PS3s dumping Linux support

[Tanuki]

Is this news? I don't really know. I never knew they had this to begin with.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20100329/bs_nf/72456

A new software update to be released this week will eliminate the OS-choice feature. Sony said it had its consumers in mind when it made the decision to disable the feature.

[StingingVelvet]

Popular opinion I have read is that Linux was supported to try and prevent hackers from enabling piracy just to have a different OS, as hackers like to do, and now Sony knows the PS3 is either hacked or almost hacked so they are getting rid of Linux.

I know nothing about this crap, just repeating what I read.

[The_cranky_hermit]

I'm quite positive I remember reading about two months ago that the latest firmware update removes "Install other OS" functionality.

[Abram]

Restricting users' options is always a poo-poo, if you ask me.

PS - posting rfrom Puerto Vallerta. Woo!

[LeeNux]

yeah, removing a feature that the console has been advertised for ... wanna see what legal shitstorm this idea of sony is going to raise, as theres either total disbelieve from the linux userbase or total disinterest from people who don't. either way, some people are not happy at all.

[StingingVelvet]

It is kind of an interesting development that something advertised as being in the hardware is then taken out by firmware later. I am sure this has happened before though, and if a lawsuit won over it we would know.

Still, it tests the bounds of an EULA I am sure.

[dopefish]

All 0.03% of the PS3 population are saddened by this.

Regarding advertised features and the EULA, I'm sure it's stated in there that features may be added and removed.


As for what SV said, that isn't true. Sony has supported Linux, and homebrew, ever since the original PSX regardless of piracy. Their support wasn't to preempt piracy, otherwise they would have just let people install Linux to begin with. Instead, they not only supported Linux, but they also provided full developer documentation for the hardware and APIs.

PSX had the Net Yaroze, PS2 had the Linux kit, and the PS3 basically had Linux support built-in. You could develop software specifically for the PlayStation hardware with each of these.

The PS2 and PS3 (I'm not sure about the PSX) run through a hypervisor which restricted access to certain hardware components.

For the PS2, access to the DVD drive was blocked, but you could freely access everything else, including the graphics hardware.
For the PS3, you can access pretty much everything except the graphics hardware (this is due to a restriction placed by nVidia).

So as far as security with Linux goes, there's really nothing you can do to exploit the PS3. If there are security flaws in Linux libraries and such, you'll be able to exploit Linux to the fullest, but the hypervisor will still block access to the hardware itself.


However, these are separate from hardware bugs. If you've ever read processor errata for any processor, you'll see that there are plenty of bugs and flaws within the processor itself. Sometimes they can be pretty severe. From what I understand about the PS3 exploit discovered not long ago, they are taking advantage of a processor bug with the PowerPC architecture. The person that discovered it said that it should work on other systems that use the same kind of processor, like the Xbox 360 or the G5 Mac. They can exploit this regardless of whether Linux is present or not.

I think there's probably two main reasons why Sony would want to remove Linux support.

1) While Linux cannot be used to exploit the PS3, if they do use the processor bug above, it may open up the full hardware for use in Linux, including the graphics processor which is under lock and key. If the system is exploited, you still won't be able to launch and run PS3 games from Linux. I believe they're just trying to protect access to hardware.

2) They need the room in the firmware. Firmware is a limited space. With the PS3 Slim out, they no longer have any use for Linux support in any future firmware update. By removing Linux support they'll free up a lot of room in the firmware for future updates.


Linux won't be the first feature removed from the PS3. PS2 backwards compatibility was promised and touted as a major feature of the PS3. That got removed some time ago. There has been no legal fallout or anything because of it. PS2 BC support is a million times larger than Linux support. People may complain now, but in the end no one will care.

[StingingVelvet]

As for what SV said, that isn't true. Sony has supported Linux, and homebrew, ever since the original PSX regardless of piracy. Their support wasn't to preempt piracy, otherwise they would have just let people install Linux to begin with. Instead, they not only supported Linux, but they also provided full developer documentation for the hardware and APIs.

Not really what I said, but what forums are saying... I am the first to admit I know nothing about this stuff.

[dopefish]

[quote]As for what SV said, that isn't true. Sony has supported Linux, and homebrew, ever since the original PSX regardless of piracy. Their support wasn't to preempt piracy, otherwise they would have just let people install Linux to begin with. Instead, they not only supported Linux, but they also provided full developer documentation for the hardware and APIs.

Not really what I said, but what forums are saying... I am the first to admit I know nothing about this stuff.

Oh, I didn't mean it as you literally saying that. I was just referring to what you saw others saying.

[StingingVelvet]

My knowledge of Linux goes like this:

"Does it play games?"

"Not really."

"Not interested."

[MobsterOO7]

My knowledge of Linux goes like this:
"Does it play games?"
"Not really."
"Not interested."

This is quite the extent of a lot of people's experience with linux which is quite sad. Because linux is quite an impressive operating system if you aren't playing games.

[DaFox]

A note to people interested in the exploit and retaining OtherOS support, DO NOT UPDATE. When 3.21 comes out, I will look into a safe way of updating to retain OtherOS support, perhaps something like Hellcat's Recovery Flasher. I never intended to touch CFW, but if that's how you want to play...

Two things, some people seem to think CFW will enable some sort of piracy. It won't. It'll just be a custom version of 3.21 that doesn't lose OtherOS support. Hacking isn't about getting what you didn't pay for, it's about making sure you do get what you did.

And this is about more than this feature right now. It's about whether these companies have the right to take away advertised features from a product you purchased. Imagine if an exploit were found in Safari on the iPhone, but instead of fixing it, Apple decides to pull web browsing altogether. Legally, they may be within their right to do so, but we have to show them it's the wrong move for the future of the product and the company.

[whismerhill]

Regarding advertised features and the EULA, I'm sure it's stated in there that features may be added and removed.

this doesn't hold a candle in court should Sony be challenged for removing features ...
However this doesn't mean that they would lose, should it be challenged ...
that said I agree with the rest, no one will challenge this lost feature, which is sad because we shouldn't allow companies to advertise so wrongly about things...

[dopefish]

[quote]Regarding advertised features and the EULA, I'm sure it's stated in there that features may be added and removed.

this doesn't hold a candle in court should Sony be challenged for removing features ...
However this doesn't mean that they would lose, should it be challenged ...
that said I agree with the rest, no one will challenge this lost feature, which is sad because we shouldn't allow companies to advertise so wrongly about things...

It could easily hold a candle to it I think.

I'm not a lawyer by any means but things like this are in just about 100% of the EULAs you will find.

Look at cell phone services. You sign up for contract for a specific set of features yet that contract will still say they may change at any time. Sites you sign up for and other things with agreements generally all say that things can and probably will change with or without notice.

If things like this wouldn't hold up in court then you'd be reading about this stuff all the time.

The point is that it's an agreement. If the agreement says that features may be added or removed in future updates, you still agree(d) to it.

[Dem Pyros]

It could easily hold a candle to it I think.

I'm not a lawyer by any means but things like this are in just about 100% of the EULAs you will find.

Look at cell phone services. You sign up for contract for a specific set of features yet that contract will still say they may change at any time. Sites you sign up for and other things with agreements generally all say that things can and probably will change with or without notice.

If things like this wouldn't hold up in court then you'd be reading about this stuff all the time.

The point is that it's an agreement. If the agreement says that features may be added or removed in future updates, you still agree(d) to it.

An EULA is different than a legal contract.

The reason the EULA will hold up in court is that you're still allowed to use the PS3 and Linux and all of that...the EULA just tells you that if you want to do that, you can't use their service. You can still play games, watch movies, etc. etc. You just can't watch any NEW movies that need the updated Blu-Ray specs or play any NEW games which need new PS3 firmware. As for the PSN, it's their network and it's their EULA. They have a right to deny you access if you don't play by their rules. End of story.

As for being an advertised feature that was removed...I don't know what impact that has legally (if any).

[StingingVelvet]

Choosing not to update would make many games unplayable in the future though, and previous online games unable to connect. I would say that seriously impacts the machine even in day one condition, for instance with release day game Resistance Fall of Man. You cannot play that game online and have Linux, despite both being advertised as included since launch.

I would assume they would lose the case as the machine is not bricked, but it's still interesting legalese.

I would really like to see a challenge over Steamworks games being sold in retail and then only working if you attach them to a digital delivery service.

[whismerhill]

it's not because it's in the majority of EULAs that it has any legal weight ...
you can't do everything just because an EULA tells you, you can ...

if something major was removed for example, despite the EULA allowing the company to do just that, a user could ask for a refund & win in court ...
it all depends on the specifics of the case that would be at hand ...
Is the fact that the user expected that feature available forever reasonable ?
Is the fact that the company removed said feature reasonable ?
Are the demands reasonable ?
etcetera ...

For example, an obvious losing case would be removing the ability to use games ...

[Dem Pyros]

Choosing not to update would make many games unplayable in the future though, and previous online games unable to connect.

True, but that's not a fault of Sony (legally). They're providing a service (PSN), and in order to use that service you have to agree to their EULA and terms of use.

For example, an obvious losing case would be removing the ability to use games ...

The problem with newer games is that it's foolish to have a console that can easily be updated by an internet connection limited to the firmware from the initial release. I would doubt that games that required updates from the newer firmware versions (Trophies, etc.) wouldn't say what minimum firmware version they required on the box. That would probably save Sony from any liability.

[StingingVelvet]

True, but that's not a fault of Sony (legally). They're providing a service (PSN), and in order to use that service you have to agree to their EULA and terms of use.

True... perhaps the issue should be advertising services as part of a hardware purchase?

I don't think laws will ever change on what these companies can do in these areas, I think laws might change on how they can present or advertise the transaction. For instance, Steam or similar services might one day have to present the game as a service contract, like "click here to subscribe" rather than "click to buy."

[Dem Pyros]

True... perhaps the issue should be advertising services as part of a hardware purchase?

I think that when you buy a Playstation, the fine print on the box says something to the effect of "In order to use PSN you must have a Playstation Network account and an active broadband internet subscription."

The former probably is what would save their asses in court.

As per the advertising language changing in the future to accommodate to these sort of problems....I'm not so sure. Steam for example isn't really so much a subscription service as it is a distribution platform. Once you have the game, in theory you can leave Steam offline and never log in again. It's only when you abuse the service that they will cut you off (though I don't know too much about Steam network bans, so I don't know what all of that entails...)