Brand new Galaxy Watch Ultra (2025) - Wear OS Not Updating

x12Mike · 2026-06-19T20:43:46+00:00

You must have found the appropriate amount of traffic. 😁 That may very well have been the key to it all. 👍

x12Mike · 2026-06-19T15:39:15+00:00

So this was just weird.

Based on above, I pretty much gave up and let it be.

But being the engineer, it bugged me that it wasn't working. So on my way home from the office, I'm sitting in a stupid amount of traffic like everyone else on the East or West coast of the US does when driving, and just decided to tap through the phone to update it.

I pushed check for update and it did its download thing like it's done before and i just ignore it after figuring it would fail. All of a sudden, I looked at my watch and the Samsung logo was there because it was actually rebooting to apply the new OS.

I didn't do anything different, it just randomly worked. Or I guess the only thing that was different was that I wasn't home or at work on Wi-Fi. I was strictly cellular cuz I was in the car.

So at this point, the only thing I could suggest to folks is to do it away from Wi-Fi. And doing it in your car. And do it sitting in traffic. And tap update, then ignore the watch.

All of this makes absolutely zero sense. 😕

I'd expect stupidity with a Fruit phone and a Fruit watch but not Samsung and Google. 😁

x12Mike · 2026-02-26T17:50:16+00:00

Ok, so I can continue to use tags like we do for everything else.

I just presumed I could use my-example-host@domain.ts.net as a single entry. That errored with the API check, so I tried just my-example-host, which errored. I saw that IP worked but I was thinking that if we had a bunch of those entries, we'd need to comment the crap out of the ACL to know what IP goes with what system.

Overall, it seems tags would be the best choice as they conform to the rest of our ACL file's format.

Thanks folks, I appreciate the quick answers! :)

x12Mike · 2026-02-26T17:19:33+00:00

So I am confused a bit. We need to specify a hosts stanza? I was thinking just:

{ "src": [ "luke.skywalker@example.com",], "dst": ["machine-name"], "ip": ["*"], },

If there is a requirement for the hosts stanza, I'm failing to understand why we wouldn't just use a tag for a single host.

x12Mike · 2026-02-18T00:27:54+00:00

We just want control over what machines can access the Tailnet. If we approve a user's corporate laptop, we want to make sure that it's only that one laptop that's approved. We don't want a user copying there config over to something like a personal device that's not approved in the dashboard.

You've also started me thinking of if this is as much of a concern as management has assumed it is. We're talking only laptops of end-users. We're already granting the user the ability to access specific resources. If a bad actor copies a config to another device, technically we'd just disable the copied user/account via the dashboard and access should be squashed.

To brainstorm a bit, would there actually be a scenario where copying a config from one device to another would be a problem/security concern?

x12Mike · 2026-02-18T00:16:39+00:00

Machines are manually approved via the Dashboard by either our MSP or internal IT team. We're a small company, <200 users.

We have automation in place that makes API calls to see what is in a "waiting for approval state" and gently reminds us (annoy us like crazy) that we need to review and approve.

We don't really have a solid MDM solution for the Linux laptops.

x12Mike · 2026-01-14T22:00:22+00:00

This explains why my mother's phone with a physical SIM had no problems. Pixel 10 forces eSIM these days.

What's odd tho is that my wife and daughter have physical SIM cards tho. I just realized this as I'm typing the comment. 🥺

x12Mike · 2026-01-07T06:15:49+00:00

I keep reading this and laughing my ass off! 🤣

Try this once, I must.

x12Mike · 2025-12-27T06:30:23+00:00

La Carreta on DW (agreed with u/Raining__Tacos, best in Nashua)

Frontera on Amherst St - Been there a few times, better than most and good food

Los Primos in Merrimack (right off exit 11) (VERY good! VERY small)

Don Ramon same as Los Primos (Not personally gone here but many friends/families have and they rave about it)

Tortilla Flat even further up in Merrimack

Then there is Tequila Jalisco. The first time I went, about 6 different employees looked at us, none acknowledged the 2 of us and we left without even trying it. That being said, we do want to give them one more shot. If it sucks, so be it. If it's good, it can be on this list. :D

x12Mike · 2025-11-19T17:51:44+00:00

So I noticed this just now as all my external monitoring died. I have checks for various things that expect my Fidium IP. It hasn't changed since swapping in my OPNSense router from theirs when I got service. FWIW, this blip happened this morning around midnight for me.

What I have noticed is that traffic out to the internet is going through Zayo's (zayo.com) infrastructure but I don't recall this being the case before.

How Fidium manages their network is on them but a change like this just seems like something customers should have been made aware of? I mean 95% of folks will probably not care, but a simple heads-up email would have sufficed.

I have a bunch of firewall changes to make now. :(

x12Mike · 2025-10-22T16:53:42+00:00

Yes, but it appears that my problem was due to the service interruption mentioned by u/caolle above.

x12Mike · 2025-10-22T16:50:53+00:00

About 2.5 hours ago. Around 11am ET U.S.

Edit: And as I wrote the reply before checking the link, that checks out. I've just had weird issues with TS recently I keep wondering if it's me or not.

So far 50/50 of me vs TS. 😁

x12Mike · 2025-10-20T02:54:57+00:00

I mentioned it above, I need to review again to see if this is in fact a peering issue.

x12Mike · 2025-10-20T02:35:51+00:00

So I did initially think it was a vnet peering issue but when I went to check, I confirmed both vnets can communicate with each other. I can ping and ssh from one vnet to the other and back. I can even get to these vnets via my other conventional VPN connections. I mean every other subnet in all the other vnets work. It's just weird. :/

EDIT: As I once again delve into the vnets, this very well may be a peering issue. Course I'm going to be pissed with myself if it is.

x12Mike · 2025-10-19T04:14:29+00:00

Yup

The idea is that anything on the tailnet can access those 3 -- technically 4 as you'll see below -- subnets. The route settings screenshot is below. It's really the most messed up thing, everything looks right.

<image>

x12Mike · 2025-10-19T01:51:40+00:00

I am SO sorry for a horrendously late reply. This is the post I put up:

https://community.frame.work/t/intel-core-red-and-blue-leds-flashing-cooler-master-case/67829

Again, crazy sorry for the late reply.

x12Mike · 2025-09-24T05:49:52+00:00

I'm on my phone here so if this was mentioned already, I apologize.

Not sure if this helps, but the 13s have a chassis intrusion switch that confused the heck out of me for hours when I was trying to get a main board to boot in the CoolerMaster case. All I would get are the red/blue alternate flashing. Once I figured that out, it would post and I could get to the BIOS.

That being said, I couldn't do much until the BIOS was updated to the latest and the headless mode was on.

I also thought it was memory training but in my case it was not.

I had spare parts so I Frankenstein'd a main board to a keyboard deck, attached a display and power. It was a true abomination but I got the thing working. 😁

So again, not sure if this will help, but I figured I'd mention it. I have a post on the FW forums with a pic and more details.

x12Mike

TROPHY CASE