Support NeoGAF

[Raistlin]

Not that it was likely to ever happen again.

Sony having done it still surprises me to this day.

Conventional wisdom is that they did it to lower taxes/tariffs. However, that may now be deemed more trouble than it's worth ... so next gen will pay the penalty. System will be less powerful than it could have been to compensate for the increased costs. :\


I admit I've only read the other 6-page thread, but my understanding is that there is an easy way to get around updating the firmware at this point. So I'm a bit confused why people are so bent out of shape. The only people actually using Linux on their PS3 should be more than qualified to configure a simple DNS/proxy hack.

 

[Raistlin]

Dumb move on Sony's part to remove the OS and they got what they deserved with the lawsuits. I doubt anyone is happy with 'upgrades' that remove features.

I doubt anyone will be happy with a weaker system next gen. I guess you get what you deserve.

 

[Rat Salad]

I bought 2 fat PS3('06 and '07)....eventually sold both to friends. Time to collect $ome money,still have the receipts so yeah "I'm outraged" but my wallet is smiling.

 

[B-Ri]

if geohot or whatever his name is wants to do something productive for us, he could help us save our gamesaves from YLOD systems! I am about to lose everything :'(

 

[Rat Salad]

I doubt anyone will be happy with a weaker system next gen. I guess you get what you deserve.

Whats your idea of a stronger system then? Surely not Leniux,because 95% of the people buying a PS3 early on did so for BluRay or gaming,and its still that way today. The next PlayStation will be stronger without Leniux,Sony will save that money and use it towards more memory or an even more powerful gpu like Sony originally wanted to do with the PS3.
I know it won't be that much saved by leaving it out but every dollar counts nowdays,especially in these hard times.

 

[missile]

I guess that people can choose to accept the appoligy from Sony or not regarding the removal of the OtherOS feature. But other than that, i dont think that what Sony wrote there changes much about what the laws says regarding removing features from a products after that the product has been sold to the consumers. So people who bought a PS3 Phat model could probably still try to get some refund back.

They just want to cover their asses.

My OtherOS-entry in the PS Share Blog was rejected. Fine.

Sarah once wrote;
"... Yes, the Linux kit specifically includes hardware that Sony always intended
to create as an expansion for the PlayStation 2, so that the Linux
distribution we can offer is pretty much fully functional and complete.

The target users fall into two groups. The first group are Linux enthusiasts,
who played a large part in encouraging Sony to produce the kit (they began a
petition in Japan), who find it fun and interesting to run Linux on their
PlayStation 2. The second group of users are those interested in learning to
develop for the PlayStation 2; there is a lot to learn about the hardware in
order to do this, and all of this information is provided with the kit. ..."

Where is the spirit gone?

You know what? Security concerns my ass. It's a fukking lie. GeoHot's hack
was just a perfect match to wipe the OtherOS from the Phats as well. And I
don't even buy the cost argument for the Slim. Oh hell, how much does it cost
to adapt the hypervisor? Tell me! For me it's obvious, they just don't wanna
have Linux / homebrew on their system any longer.

I wanna use the system for more than just playing games and using their
rubbish XMB. There are so many things missing for the XMB. We are now three
years in the cycle and the XMB lacks so many features. They've spent money
for an SDK to make 3d themes nobody needs and do create annoying backdrops
around PSN ids and things alike. And the browser is sh!t since ages. Best of
all, Sony needs to create a Share Blog to get an idea of what people want,
which really tells the story! How many ideas will be realized? How long will
it take? Ah c'mon....

I'm done talking. Hacking the system is the only language they will
understand. I give a sh!t about piracy, never have, never will be. I'm just
interested in homebrew.

... We have made the decision to protect the integrity of the console and whilst
mindful of the impact on Linux or other operating system users we
nevertheless felt it would be in the best interests of the majority of
users to pursue this course of action. ...

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read from a company.

 

[iapetus]

Does everyone realize this row is pretty much killing any chances of ever seeing this sort of capability in a system again?

Does everyone realise this row is pretty much killing any chance of hardware companies arbitrarily removing features through updates because it's convenient for them to do so?

Sony included Other OS in the PS3 because it was a competitive advantage to do so.

 

[J Tourettes]

I've just emailed Game, I'll report back once I hear from them.

 

[Clear]

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read from a company.

I disagree. For the vast majority of PS3 users OtherOS was something they would never bother with. I honestly don't believe anyone can argue convincingly otherwise.

Which isn't to say that Sony were right to do what they did, just that its a change that will have adversely affected only a relatively small proportion of the userbase.

 

[MightyKAC]

Which isn't to say that Sony were right to do what they did, just that its a change that will have adversely affected only a relatively small proportion of the userbase.

Which of course makes this whole thing a non-issue, right?

 

[iapetus]

Which isn't to say that Sony were right to do what they did, just that its a change that will have adversely affected only a relatively small proportion of the userbase.

Directly, maybe. Indirectly, it's a bad precedent to allow for anyone. Sure, this time it was a feature you didn't use, but what if next time it's one you wanted to keep?

 

[dalyr95]

Sony included Other OS in the PS3 because it was a competitive advantage to do so.

Pretty sure its because they would pay less import duty on a computer as opposed to consumer electronics, they tried the same thing with the PS2

 

[iapetus]

Pretty sure its because they would pay less import duty on a computer as opposed to consumer electronics, they tried the same thing with the PS2

Then you're wrong; the differential tax bands that made this ploy relevant disappeared between the PS2 and the launch of the PS3.

 

[dalyr95]

Furry muff

 

[dr_octagon]

Does everyone realise this row is pretty much killing any chance of hardware companies arbitrarily removing features through updates because it's convenient for them to do so?

Sony included Other OS in the PS3 because it was a competitive advantage to do so.

According to some, the rights of the consumer and anything that supports that is, apprently, an anathema to companies and people should not complain.

It's the notion that companies can do what they wish and we should overlook things like this I don't understand. Small userbase or not, it is a matter of principal (it's not Linux, as such, but what it represents - the removal of a feature) and I don't think people understand the implications this could have in the future and it wouldn't be limited to Sony.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Directly, maybe. Indirectly, it's a bad precedent to allow for anyone. Sure, this time it was a feature you didn't use, but what if next time it's one you wanted to keep?

That's a big issue in this debate also, probably the most important one. Very few ppl are arguing it is a valid security flaw they're covering by removing Linux - Sony's statement mentions alot on that ppl didn't really want it and it was an irrelevant feature for the most part due to the amount of ppl who actually used it. Very bad precedent, and UK law is rightly applied.

 

[dr_octagon]

That's a big issue in this debate also, probably the most important one. Very few ppl are arguing it is a valid security flaw they're covering by removing Linux - Sony's statement mentions alot on that ppl didn't really want it and it was an irrelevant feature for the most part due to the amount of ppl who actually used it. Very bad precedent, and UK law is rightly applied.

It's not so great for those outside the UK (and EU) as consumer protection isn't as strong.

 

[Clear]

That's a big issue in this debate also, probably the most important one. Very few ppl are arguing it is a valid security flaw they're covering by removing Linux - Sony's statement mentions alot on that ppl didn't really want it and it was an irrelevant feature for the most part due to the amount of ppl who actually used it. Very bad precedent, and UK law is rightly applied.

My understanding is that Geohot's hack requires OtherOS as well as the other hardware measures to accomplish, so it is a legitimate security issue. Now at least, and obviously that doesn't excuse/explain the removal of the feature from all slim models last year.

I guess my problem with coming down on either side of this debate is that while I genuinely sympathize with legitimate OtherOS users, I can understand why Sony would want to remove the feature also.

Directly, maybe. Indirectly, it's a bad precedent to allow for anyone. Sure, this time it was a feature you didn't use, but what if next time it's one you wanted to keep?

This is a very good point, but objectively Sony aren't doing what they are doing randomly or out of spite. While it shows a disappointing lack of regard for a small section of their userbase, you cannot avoid factoring in that when all is said and done it is still a marginal interest feature we're talking about here.

It seems probable to me that Sony were aware that there would be significant fallout from this, but chose to proceed anyway based on the judgement that (for their business and future profitability) it was the lesser of two evils.

 

[mclem]

This is a very good point, but objectively Sony aren't doing what they are doing randomly or out of spite. While it shows a disappointing lack of regard for a small section of their userbase, you cannot avoid factoring in that when all is said and done it is still a marginal interest feature we're talking about here.

It seems probable to me that Sony were aware that there would be significant fallout from this, but chose to proceed anyway based on the judgement that (for their business and future profitability) it was the lesser of two evils.

I'm curious if they'd consider making similar measures if it turns out that a minor game that got fairly crappy sales - let's assume that the sales are comparable to the OtherOS userbase - turned out to have a savegame exploit in it.

Would they release a firmware that refused to run that game?

Would people be okay with it if they did?

 

[charlequin]

This is a very good point, but objectively Sony aren't doing what they are doing randomly or out of spite.

Of course not. In this, it is like all corporate decision-making. Large publicly-traded companies don't do things out of spite; they do things because some calculation by some set of individuals within the company suggests that it will be profitable to the company (or possibly just to the individuals in question.)

It seems probable to me that Sony were aware that there would be significant fallout from this, but chose to proceed anyway based on the judgement that (for their business and future profitability) it was the lesser of two evils.

Of course. And it's the job of consumers to strenuously and without exception push back against this and show that such calculus is unacceptable, not to defend amoral decision-making that screws over customers specifically because it's amoral.

 

[AndyD]

Of course not. In this, it is like all corporate decision-making. Large publicly-traded companies don't do things out of spite; they do things because some calculation by some set of individuals within the company suggests that it will be profitable to the company (or possibly just to the individuals in question.)



Of course. And it's the job of consumers to strenuously and without exception push back against this and show that such calculus is unacceptable, not to defend amoral decision-making that screws over customers specifically because it's amoral.

There are no morals here. As he said, its a business and what is "moral" to you may be "immoral" to the shareholder. And as you say, it is a an amoral decision process because that's the only way to be "fair" to everyone.

Businesses owe fiduciary duties to their shareholders by law and owe very little to their customers. So if they have to balance the interests of the customer vs the shareholder, the shareholder will almost always win by a landslide. In this case, if they believed it was a credible threat, it was no contest.

 

[Clear]

In this case, if they believed it was a credible threat, it was no contest.

This absolutely nails it for me.

Is GeoHot a credible threat to maintaining the security of the PS3?

I think most people would agree that based on his past exploits, he is.

Not to say that he single-handedly could bring down a PSP-style armageddon on the PS3, but keeping him, and other like-minded individuals at bay via incremental security updates is not going to be a cost-free exercise.

The decision was arguably driven more by risk aversion than profiteering, which kind of dents the amorality argument.

 

[Version 3.0]

The reason it cost so much was because the hardware components were expensive. It would be fairly absurd to try to assign individual dollar values to each discrete feature the software/hardware provides. And even if you did, the Linux feature couldn't possibly be worth 1/6 of the total cost, could it?

When Sony adds features do you also assign a dollar amount to each one and re-assess the value of your original purchase? Or is it only when they take something away?

I didn't assign the dollar value, and absurd or not, companies do it all the time. Microsoft assigned combined dollar values (that are also quite high) for the few components that differ between their various SKUs. Sony did the same for the two PS3 launch models and later SKUs.

As for adding features, I hold Sony to no obligation to do so, with the caveat that I don't consider the continued ability to play PS3 games and Blu-Ray movies an "added feature", although they probably do. I'll take a static system any day over one that may or may not continue to function as it did when I bought it. I long for the days when trophies didn't exist. I hate the non-removable ad stream on my XMB. I'm not real fond of the HOME icon sitting where the Playstation Store icon used to be. All in all, I'm not impressed by their added features. I'd gladly go back to day 1 functionality right now. In other words, my "assigned dollar amount" for their firmware-added features is zero dollars or less.

 

[charlequin]

There are no morals here.

Err... right? That's why I used the word "amoral":

a·mor·al [ey-mawr-uhl, a-mawr-, ey-mor-, a-mor-]
–adjective
1.
not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

So if they have to balance the interests of the customer vs the shareholder, the shareholder will almost always win by a landslide.

Which... is why the consumer needs to fight tooth and nail for their rights against corporations that do not have their best interests at heart rather than rolling over and saying "please sir may I have another?"

 

[AndyD]

This absolutely nails it for me.

Is GeoHot a credible threat to maintaining the security of the PS3?

I think most people would agree that based on his past exploits, he is.

Not to say that he single-handedly could bring down a PSP-style armageddon on the PS3, but keeping him, and other like-minded individuals at bay via incremental security updates is not going to be a cost-free exercise.

The decision was arguably driven more by risk aversion than profiteering, which kind of dents the amorality argument.

The thing is maybe the Sony techs see something geohot has not yet seen. Maybe they know this is the way in and no one has figured it out. And if he was on the right track, then they had to shut it down ASAP.

And I think you mean the immorality argument, because risk aversion is ammoral.

 

[onken]

Has literally anybody got any kind of refund except for iapetus? I really hope more people are successful, maybe companies will think twice before pulling this sort of shit.

Though I appreciate that this probably means they just won't include such features in the first place next time around

 

[AndyD]

Err... right? That's why I used the word "amoral":

Which... is why the consumer needs to fight tooth and nail for their rights against corporations that do not have their best interests at heart rather than rolling over and saying "please sir may I have another?"

Reading comprehension on your part would help.

My original post acknowledges you said amoral. Which is why I said you can't bring morals into it as the only "fair" way to do it is to be amoral.

You advocate fighting against the corporations because they are not fair to the customers, because they are amoral. I said that's partly by law, being amoral. And its smart business sense, being amoral. That's why its a business.

 

[CircleOfFire]

You know what? Security concerns my ass. It's a fukking lie.

You know this based on what evidence?

And I don't even buy the cost argument for the Slim. Oh hell, how much does it cost to adapt the hypervisor? Tell me!

Well clearly they aren't going to tell you how much X members of their staff are paid and how much electricity they use, that's just ridiculous. But bear in mind that _most_ hypervisors that are out there are a part of big commercial software (VMWare for example) so it's not the easiest thing in the world to just crank out. Not forgetting that they used to have at least one guy working on the kernel components as well.

Hacking the system is the only language they will understand.

All they will hear from people doing that is that they want pirate games, however wrong or right that is.

I completely agree that this is damned annoying, I've used it a lot myself, but in my case have no need for it anymore. But making things up or thinking that hacking the PS3 is going to achieve anything is just foolish.

 

[test_account]

Does everyone realize this row is pretty much killing any chances of ever seeing this sort of capability in a system again?

Good job everyone. :\

Do you mean to use the OtherOS feature to hack the PS3 or to request a partial refund because Sony removed the OtherOS feature?

They just want to cover their asses.

Maybe, but i dont think that companies have to apologize in regards of covering their asses or not. Maybe they try to get sympathy by apologizing, but i think that the law would still be the same with or without an apolgy though, so i think that people still could ask for a refund etc. if they wish to do that even if the company (in this case, Sony) apologize for what they did.

I also dont think that any company really wants to make any of their consumers unhappy, so in this case i actually think that Sony is sorry to some degree for removing the OtherOS feature, even if they thought that this was the best way for them to stop the PS3 from being hacked. Some people did get affected by the removal of the OtherOS feature, so i dont think that Sony (or any other company that is in a similar situation for that matter) is happy about making some of their consumers unhappy, even if Sony should feel that removing the OtherOS is the best way to protect their business. It probably sucks for a company to make some of their consumers unhappy no matter what the reason is :\

But i just wanted to answer your question about what to do next after that statement from Sony. People can either accept Sony's apology or continue to do as before (either to do nothing or trying to get a refund etc.)

My OtherOS-entry in the PS Share Blog was rejected. Fine.

Why was your OtherOS-entry in the PS Share Blog rejected?

Where is the spirit gone?

You know what? Security concerns my ass. It's a fukking lie. GeoHot's hack was just a perfect match to wipe the OtherOS from the Phats as well. And I
don't even buy the cost argument for the Slim. Oh hell, how much does it cost
to adapt the hypervisor? Tell me! For me it's obvious, they just don't wanna
have Linux / homebrew on their system any longer.

What spirit do you mean? I dont mean to be rude or anything like that, i am just wondering what you mean

Would it be possible to adapt the hypervisor to stop the PS3 from being hacked? I thought the exploit was done in the PS3 hardware itself by sending those pulses that allowed you to store/hold data in the RAM, and that the OtherOS feature was/is a feature that let you dump the RAM and access this data. Could a software update be done to prevent this? Honest question, i have no idea about this kind of stuff, unfortunately.

I wanna use the system for more than just playing games and using their
rubbish XMB. There are so many things missing for the XMB. We are now three
years in the cycle and the XMB lacks so many features. They've spent money
for an SDK to make 3d themes nobody needs and do create annoying backdrops
around PSN ids and things alike. And the browser is sh!t since ages. Best of
all, Sony needs to create a Share Blog to get an idea of what people want,
which really tells the story! How many ideas will be realized? How long will
it take? Ah c'mon....

Which features do you mean that are missing from the XMB?

Nobody needs the 3d themes, that is true, it is not a feature that is needed to get the Ps3 working indeed, but i am sure that some people appreciate/like the 3d themes. What do you think?

And what is the backdrops around PSN ids? I havnt heard of this before, so i got curious about this

What is wrong with the PS3 browser? It might be a bit slow on some pages, i agree to that, but other than this, is there anything from with the PS3 browser?

I dont think that Sony really needed the Share Blog to get an idea of what people want, they probably could just have used their forum like they did before. Sony added for example in-game XMB because many people wanted that feature, and at this time the Share Blog didnt excist But do you mean that the Share Blog is anything bad? If yes, what is bad with it? To me it seems like a nice way to post any ideas that you have regarding the PS3.

The Share Blog was also recently opened (about 1 month ago or so i think?), so it will probably take some time before any of those ideas (especially new ideas that people havnt mentioned before) will potentially be realized.

I'm done talking. Hacking the system is the only language they will
understand. I give a sh!t about piracy, never have, never will be. I'm just
interested in homebrew.

Opening for homebrew usually opens for piracy as well, at least after my experience. So it might be hard to just enable homebrew, unfortunately, but maybe it is possible for all that i know

Out of curiousity, what type of homebrew do you want to see on the PS3? Emulators of older consoles for example? Or is there anything more special homebrew stuff?

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read from a company.

There are probably many people who are very against piracy and that doesnt want to see piracy happend. So if removing the OtherOS feature would really stop piracy on the PS3, i wouldnt be surprised if some users are happy about this. But i have no idea if the majority of users feels that the removal of the OtherOS is in their best interests though, i agree to that.

Has someone done a poll somewhere about the removal of the OtherOS feature by the way, to see what people's opinion is about this? A poll like this would probably only covers some thousands people though, so it might not give a clear picture of what the majority of users thinks (which are several of millions of people), but i still think that it would be interesting to see a poll this and to see what the voting results would look like

EDIT: I added some text.

EDIT 2: I am sorry for the late edit, but i added some more text to my post that i forgot to write earlier.

 

[charlequin]

Reading comprehension on your part would help.

If you are going to accuse me of this, I would really appreciate it if you at least tried to follow along with what I was saying. Like, just a little. :lol

I never brought morals into it. Literally the only thing I had to say about morals in the post you responded to is to say that the decision-making process -- that you clearly agree is amoral -- is in fact amoral. Which -- again -- you clearly agree with.

Now, I did say that it's the consumer's responsibility (I used the word "job" here, but "responsibility" would be the more precise term) to push back against this, because on issues of consumer rights they are one side of a fundamentally adversarial relationship: the corporation on the other side wants to profit above and beyond all else, and will take steps, regardless of the morality, ethics, or reasonableness thereof, if someone in a position to make that decision believes said decision will indeed prove profitable. Consumers need to take the precise opposite position: treat companies that cross their interests as enemies and work together with other consumers to wield economic power in making those decisions unprofitable.

The system doesn't work when people roll over for or defend corporate excesses that are motivated by amoral profit-seeking. Sony will never, ever have their customers' best interests at heart when they make a decision, which means that when they make a decision that sacrifices those interests, they can only be defended by said customers recognizing that no one else will ever stand up for them and doing it themselves. This isn't a moral issue, it's purely one of enlightened group-interest: consumers are screwing over their own future interests by acceding to this kind of anti-consumer behavior without a fight.

In this particular case, iapetus (and the others following his example) are doing exactly what any affected consumer should be doing in pursuit of their own interests: extracting a financial penalty from Sony for their decision, in order to disincentivize any similar future moves by them or any other similar company.

 

[AndyD]

If you are going to accuse me of this, I would really appreciate it if you at least tried to follow along with what I was saying. Like, just a little. :lol

I never brought morals into it. Literally the only thing I had to say about morals in the post you responded to is to say that the decision-making process -- that you clearly agree is amoral -- is in fact amoral. Which -- again -- you clearly agree with.

Now, I did say that it's the consumer's responsibility (I used the word "job" here, but "responsibility" would be the more precise term) to push back against this, because on issues of consumer rights they are one side of a fundamentally adversarial relationship: the corporation on the other side wants to profit above and beyond all else, and will take steps, regardless of the morality, ethics, or reasonableness thereof, if someone in a position to make that decision believes said decision will indeed prove profitable. Consumers need to take the precise opposite position: treat companies that cross their interests as enemies and work together with other consumers to wield economic power in making those decisions unprofitable.

The system doesn't work when people roll over for or defend corporate excesses that are motivated by amoral profit-seeking. Sony will never, ever have their customers' best interests at heart when they make a decision, which means that when they make a decision that sacrifices those interests, they can only be defended by said customers recognizing that no one else will ever stand up for them and doing it themselves. This isn't a moral issue, it's purely one of enlightened group-interest: consumers are screwing over their own future interests by acceding to this kind of anti-consumer behavior without a fight.

In this particular case, iapetus (and the others following his example) are doing exactly what any affected consumer should be doing in pursuit of their own interests: extracting a financial penalty from Sony for their decision, in order to disincentivize any similar future moves by them or any other similar company.

I agree with you when you put it this way. I agree that consumers as a whole need to speak up in general and get more rights.

But what I do not agree with is people expecting Sony to be fair to them, or any other business really. I am not saying you are saying this, just in general.

What I was originally targeting in your post is the claim that consumers should fight against amorality in business decision making, that the calculation of consumers vs. shareholders should not be amoral. That was the way I read that post and the way I framed my response. If I misread it, then my fault.

But I agree with you as consumers we need stronger rights. But we get those rights through government regulating business, not through complaining its not fair. I think business should always be free to and encouraged to favor the shareholders within the bounds of the law, and their decisions should be amoral if they choose them to be (and often they are forced to be by laws). Amorality is very important in business in my opinion.

So we can vote with our wallets, or we can try to change the laws and get more consumer rights. But we should not expect a business to be moral or fair or out to help the customer at the expense of the shareholder.

 

[Igo]

The thing is maybe the Sony techs see something geohot has not yet seen. Maybe they know this is the way in and no one has figured it out. And if he was on the right track, then they had to shut it down ASAP.

I thought this was obvious. That was my thinking the moment Sony announced this. I figured that Sony found a security flaw in their system tied to OtherOS and that's why they removed it from the Slim. When geohot started doing his thing they then decided they had no choice but to remove it from the fat ps3's also. I wonder how likely it is that this flaw simply can't be fixed with constant patches either.

Sony has obviously weighed all their options. I'm sure the lawsuits and fallout come as no surprise to them but whatever monetary repercussions there may be are surely less than they stand to lose from Piracy.

Kind of a shame really considering Sony really wanted the PS2 and then PS3 to be the media hub of the home. This is before they started removing hdmi, usb, and card reading slots though. There was probably a less restrictive version of OtherOS at one point too before the security people got their hands on it. Any hope that the PS4 would ship with a linux distro installed is now gone.

 

[Melchiah]

I thought this was obvious. That was my thinking the moment Sony announced this. I figured that Sony found a security flaw in their system tied to OtherOS and that's why they removed it from the Slim. When geohot started doing his thing they then decided they had no choice but to remove it from the fat ps3's also. I wonder how likely it is that this flaw simply can't be fixed with constant patches either.

Sounds logical, and that's also the reason why I can't understand some people. Shouldn't they be furious at Geohot instead of Sony? After all, it was his doings that seem to have started all this, and which resulted in that Sony felt they had to remove OtherOS from the old PS3 systems.

 

[J Tourettes]

Sounds logical, and that's also the reason why I can't understand some people. Shouldn't they be furious at Geohot instead of Sony? After all, it was his doings that seem to have started all this, and which resulted in that Sony felt they had to remove OtherOS from the old PS3 systems.

Yes, we should all bend over and let Sony treat us however the fuck they like and reserve our ire for Geohot

 

[Melchiah]

Yes, we should all bend over and let Sony treat us however the fuck they like and reserve our ire for Geohot

Good example of what I was talking about.

 

[missile]

I disagree. For the vast majority of PS3 users OtherOS was something they would never bother with. I honestly don't believe anyone can argue convincingly otherwise.

Read MightyKAC post.

My understanding is that Geohot's hack requires OtherOS as well as the other hardware measures to accomplish, so it is a legitimate security issue. ...

So you assume that the hypervisor can't be fixed to address the issue?
If true, then read the source code of the exploit. The issue can be address,
but Sony just doesn't want to do it, since they do have no further interest
in the OtherOS since the Slim came out.

Of course not. In this, it is like all corporate decision-making. Large publicly-traded companies don't do things out of spite; they do things because some calculation by some set of individuals within the company suggests that it will be profitable to the company (or possibly just to the individuals in question.) ...

True. But the calculation is considered for a certain time frame. And if the
recent interest in hacking the PS3 carries on and leads to piracy on PS3,
then I wanna see how the removal of the OtherOS feature was of any profit.
They are just speculating. That's it.

You know this based on what evidence?

The removal of the OtherOS feature for the Slim determined its ending for the
Phat as well. It's pretty contradicting to speak for the OtherOS if you
discontinue it on a new model without given an option to get it back.

Well clearly they aren't going to tell you how much X members of their staff are paid and how much electricity they use, that's just ridiculous.

Obviously.

But bear in mind that _most_ hypervisors that are out there are a part of big commercial software (VMWare for example) so it's not the easiest thing in the world to just crank out. Not forgetting that they used to have at least one guy working on the kernel components as well.

But this proves nothing to me. I know it's a non-trivial effort, but don't
tell me it's rocket science, please! Sony has lost a lot of money along the
way. Was the OtherOS a major factor of it all? And like I've told many times
before, most of the more serious OtherOS user would EASILY pay the price of
a retail game to have this feature enabled. Instead of considering such a
solution for the Slim, Sony went another way.

All they will hear from people doing that is that they want pirate games, however wrong or right that is.

Which was also the reason they introduced the PS2 Linux Kit, because all the
japanese pirates began a petition for a kit to be make piracy possible on
PS2. Yeah, right. Not!

I completely agree that this is damned annoying, I've used it a lot myself, but in my case have no need for it anymore. But making things up or thinking that hacking the PS3 is going to achieve anything is just foolish.

I don't think so. There is a demand that people wanna do homebrew on PS3.
So as a company you can recognize it and perhaps generate some money. Why
can't I pay $100 to get the feature enabled? What's the problem? Please tell
me!

Seems like Sony just don't wanna support Linux / homebrew on their system any
longer, because they now wanna go for their own OS (<- which was an official
statement). Sony is about to extend the GameOS into something bigger, kinda
of an embedded game operating system for future platforms. So from a business
point of view there is no reason to keep / support the OtherOS / Linux for
the PS3, esp. not for free.

... Maybe, but i dont think that companies have to apologize in regards of covering their asses or not. Maybe they try to get sympathy by apologizing, ...

I essentially said the same thing using different words.

I also dont think that any company really wants to make any of their consumers unhappy, so in this case i actually think that Sony is sorry to some degree for removing the OtherOS feature, even if they thought that this was the best way for them to stop the PS3 from being hacked. Some people did get affected by the removal of the OtherOS feature, so i dont think that Sony (or any other company that is in a similar situation for that matter) is happy about making some of their consumers unhappy, even if Sony should feel that removing the OtherOS is the best way to protect their business. It probably sucks for a company to make some of their consumers unhappy no matter what the reason is :\

Which somehow contradicts the amoral thing discussed earlier.

What spirit do you mean? I dont mean to be rude or anything like that, i am just wondering what you mean

Read Shara's comment again. Was there any word about that PS2Linux must have
been a muti-billion dollar business to justify its existents?

Would it be possible to adapt the hypervisor to stop the PS3 from being hacked? I thought the exploit was done in the PS3 hardware itself by sending those pulses that allowed you to store/hold data in the RAM, and that the OtherOS feature was/is a feature that let you dump the RAM and access this data. Could a software update be done to prevent this? Honest question, i have no idea about this kind of stuff, unfortunately.

Yes. There is some software mechanism involved within the hypervisor the
exploit relies on. That part can be changed with future firmware updates.

Which features do you mean that are missing from the XMB? ...

lol

I think we differ from here a lot. If you can't thing of any, well....
Likewise with the browser. You obviously don't use it a lot.

... Out of curiousity, what type of homebrew do you want to see on the PS3? Emulators of older consoles for example? Or is there anything more special homebrew stuff?

Emulators are good, but I wanna see a real demo scene, graphics / math
programming on the Cell & RSX processor, media hubs supporting Cell,
experimental software utilizing new input controls, educational &
scientifical stuff, and much more.

I thought this was obvious. That was my thinking the moment Sony announced this. I figured that Sony found a security flaw in their system tied to OtherOS and that's why they removed it from the Slim. When geohot started doing his thing they then decided they had no choice but to remove it from the fat ps3's also. ...

This cannot be true. If they found something as you said, they would have
removed the feature on the Phat long before.

 

[missile]

Hitler suffers as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO5zmjbRujs

 

[charlequin]

What I was originally targeting in your post is the claim that consumers should fight against amorality in business decision making, that the calculation of consumers vs. shareholders should not be amoral.

Yeah, I definitely didn't mean to say that since I don't agree with that. :lol My bad if I was unclear in my original post.

 

[mclem]

Sounds logical, and that's also the reason why I can't understand some people. Shouldn't they be furious at Geohot instead of Sony? After all, it was his doings that seem to have started all this, and which resulted in that Sony felt they had to remove OtherOS from the old PS3 systems.

I'd regard that as shooting the messenger. If there's a flaw in there, then it's not his fault that it exists.

 

[Raistlin]

Whats your idea of a stronger system then? Surely not Leniux,because 95% of the people buying a PS3 early on did so for BluRay or gaming,and its still that way today. The next PlayStation will be stronger without Leniux,Sony will save that money and use it towards more memory or an even more powerful gpu like Sony originally wanted to do with the PS3.
I know it won't be that much saved by leaving it out but every dollar counts nowdays,especially in these hard times.

lol. Sony didn't support linux in any way. All they did was offer the ability to boot other OS's from the hypervisor which cost them next to nothing.

Offering it however, meant they could get tax/tariff breaks. If the current situation has scared them away from doing that in the future (ie, they decide it isn't worth the trouble) ... it means costs next gen will be MORE, not less. Since they also have learned a lesson based on the launch price of the PS3, the result will be to degrade power to compensate for the inflated costs in certain regions.

 

[Raistlin]

Does everyone realise this row is pretty much killing any chance of hardware companies arbitrarily removing features through updates because it's convenient for them to do so?

Sony included Other OS in the PS3 because it was a competitive advantage to do so.

And now they won't have a competative advantage in PRICING next gen.

In other words, WE lose.

 

[missile]

On January 22, 2010, geohot wrote; Hello hypervisor, I'm geohot.

On February 19, 2010, Owen Stampflee, Linux Product Manager for Fixstars
Corporation, wrote on the Yellow Dog Linux Community Board; "Everyone, I've
caught a rumor from a reputable source that the next firmware update for old
PS3s will remove the OtherOS feature... I'm not sure if it's true or not but
it's in the bset interest of the YDL community to spread the word."

Note: His post was deleted a couple of hours later on.

On February 27, 2010, Geoff Levand answered a mail on the Cbe-oss-dev mailing
list as follows;

Hi All,

On 02/26/2010 04:30 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 09:58 -0700, geoffrey.levand at am.sony.com wrote:
>> The feature of "Install Other OS" was removed from the new
>> "Slim" PS3 model to focus on delivering games and other
>> entertainment content.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Although it's disappointing that Sony have removed the feature from new
> models, It's good to have this public assurance from Sony that at least
> the feature won't be removed from older models which are already
> working.

Please understand that in my position as PS3-Linux maintainer
I can really only provide users with technical support for
Linux and the LV1 hcall interface.

The text above was provided to me by SCE management. If
you have any questions regarding it or any other feature
of the PS3 please contact the Playstation Customer Support
in your country. Using Playstation Customer Support will
insure your inquiry is processed through the correct
channels within SCE.

-Geoff

[Ref]

Goeff knew it already.

So one month after geohot's hack Sony had made the decision to remove the
OtherOS. And I argue that the decision was made long before geohot informed
us about the hack on January 22. Why? Well, I can't prove it directly, yet,
the Slim is just an indication, but making such a decision of removing a
feature, that will essentially downgrade your system, won't be done within
one month. Assuming that the decision was made before January 22, then it
can be assumed that the hack has triggered a button in the head of one of
the officials who might have shout to his employees; "REMOVE, REMOVE
OTHEROS NOW! I ALWAYS TOLD YOU THAT THIS SH!T WILL TURN BACK ON US.
FUCK KEN, FUCK LINUX, FUCK THEM ALL!". Someone brought this information
to Owen Stampflee since Fixtars had a business running on the PS3. That's
just speculation, of course. The time it took till April 1st was used to rip the
OtherOS out of firmware 3.15 and to bring Sony into position and to put a
muzzle on everyone's face.

The essence is the following; Sony never wanted to fix geohot's hack to keep
the OtherOS. It was just a perfect match to wipe it off from the PS3. The
OtherOS was on a one-way street the day the Slim was out. That's it. No?
Prove me wrong.

 

[missile]

lol. Sony didn't support linux in any way. ...

Hi Everyone,

>From April 1st, 2010 my work assignment within Sony will
change, and I will longer be assigned to work on PS3-Linux.
After the change I will continue to maintain PS3-Linux,
but as a personal hobby, and not as an effort supported by
Sony Computer Entertainment. ...

No?

 

[CircleOfFire]

The removal of the OtherOS feature for the Slim determined its ending for the Phat as well. It's pretty contradicting to speak for the OtherOS if you
discontinue it on a new model without given an option to get it back.

This isn't evidence, if they needed X number of developers/QA staff/etc. to work for Y number of days on the new hardware to get it up and running that would be the sort of reason they wouldn't implement it on the Slim.

But this proves nothing to me. I know it's a non-trivial effort, but don't tell me it's rocket science, please! Sony has lost a lot of money along the way. Was the OtherOS a major factor of it all? And like I've told many times before, most of the more serious OtherOS user would EASILY pay the price of a retail game to have this feature enabled. Instead of considering such a solution for the Slim, Sony went another way.

But how many users is that? I'm not denying you wouldn't pay for it, but no doubt if Sony did what you proposed there would be a load of people complaining that they had to pay for it. Plus if some minimal number of people do pay for it, then it's a negative sum effort for Sony. Saying that Sony have lost money along the way as a justification for them spending on maintaining isn't something that is going to convince someone to keep spending money on it.

Which was also the reason they introduced the PS2 Linux Kit, because all the japanese pirates began a petition for a kit to be make piracy possible on PS2. Yeah, right. Not!

You've got me backwards here I think, if people are making a big effort at hacking the PS3. All any big company will think is that the end goal is to get pirate games on it. Even if that is completely wrong.

I don't think so. There is a demand that people wanna do homebrew on PS3. So as a company you can recognize it and perhaps generate some money. Why can't I pay $100 to get the feature enabled? What's the problem? Please tell me!

Seems like Sony just don't wanna support Linux / homebrew on their system any longer, because they now wanna go for their own OS (<- which was an official statement). Sony is about to extend the GameOS into something bigger, kinda of an embedded game operating system for future platforms. So from a business point of view there is no reason to keep / support the OtherOS / Linux for the PS3, esp. not for free.

I'd love to be playing with any environment that gave full access to the hardware like that. But the clear issue is that unless it makes more money for Sony than it costs, then they wont be that big on the idea.

 

[iapetus]

I agree with you when you put it this way. I agree that consumers as a whole need to speak up in general and get more rights.

From where I'm posting we don't even need to get more rights. We have the rights. Companies like Sony try to circumvent them, and hope that we don't know enough to exercise them when they abuse them.

 

[JaseC]

wall of text

You don't have to hit enter every time your sentence reaches the end of the text box.

 

[iapetus]

And now they won't have a competative advantage in PRICING next gen.

In other words, WE lose.

How can you be so obtuse? In what possible way is not allowing a corporation to trample on your consumer rights enshrined by law a case of the consumer losing?

I'll tell you how we lose. We lose if it's determined that we never own the hardware and software we purchase - we only hold it under license and that license can be changed or revoked at any time. We lose if a company has the right to take away functionality that we paid for without compensation or consultation. We lose if companies can make any anti-consumer moves they like and get away with it because "Ooh! Pirates!". We lose if we reach the point that a lot of people like you seem to have reached where we honestly believe that anything large companies say or do must be right, and consumers should just suck it up.

 

[Melchiah]

I'd regard that as shooting the messenger. If there's a flaw in there, then it's not his fault that it exists.

Did anyone else manage to crack the system? Did anything good result of him doing that? Did his doings force Sony to remove the OtherOS?

 

[mclem]

Did anyone else manage to crack the system? Did anything good result of him doing that? Did his doings force Sony to remove the OtherOS?

He didn't screw Sony, Sony screwed Bre... uh, Sony.


Should fans of The Glitter Band's output get angry with PC World?

 

[sonicmj1]

I think it's interesting to contrast this with Microsoft removing Xbox Live support from all original Xbox games, which people are much less upset about. How come? Because Microsoft is compensating the affected parties to some degree, and because the change allows a number of tangible benefits for all Xbox 360 users.

Even if you grant that the removal of OtherOS was required to secure the PS3's security, and that such a thing matters, there are still better ways to handle the problem than to yank the whole thing out and dismiss all complaints by saying, "Well, it won't affect the majority of users."