Hacker News Reader

Comment by csense | Hacker News Reader

I would never trust Sony's release of hardware with official open-source software support, after they removed the official Linux support for old-model PlayStation 3's [1]. (The support was removed through a firmware update for hardware in the wild. This firmware update was non-optional if you want to use subsequently produced official games, or use the console's online service. I never did either, and Sony and its developers have probably lost hundreds of my dollars over the past few years as a result.)

This is also the company that put rootkits on CD's [2].

I no longer do business with Sony if I can avoid it.

EDIT: This was downvoted within two minutes? Why?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS#History

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit

View on HN

Sony is a big multinational corporation. As is the case with, say, Microsoft, it is not helpful to appreciate its actions as coming from a single entity.

So if I have a particular experience with them, I can't draw any inferences about future interactions from that?

Also, Sony itself clearly wishes to be perceived as a single entity, since they proudly display the Sony brand on all their products and marketing.

I can follow that people -- and corporations -- change over time, and sometimes problems like this are flukes, rather than part of the fundamental nature. So I'll stay away from them for a decade or two; if they don't make any other really sleazy moves in that time frame, I'll eventually give them another chance if they make something I want to buy.

Had you actually suffered from the Other OS removal? I am asking because everybody complaining about this on the Internet does not even own a PS3 and people who actually had ran Linux did not complain about the update as it did not affect them much.

The only issue you'd had if you used PS3 for computation was the fact that the hardware had been discontinued (long time before the update), but then it's been already too expensive for the computing power it provided.

> people who actually had ran Linux did not complain about the update

I ran Linux on the PS3, and I complained loudly and bitterly about Sony's actions.

> Had you actually suffered from the Other OS removal?

Yes, I have. I specifically asked the Gamestop clerk for an old model, at a time when both the old (Linux-supporting) and new (non-Linux-supporting) machines were available in stores.

I can't speak for sure about a hypothetical alternative reality, but I think it's likely I would have waited a little longer to buy one, if not for the Linux feature -- specifically I was worried that the Linux-supporting older model would become hard to find.

So you can say I wouldn't have bought a PS3 but for its Linux capabilities, and the removal of those capabilities rendered the rationale for my investment invalid.

> it's been already too expensive for the computing power it provided

It's not solely a matter of computing power provided. I thought the Cell's unique architecture was interesting.

Also, in those pre-Raspberry-Pi days, the console wasn't a bad price point to get a general-purpose system with networking, USB and Blu-ray (especially if you bought used hardware), that could also do video out to pre-HDMI TV's.

If you did not care for anything other than running Linux why did you update firmware? It's only needed to play newer games and blu-rays, things you say that did not matter to you.

This the essential problem that I see (usually put in ridiculous context like "UASAF used a PS3 cluster and NOW THEY CANNOT!!!!!1!") - if you run Linux you don't care much about the games and even if you do - all the games you already had before the update don't go away.

There is no guarantee that new games will ever come again so your ability to run newer games is not a right. If Sony pulled PS3 off the market instead of issuing an update you would not get any games as well.

But it's still hard to imagine somebody in need of both Linux and newest games simultaneously. If you are one of such people - you are member of very unique and small group. No company size of Sony is ever going to carter to such a small group.

It's not entirely true that "all the games you already had before the update don't go away". Although you could still play your current games, the multiplayer portions of those games required you to be connected to the PS network, which in turn required the latest firmware upgrade that removed Linux.

I stayed on the firmware with Linux and was fine with not being able to play new games but it did kind of suck that I couldn't play multiplayer games I'd already purchased.

This is true, although the MP availability is even less ensured than that of the new games. MP servers are routinely taken down on all platforms. And for the same reason the Other OS had been taken down - not enough people used it to justify the maintenance cost.

I am one of those people who needed both Yellow Dog and PSN with games and Netflix. This was far before Wine was hacked to support Netflix. I used my PS3 as my primary desktop for a long time, and liked the ability to reboot for games.

I eventually needed it more as a Netflix box, so the desktop got replaced. I haven't bought anything from Sony since.

The move was more than just inconvenience. The presence of an OtherOS feature in a major DRM platform was an olive branch. Sony was saying its proprietary system could happily coexist with open systems. By removing this feature, they sent the message that coexistence was impossible. They don't encourage installing non-Sony software on any devices they sell now as far as I know.

Maybe we'll find some way to restore the truce, but it has to come from their side. Free software is always open for integration. It's built-in. If Sony decides they can coexist with it again, all will be well.

> why did you update firmware?

Read more carefully. I didn't update the firmware.

> things you say that did not matter to you.

Being able to buy and play all the games I wanted, over the lifetime of the console, mattered a great deal to me. Being able to use Linux on the console also mattered a great deal to me. Due to Sony's policy, I had to give one of these things up. I chose the former, because I was pissed at Sony for forcing me to make this choice, and that's the choice that would hurt Sony more.

Imagine you buy a car. You really like the car's excellent sound system, particularly its built-in slot into which you can put any USB device containing your music.

One day you go to the garage and they tell you that, because some clever tinkerer somewhere used the USB port to hack the stereo system and might someday be able to download copyrighted songs from the radio, the manufacturer is not only omitting the feature from new models, but is requiring their dealerships' service departments to pour acid in the USB port of every car already on the road to permanently disable it!

You have the right to refuse, of course. But you'll never be able to install another stereo system because the wiring is all proprietary. Furthermore, you can't get repairs or oil changes anywhere but official dealerships, because only proprietary wrenches can remove the right mechanical parts. All official dealerships are required by the manufacturer to pour the acid before they can do anything else.

Apparently few people care about this policy; it seems that most people just use their car for driving, and listen to the radio if they want music. Only a few hardcore nerds even know what USB ports are, and nobody cares about them.

Would you understand a customer who refused to do business with that manufacturer again?

Would you understand a customer who refused all maintenance, because he didn't want any more of his dollars to go into the manufacturer's wallet as a matter of principle, even if he'd also be hurting himself because he wouldn't be able to use the car as he'd planned to?

> it's still hard to imagine somebody in need of both Linux and newest games simultaneously

Using Linux is nerdy. Playing the latest video games is nerdy. I'm a nerd. There are lots of us. Seriously, someone on a website called Hacker News says this?

> No company the size of Sony is ever going to carter to such a small group.

Why did they ever offer OtherOS in the first place, if not "cartering" to my small group?

>Why did they ever offer OtherOS in the first place, if not "cartering" to my small group?

The common belief is that's it was done to bypass EU tariffs on game systems by representing PS3 as a computer (same thing they tried to do with PS2 and a bundled BASIC interpreter).

I don't support that theory and think that Sony believed that there are more people interested in homebrew on Playstation. After all, they had Net Yaroze and PS2 Linux on previous systems. I guess somebody thought that it's because of the additional cost of the previous solutions the homebrew did not take off.

Sony isn't just a corporation, they are a zaibatsu. Essentially many companies with a strategic partnership.

These people come from the Sony Ericsson joint venture. Technically speaking, they weren't part of Sony until February of last year, when Sony bought out Ericsson's stake in the joint venture. Sony Ericsson had a reasonably good relationship with the developer community pre-acquisition (they've been called out by JBQ as a good AOSP citizen and, IIRC, had official boot loader unlocks for retail phones before HTC).

At the time, I remember wondering if being acquired by Sony proper would start to move that in the wrong direction, but, if anything, they've gotten better: they open-sourced their sensor HAL, they have official AOSP projects for several devices (including the Xperia S which was the first attempt at a non-Nexus AOSP phone) and now trying to open the SmartWatch.

You can feel free to judge these people for the actions of a different department of a company they weren't even part of at the time. I prefer to consider things case-by-case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com