIBARO Team


SmartStart

Member
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SmartStart

Profile information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Country
    Germany
  • Gateway/s
    Home Center 2

Recent Profile Visitors

135 profile views

SmartStart's Achievements

Learner

Learner (2/8)

20

Reputation

  1. Hello all (and merry xmas to all of you .... ). what I not get is that argument that a user placing the backup (and so be responsible for it) somewhere else creates chaos.... first of all - even with the actual implementation I (user) am already responsible to do a backup. If I not do it, data is lost. So there is already a responsibility. What is creating chaos if placing this backup in my network, secured by a password. No one can blame the manufacturer if user lose their password. All the others do it as well. What is so special about fibaros backups that this is not possible? On top, placing a backup on a hardware device directly connected to the device I like to secure in case of hardware failure is.... well.... an approach which is at least worthy of discussion. no backup in cloud! Neither fibaros cloud, nor any one else's cloud.... if we start to place backup in cloud, we start to place other things in cloud as well and then I could make use of all those other 'convenient' systems based on cloud services..... So far no one was able to put valid arguments against the idea of placing backup data somewhere else. All I read so far was about 'chaos', 'user blame manufacturer if data is lost' etc. but having my device (or recovery stick) broken and send everything to someone and then having no smart home for a while or have to start from scratch with a spare unit.... THAT is chaos in my eyes.... there are plenty of security approaches to secure the backup data as well as the possibility to reinstall the data on a spare device. please someone bring some valid arguments for not doing as requested.... peace to all and may LUA... you know
  2. @tinman Guess we should not try to find many products on which things are equally limited as in HC2 But e.g about Apple.... even there I can make an external backup and set up a new device like my old one in minutes. Of course I do not start to repair the broken display myself, but I have a CHOICE to throw the old one away and get a new one and use the data from the broken one... About changing tires... yes I often go to a garage to let them do it. But again I have the CHOICE to either drive to them (30min), wait for them to do it (1h) and drive back (30min) and pay for it or to save 1,5h and do it in 30min myself (not the fastest one on that which is the reason I not work in formula 1 racing teams I guess ....). All I am asking here is to have the CHOICE. Again, I might be able to live for one week without my phone (maybe it would even have positive effects on life .... ) but I not really like to have no smart home for one week (also thinking about family). still hope Fibaro enters this thread again. keep up the discussion guys. Maybe there is something I do not know or see. But as long as I not get valid arguments I will keep on pounding this drum regards .... and LUA and so on .....
  3. @tinman I do not really understand why you think the actual limited backup solution is the best way to do backup (at least I got the impression from your answers... but maybe I got you totally wrong...). Especially because all data are stored on the device means a backup should be located somewhere else, NOT on any storage attached directly to the unit. And what I meant with sensitive data stored in HC2 ('...myraid of other internal and external services...') means not that I prefer cloud based services. I have bought Fibaro's HC2 especially because I not want those data stored somewhere else... only to see now that I cannot create a backup in another location (topic #1) and I am not able to use that backup (if #1 is possible some day soon...hopfully!!) for a spare unit (topic #2). And on top I would have third parties involved to migrate data from one unit to another one and therefore theoretically being able to access all those sensitive data (topic #3)..... In one of my former posts I already offered a possible solution approach to have the same security level while at the same time provide user with the possibility to migrate from one unit to another one (from my first post in this thread): (still... Fibaro could provide a standard backup (= as it is now) and an expert mode (= more user responsibilities but more flexible) About downtime: I always thought you need to have physical access to the spare unit and the broken unit (or at least the emergency stick with backups). How is it possible for you to reduce downtime to hours if user has spare units? I NOT want to crash you business here. I am very happy that there seems to be at least some possibilities which your company has, but not other users. Just due to my topic #3 and the downtime, I would like to do that myself. I hope Fibaro ( @T.Konopka ) adds to this discussion and we all can create a solution for this crucial feature request. Kind regards to all who participate (and all readers as well ). And LUA.... well I think it is strong here anyway
  4. That should be one option out of at least two (2nd would be customer can do it as well). 1st Reason: HC2 can be used with a myriad of other internal and external services. Therefore there are sensitive data stored on the device (auth keys, passwords and account information etc.). I would not like someone externally have access to those data while transferring backup. 2nd reason: Downtime. Sending the whole device across Europe (or for other users living outside of Europe - across the world) will result in a long downtime. Imagine users who use HC2 as a light security system and/or control their heating..... when things happen I can get a new HC2 device within one or two days. Then I could use backup to set up those new box and the automation is back alive within 2 days (IF we would have a chance to do that....). sending my old HC2 to someone and he send it back to me result in much longer downtime. 3rd reason: Will your company or Fibaro do this service for free? Who has to pay shipping costs? So far I am not aware of other systems having such a closed backup policy (well, maybe there are some I am not aware of...). Again, it might be ok for other devices which are not that crucial for me and my family. But not for such a central system which - also based on Fibaros marketing - should make life easier.... please keep this discussion alive. We should discuss all relevant issues and I hope Fibaro is going to join this actively. This is one of the most important issues on HC2 from my point of view. Device support is something for convenience (especially since one can support nearly all devices even without templates...), GUI issues are for convenience as well but THIS function is one of the core features. @Fibaro: could you please state your actual thinking on this? kind regards..... and may LUA be with us...
  5. who is that one? Certainly not me as an end user.... but for such a system I would like to be that one.
  6. Hello all. Also happy that this issue is still in discussion. @Fibaro: Your concerns sound ok but what is the implication of that? User can only store their crucial backups on the "external" storage which is attached to the device. If device breaks probalitiy is high that the stick gets corrupted as well. And then? We have to send the whole unit to Poland. Apart from shipping costs it also means, no system at home for some days/maybe weeks! Thinking about the abilities of your standard user is great and important. Nevertheless I see it that when user buying HC2 and starting home automation they can handle a PC and are more or less able to take responsibility of backups. People who just are able to use a point-and-click systems will certainly not buy Fibaro but go for all those other cloud-based solutions with limited but more convenient funtcionality. Fibaro users are different in that. Apart from that, what prevent you from offering the choice for the user? Offer a standard backup configuration (like it is now) and a individual one (user can choose storage path - including local network path - for storing the backup files). So if user fears that this is over his/her head, he/she does.... nothing - and the backup storeage place is like it is now. Or user is able to handle backups and can configure another path. What troubles me still on top of that storage place discussion is the issue that I cannot replace my HC2 with another one and use the old backup files. Means in case the HC2 crashes and cannot be repaired, I have to get a new device and then **everything** is lost! I would have to start from scratch again. Not good.....! There are other solutions to prevent this while still provide security of the backup files or the system. It is a great thing that you constantly add new functions and provide new device support. But **please** do not foget such basic features for your great solution. Guess I repeat myself here..... home automation is about trust. Trust in the system (and manufacturer). As long as there is a danger, that I lose all my configuration, scenes, VDs etc. or I cannot control my home for one or two weeks because unit is shipped to somewhere due to a system break, how can I trust this system with the automation of my home??! You did a great job in the last months! You are reacting on user feedback, have shipped betas more frequent, included lots of new devices and funtions. This forum is MUCH better then it used to be. Please keep that up. Regards to everyone.... and may LUA be with us.
  7. Hello Fibaro. Just another issue which I wanted to ask for: So far it is not possible to get an overview of the system state including central logging of scene/VD output. If I want to know whether a scene is running or not, I have to go into the scene to check output. Very annoying with many scenes and not really comfortable. Same is with output (debug messages, messages) from scenes. I have to go through all scenes to check the outputs. I would like to have one place where all such internal states are displayed. One Dashboard where I can see which scene/VD is actually running, which not. Where I have the outputs of all scenes in chronological order with an automated mechanism to identify the individual scene messages - i.e. "timestamp - scene name - message". I think it would make the HC2 much more comfortable to handle. User can see with a glance if there are problems with a scene or can get an quick overview if system is working normal. In addition it would be good to have certain states presented there as well. Like whether the HC2 is in armed or disarmed mode, last breach, last alarm etc. Actually I am trying to build that myself out of the REST API with some python scripts but I think it would be great to have this provided as a Fibaro feature. The actual functions for this are too scattered between screens. Like there is already one central event page but I think in the acutal form with all the small symbols and text and sorting it is not very "readable" and it is not including the scene messages. I see which motion sensor was breached but only in the devices view where I not have any chronological sorting. I just see all the motion sensors and have to find out myself, which one was breached when. Would be happy if others jump in or present their ideas or solutions for this. Regards.
  8. +1 ! Would be really great to have something (or this IMA tool) to "debug" the Z-Wave network.
  9. @Fibaro: I first of all would like to know which kind of information is sent to Google (assume it goes to Google Analytics) and with which reasoning behind it? Why is it important to send any information what a user is doing in his/her home network, on a system which he/she totally owns and which has no need to internet connection for configuration purposes to the outside? What kind of statistics can be derived out of which data sent? What can be analysed and who is using the results for what? Once the WHAT and WHY is more clear, the dicussion might be going back to more unemotional basis (don't be fooled - this subject is a very important one and emotional biased - which is correct, privacy is a special sensitive subject) Therefore is the most important question for me in this context is: WHY there is a need to do it? Thank you very much for any enlightenment.... And ... may LUA be with us (also in THIS context )
  10. Great idea to put this together. @Fibaro: I see some moves you made in the recent past and I am really happy that you do that. Really hope you can hold up that energy and keep on listening to the user base. Q1. How satisfied are you with your Fibaro System Scale 1-5 ; between 3 and 4 on my side. Q2. What would YOU like to see as a focus on in the near future ; Prio 1: 1. 2. 5. 21. Prio 2: 3. (might improve feedback quality and not so many "disappointed" messages ) 15. (would say - maybe limit the number of new functionality so that new versions are out faster) new: provide hot fixes between stable versions (e.g. like the yahoo weather issue.... took very long to get a solution because there was no hot fix available...) Q3. How would you describe your mad coder skillz : 4. Thanks a lot for the initiative. May LUA bit with us all
  11. What about having 3 partitions: #1 for stable FW #2 for BETA #3 for all configuration data including data about Z-Wave Modules, IDs etc. (not an expert on this matter... just thinking loud...) Partition #1 and #2 have access to #3. When BETA Version is available, user can choose if he/she want to use it. If yes, the BETA is automatically stored in #2. Then user can choose to boot system and from which partition the next(!) boot should be performed. By that USER could "play around" with a BETA but also has a chance to reboot from #1. In case BETA cause severe issues and web client is not accessible anymore, restart of HC2 by hardware switch automatically let HC2 boot from #1 no matter what was selected in user interface before. By that no direct Screen/Keyboard connection to HC2 would be necessary. Security issues can be addressed by creating Fibaro signed FW which is the only FW accepted by HC2. By using partition #3 for all config data, changes made in one mode are usable in the other as well. Of course if BETA offers totally new internal database structures, new Z-Wave structures etc. this concept has its limits and one have to use a BETA without stable because stabe version might not be able to use the new structures (but even then it might be thinkable to create a second set of config data on #3 with the restriction that in this case changes made are lost when returning to stable config). E.g. transformation from FW 3.6xx to 4.xxx introduced such a situation. But I guess those complete redesigns are not happen that often and in between users are able to use the boot slots. Again, I am no expert in the internals of HC2 and maybe there are some technical restritions which prevent this idea from being realized. But maybe not Cheers and again, I like it a lot when we actively discuss this issue. Actual backup function status is not a one to let me get sound sleep @Tinman: Possible to explain more on the cloning part? (I am also from Germany )
  12. @Fibaro: Do you might also consider this suggestion? I still think it would make it much more easier for us to go and test new BETA versions (at least those of us who not have "many" HC2s ). If we would have a chance to just restart our HC2 with the stable boot-configuration in case things went downhill with the BETA, a lot more user might try BETAs and you might get ven better (since broader) feedback. Thanks for considering. And..... may LUA be with us
  13. Hello back. I am happy that we could start a discussion on that topic since it is an important one. Of course you have valid points with your thoughts. Maybe it would be possible to have some option like 'standard' and 'experienced' so that user have an option to choose. On the other hand I doubt that 'the convenience user without some IT experience' would choose HC2 as the system of choice because HC2 provides many options. Those are used by IT experienced users. Therefore I think it is OK to put responsibility towards the user in this case. Because what is the other option? HC2 and/or the recovery stick breaks. Then we have to send the whole system to you which means that the house is without controller. For any PC that might be an OK process but not for a system controlling a house including heat and alarm. Therefore I wish for more 'external' backup possibilities including the feature to use a backup made with one HC2 on a new one. Of course I am open for discussions and other views on this matter May LUA be with us .....
  14. Just wanted to push that issue again. Do other users have ideas for the backup as well? We should put them all together here so that Fibaro get our feedback on Backup here. Still feel a bit 'uneasy' with the actual backup since I would have to start from scratch again (regarding device inclusions and IDs) when system would break. May LUA be with us ....
  15. Just a status update on my SP103: after "re-meshing" the z-wave network, then one which went dead before is up and running for some days now. The other one is operating without problems from the beginning. so far it seems ok to use them.
×
×
  • Create New...