patsu said:
... You have just proved my point. Chasing down Linux security holes is a distraction. They should save resources and focus on entertainment.
There will always be a security hole. Sorry. And chasing them down is of
primary importance. Each cutting edge security system profits from the flaws
of all the former ones. And I'm pretty sure that Cell's security architecture
will carry on to the next gen. Another interesting aspect with respect to
security is whether a virtualized system can be made secure. Cell's security
architecture is the most advanced within this regard, but GH and JB have
essentially shown how such a system can be broken. This should give IBM and
Sony a very valuable information in adapting their security architecture
even further.
patsu said:
False. If SCEA is losing money, how do they give back ? Why not ask GM to give back something to the community ? It's a super huge company. They need to appease the shareholders and core customers first.
Sure, they have to appease their shareholders, but they won't likely to do so
if piracy takes over on the PS3. So you may end up ...
patsu said:
Secondly, do you have proof that PS3 Linux cost a little ?
... losing a lot of money due to piracy just because you didn't wanted to
spent a few bucks in comparison.
And btw, I never wanted the OtherOS feature for 'free'. Free? Well, I
actually paid for that feature. So speaking about the cost, it's not my fault
if Sony can't cover the cost from their sells. If true, then Sony did a wrong
calculation on their end.
Cost is a factor, sure, but it's not the factor / reason that has lead to the
removal of the OtherOS feature from the Phats. The cost argument is for the
public. But don't get me wrong, maintaining the OtherOS with respect to the
GameOS doesn't come for free, no question about that.
I will make a claim:
The reason for the removal of the OtherOS feature has nothing to do with
the cost to maintain it.
John Koller, Sony's director of hardware marketing, answered
ars technica
on August 18, 2009, after being asked
"Why was the ability to install Linux
removed from the system?", as follows;
John:
"There are a couple of reasons. We felt we wanted to move forward with
the [Game] OS we have now. If anyone wants to use previous models and change
the OS, they can do so. ... We wanted to standardize our OS." -- [
Ref]
I can't find any word about that maintaing the OtherOS was an issue.
Sarah Ewen, one of the official website admins on playstation2-linux.com,
stated on August 22, 2009, the following with respect to
aragon's question
"Why no Linux in PS3 Slim?";
Sarah:
"The reasons are simple: The PS3 Slim is a major cost reduction
involving many changes to hardware components in the PS3 design. In order to
offer the OtherOS install, SCE would need to continue to maintain the OtherOS
hypervisor drivers for any significant hardware changes - this costs SCE.
One of our key objectives with the new model is to pass on cost savings to
the consumer with a lower retail price. Unfortunately in this case the cost
of OtherOS install did not fit with the wider objective to offer a lower
cost PS3." -- [
Ref]
Why does Sarah's argument differs from John's by that much? Hmmm, just
imagine she had answered in the vein of John ala 'We don't give a fuck about
Linux anymore. Go fuck yourself!'. xD If you ask me, the cost argument works
pretty good while speaking to the public. One dollar could already be too
much for a company to spend. Btw; did you know that Sarah has removed her
comment later on?
Well, even if we consider Sarah's argument, there is no indication that
maintaining the OtherOS was an issue.
On the next day, on Aug. 22, 2009, Geoff Levand, one of the official PS3Linux
maintainer, wrote in a reply to Elliot Orwells;
Goeff:
"Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue the support for
previously sold models that have the 'Install Other OS' feature and that
this feature will not be disabled in future firmware releases. ..." -- [
Ref]
He got this assurance straight from SCE's management.
And yet again, there is no indication that maintaining the OtherOS was an
issue. Quite the contrary is the case, they were pretty confident to support
the OtherOS in each future firmware release.
Hence, the recent removal of the OtherOS feature from the Phats has nothing
to do with the cost to maintain it.
I do believe that the cost to maintain the OtherOS are in effect pretty low,
whereas the cost to adapt the hypervisor for the Slim aren't. But with a
proper license model via PSN the cost could had been covered ...
patsu said:
They already mentioned that writing Linux drivers for new PS3 model is non-trivial, and delay launches.
..., I guess.
patsu said:
This contradicts your original claim that PS3 can compete with low cost PC for the average consumers (e.g, your friend's girl friend). It's just a dev env for Cell.
If the Phats would support the RSX under PS3Linux, he would have bought her
a PS3 instead of a low-end PC, which is the assumption I made previously, that
the RSX would be enabled.
However, all these considerations are superfluous the day we can run
unsigned code on the Slim.... And that day will come.