Slashdot Mirror


Wii Will Have an Updatable Linux OS

eldavojohn writes "There's bits and pieces of information floating around that revolve around Iwata Asks interviews on Nintendo's website. What I found interesting was the tidbit about the updatable operating system: 'Wii is the first system from Nintendo that we can continue to be involved in (via operating system updates) after the customer buys it. This means that Wii will greatly expand and diversify the ways in which people will enjoy games in the future.' The Wii is reported to operate on top of a proprietary form of the Linux kernel, although there are already efforts to make a GNU/Linux for the console. So, the answer to the age old question is that it already runs Linux."

53 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. "a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by jb.hl.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How proprietary, exactly? Potential GPL violation, anyone?

    --
    By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    1. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by megla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm glad I'm not the only one whose immediate reaction was "say what?"
      How does this work with respect to the GPL, requirements to release sourcecode, copyright, etc?

    2. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by MBCook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It could be like MkLinux, basically a modified Linux kernel running atop a proprietary microkernel.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    3. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who knows? The article linked says nothing about it, there's just the submitters comment. If there is anything behind this, a source would be helpful...

    4. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by grapeape · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because no one wants to be the developer of the next dreamcast.

    5. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by Reverend528 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's running SCO linux.

    6. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It could be like MkLinux, basically a modified Linux kernel running atop a proprietary microkernel.

      There is also the fact that MkLinux is directed at PowerPC, which is what the Wii uses.

    7. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by metamatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Assuming the Wii really does run Linux, they will doubtless be using the TiVo hole to get around the GPL v2.

      That is, they'll provide the source code with their proprietary modifications for the Wii hardware, but it'll be totally useless as the Wii hardware will be designed so that it will only run code signed by Nintendo. So the modified code will be useless to Wii owners, and also useless to everyone else as PC hardware won't have any use for the Wii hardware support.

      And Linus will no doubt say that this is just peachy.

      I think it's exactly the kind of crap the GPL was supposed to stop. If I purchase hardware and software that's GPL licensed, I should be able to modify the software and run the modified version on the only hardware it's useful for, the hardware I own. That's why I support RMS's efforts with GPL v3 and think they're a good thing. In fact, I think they should go further.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    8. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or it could be linux using proprietary binary modules to talk to the Wii hardware and software... kinda like Nvidia is doing.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It could be like MkLinux, basically a modified Linux kernel running atop a proprietary microkernel.

      MkLinux was a port of linux to run on top of the OSF MK (Mach) microkernel, which is free as in BSD... hardly proprietary. MkLinux ran on powerpc (PowerMacs), hppa, and x86. The microkernel got reused by Apple as part of (the open-source) Darwin project for MacOS X.

      http://www.mklinux.org

      It's not had active development for a while now, the active development has been on the conventional Linux, on Darwin and MacOS X!

    10. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Nvidia are definitely distributing their kernel extentions via their web site. You are playing with words here.
      No. The important difference is that Nvidia is making their kernel module accessible through the website. Then YOU have to download it and LINK it against the kernel. They are legally doing nothing wrong with that - it is the users deciding to use the proprietary module with the kernel.

      In the case of Kororaa, they distributed it together already linked.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    11. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by indifferent+children · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If you use Linux you have to expect that you won't be able to use the latest and greatest hardware available unless you're willing to accept some bitter terms from the manufacturer to protect their intellectual property

      How about: "If you use ANY operating system, you won't be able to use the latest and greatest hardware available unless you're willing to accept some bitter terms from the manufacturer to protect their intellectual property". Using Linux doesn't subject you to terms that are more bitter, it's just that we Linux users have grown to expect freedom.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    12. Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" by msh104 · · Score: 2, Informative

      it could be filled be proprietary modules that actually controll the hardware itself.

  2. Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't think so. I guess I phrased this badly. It's reportedly (no official Nintendo release yet) that the Wii will be using a Linux kernel with a proprietary GUI. Whether or not they are modifying the kernel (like Google has done so that it fits there needs) I cannot say. All I know is that they can either look at the GUI separately from the kernel and leave the kernel under the GPL or they can bundle it all together and not fret over releasing it under the GPL.

    I'm not a lawyer so I'm not too clear on the GPL. I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code. I could be wrong though.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by Toveling · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

    2. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by Lorkki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be bluntly, you don't seem to be a software engineer either. It wouldn't be the first time that rumour sites would be mixing up technical terms and concepts, though.

      A graphical user interface would most likely sit completely in userland, while the Linux kernel would only contain a device driver for communicating with the hardware. The user-mode parts can be as proprietary as Nintendo wants them to be, but any changes to the kernel itself must be released or they'll be violating the terms of use of the GPL.

    3. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by peragrin · · Score: 2, Informative

      No sources only need to be available if the end person asks for them. under the GPl Nintedo could release the source code only if you filled out a card asking for it and then paid a few for the creation and mailing of a cd with the source. So $5-$10 depending on where thy are mailing it from.

      Granted the first person to do that then has a right to post the complete source code minus Nintedo's trade marks on any website they choose.

      It just makes more sense to hook it up to your web site and alllow people to download it. cheaper, easier, and less hassle and your in complaince.

      but source code only has to be released if requested.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by Talchas · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm, yes just 'Wii owners'. Or rather, anyone who gets a binary copy of the OS must be able to get a source version easily and w/o real charge. You do NOT have to give the source to everyone.

      --
      As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century,free flow of information is the only safeguard against...
    5. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by Kjella · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

      As a general rule, yes. There are things which definately require you to release it, using GPL'd code or a GPL'd library. There are various shade of gray with different encapsulations of the code, I won't go into that. But there's also a few very clear cases where you do not have to distribute source:

      a) By mere aggregation, i.e. the software has to actually work together, not just come on the same media
      b) Using standard OS API calls (otherwise there could be no GPL'd softwara for Windows, or proprietary applications on linux)
      c) Using libraries that come standard with the OS/compiler (e.g. Microsofts standard C/C++ library)

      So in the example he quoted, yes Nintendo could use the Linux kernel, but not release any of the userspace code if they built that from scratch, or only the modified libraries if using GTK (which is LGPL). They do need to distribute any chances they make to the kernel, but since binary drivers are tolerated it need not be more than a stub. Also, there's nothing preventing them (and I imagine they will be) using a digitally signed kernel, so that modified kernels can't be used to copy game disks.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by buswolley · · Score: 4, Funny
      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    7. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by crankyspice · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

      Actually, you are wrong. The GPL is only required (i.e., only applicable) when copyright is involved; i.e., making a derivative work. For there to be a derivative work, there has to be a copying within the ambit of the copyright act. If you look to the Altai test (adopted by pretty much every court), you'll see that code dictated by external requirements (i.e., pretty much every piece of software running on a UNIX/Linux system has to use malloc, etc., and thus must either call the system calls directly or via the C Library) is specifically filtered out of the copyright comparison. So any interface calls, even symbols brought in from include files, are [strongly] arguably not even copyrightable (a 'method of operation'; see, e.g., 17 U.S.C. 102, and Lotus v. Borland, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995)) and even if they are, would be stripped out of any comparison of code done in an infringement action. Absent an infringement, there's no need for GPL applicability...

      Further, the COPYING file for the Linux kernel (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING) specifically carves out "user programs that use kernel services by normal system call." So, with appropriate facts, one could easily argue copyright estoppel in the (unlikely) event that Linus (as the copyright holder for much, if not most, of the kernel, AFAIK -- the FSF, etc. would not have standing to sue, it would have to be Linus or some other kernel contributor whose work was in the Wii) brought suit.

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    8. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by senatorpjt · · Score: 3, Funny
    9. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by ZakuSage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So in other words this could be complete crap, and yet Zonk posts "Wii Will Have an Updatable Linux OS"? Hm...

    10. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you distribute the code, you have to make the sources available.

      But you don't have to distribute the compiler or especially the linker along with the source code, do you? I would imagine that the Wii linker includes a digital signing step to keep out hobbyists and other unlicensed developers.

    11. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by cduffy · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, that's an example of who is operating under an explicit exemption made by the copyright holder.

    12. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by alienw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not even trusted computing. It's just that Linus wants his system to be successful, and forcing companies to do things they do not want to do is a great way to fail at that. There are plenty of reasons why companies don't want people to mess with their hardware -- control, competition, proprietary licensing, and many other reasons. If you are using a piece of software or hardware licensed from someone else and have to respect the NDA, you can't just go handing out source code left and right. For instance, wireless router chip companies have lots of competition (in China, for one), so they are notoriously tight-lipped.

    13. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by BKX · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, that's what the man said. Kids with their lack of reading comprehension skills today.

    14. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by seguso · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But under GPL 2, there's no guarantee that the hardware provided with the software will allow an improved version to run, which makes an end-run around FSF freedom #1.

      But you do have freedom to run the improved version, just not on the same machine. You are free to build a machine which runs the modified software.

      Requiring to be able to run the modified software on the same machine would be a restriction on the hardware, not on the software, so it seems a software license is not the right place for it.

    15. Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly by Simon80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, being able to run the software on a different machine is great, but RMS wants computing to be free, not strictly software. My understanding is that what bugs him is people having computers, and not being free to use, modify, and distribute the software that runs on them. So I don't think that being able to buy some other computer to run the software quite cuts it for him, and the GPL is a legal codification of those ideals, so you'd expect the GPLv3 to take that into account.

  3. Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"? by epi314 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One possibility is that it might only run versions signed by Nintendo.
    This is a loophole that GNU GPL version 3 is meant to prevent.

  4. This is New? by Quasicorps · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The title is misleading. It isn't going to run a user customisable Linux GUI when turned on, the Wii just has that capability. Just like the XBox. And The PS2. To make this a selling point is just another example of how people are doing everything they can to suck up to Nintendo. I know Sony hasn't been on top of any game for a while, but with the sheer hatred suffers has and all the Nintendo worship going on, I'm starting to feel like there are very few important people who are dedicated to making me want to buy a Wii. And they aren't from Nintendo.

  5. Tsk. Pure BS. by Greger47 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I call bullshit on this one, Nintendo wouldn't touch GPLed code with a 10 foot pole. They have always kept their platforms in an iron grip, using GPLed code would allow outsiders to take a peek. Nintendo vs. Tengen anyone?

    /greger

    1. Re:Tsk. Pure BS. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just having have an Open source platform does not require you to open source the applications running on that platform.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Tsk. Pure BS. by xenocide2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which is obviously why the standard compiler for the GBA (and probably DS) is GCC. Because they're deathly afraid of anything even related to "Open Source", as evidenced by 20 year old lawsuits. Who can imagine that anything's changed in such a short time frame?

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

  6. where does it mention Linux? by anon101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where exactly in the Iwata Asks article does it say it runs on a proprietery version of the Linux kernel?
    Infact where does it mention the Wii runs Linux on it at all?

    I think I found the story, thanks google. And it says that its a rumor from one of the designers who said:
    "Wii will have Linux as operating system with proprietary GUI and applications based on commonly open source for Linux programs."

    Since when did "GUI applications" count as in the kernel?

    Story found on:
    http://wii.qj.net/Wii-Will-Use-Linux-as-Operating- System-with-Proprietary-GUI-/pg/49/aid/60531

    Another quote direct from the so called "insider"
    but the final system in closed and will allow only signed code etc and will be very secure, even though it's technically compatible with a world of already existing software
    I bet Nintendo are thanking their lucky stars that GPLv3 isn't out and that Linus Torvalds prefers v2 anyway, isn't there going to be something in it about locking out modified versions?

    I am skeptical about this guy, but make up your own mind,
    Orriginal blog post about Nintendo Wii having Linux on it: http://saruwatari-wii.blogspot.com/2006/07/softwar e-in-wii.html

    If anyon can find a quote about a proprietery kernel please post a reply, :D
  7. Proprietary Linux is pure nonsense by Executive+Override · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's no such thing as a "proprietary form" of Linux. The kernel is released under the GPL, and therefore any derivations/modifications must be released under the GPL, and hence are not proprietary. If they deny source code, or release it under a license non-compatible with the GPL, it will be clearly illegal.

    You would imagine that people would know this by heart by now...

    1. Re:Proprietary Linux is pure nonsense by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Informative

      You would imagine that people would know this by heart by now...

      Restricting the hardware to only run signed binaries, would allow them to comply with the letter of the GPL if not the spirit. Any modifications could be released under the GPL and no one would be able to compile a custom kernel for the Wii.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  8. Vaportalk by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Running Linux that can be downloaded to a Wii means old Wiis will still be around to compete with new ones. Combined with their dubious (no matter how you look at it) claim that their Linux will be a "proprietary Linux", that sounds a lot like the vaporware announcement game console makers are used to peddling to credulous game "journalism" media.

    Will the new generation of game consoles get converted to the slightly more cross-examined PC press tricks from their generations of easy lying to game press? Or will they turn the tiny amount of PC journalism accountability into the standard lying that defines the much larger market?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Vaportalk by PygmySurfer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Combined with their dubious (no matter how you look at it) claim that their Linux will be a "proprietary Linux", that sounds a lot like the vaporware announcement game console makers are used to peddling to credulous game "journalism" media.

      Except its not Nintendo's claim, just some asshat blogger's.

  9. The *real* age old question: by solevita · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will it be able to perform cunnilingus on a hardwood floor?

    1. Re:The *real* age old question: by dozer · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and get splinters in its tongue? I think not.

  10. Shouldn't that be .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    .. Liinux?

  11. If this is true... by ADamiani · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What are the implications for PC-based Linux as a gaming platform? The reason I usually see people explaining games not being published to run on Linux is that there just aren't enough of them to make it economically viable, creating a chicken-and-the-egg problem. Does this slice through that particular Gordian knot?

  12. Translation by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wii is the first system from Nintendo that we can continue to be involved in (via operating system updates) after the customer buys it. This means that Wii will greatly expand and diversify the ways in which people will enjoy games in the future.

    Translation: Firmware updates to prevent hacks, a-la PSP.

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
  13. Who let's this sh... through? by Britz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A proprietary from of the Linux kernel? That can only come from someone who has just maybe Slashdot a bit and doesn't know a thing about Linux, free software or mabye software at all.

    Any Linux kernel is per definition (of the GPL) free. That is the whole point of the GPL. There can't be a proptietary version. If they include the Linux kernel, they will have to include the source to it and to all the components that directly link to it, like drivers (proprietary drivers exist, but there is a discussion, sometimes on Slashdot as well, if that is legal). If they ship userland stuff along they can keep the source, for example for a gui.

    What they can do is lock it all up so you can't mod it. Then the device will only accept signed modifications (like upgrades) from CDs or their server. Wether you do this with open or closed source doesn't matter. It might be easier to find security holes to smuggle in your mod this way. But OTOH they already mod the PSP this way even though it is closed source.
    That is the big discussion about the GPLv3 btw. I guess what the FSF wants to achieve is that if you use GPLv3 code you may not lock down your device this way.

  14. Re:Linux on Wii, since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was "reported" once at a single site and, like so much Wii speculation that has gone before, passed through the fanboy blog echo chamber until it has far more credibility than it deserves.

    The person who posted the original story really should have done the 5 minutes research I just did, there is zero credible evidence that Nintendo has done anything at all with Linux. The "source" of the original speculation is someone named "Kiyoshi Saruwatari", who claims to be a designer who doesn't work for Nintendo, but has worked with them. He never names a company, specific business interactions, the nature of his work, nothing. His "facts" seem to consist of pure conjecture and swizzling of common publically released information (Virtual Console, etc).

    In the months before the Wii controller was revealed at Tokyo Game Show 2005, there was a rash of "insider" blogs, with a lot of suspiciously made-up sounding Japanese names, with calculatedly poor English skills. These blogs were the source of a lot of the early misinformation, the "VR helmet" nonsense, the "secretly more graphically powerful than both Xbox 360 and PS3", the "Kid Icarus sequel", etc. My guess is half of them were American or European fanboys who were trying to stir things up.

    In short I don't consider it responsible to call the single, highly dubious rumor that Nintendo is using Linux "reporting", and I hope this doesn't touch off a lot of controversy over what began with nothing more than a big fat lie / hoax.

  15. Maybe That's Why WII Graphics Appear to Suck by Carcass666 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe Nintendo couldn't get fully-functional, reliable drivers for current chipsets like the rest of us.

  16. This is getting way too predictable by acvh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Story: Company is allegedly thinking of using Linux as OS for new hardware device.

    Response: I want the source. I want the source.

    More responses: This does/doesn't violate GPL.

    More responses: This is why we need/don't need GPL v3

    Conclusion: The story was wrong, the device doesn't use Linux, there might be a way to boot Linux on it, but we don't know yet.

  17. Regioning? by atomicstrawberry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this article proves to actually be true - and I'm taking it with a rather large grain of salt - is it possible that we might be able to turn off region coding? At the moment I'm refusing to buy a Wii because of the regioning, especially on the virtual console games. PAL games from the 8/16-bit era were usually absolutely horrible.

  18. Nvidia doesn't link against the kernel. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nvidia supplies the source to an interface module. This module is linked against the kernel, and then it links in a seperate binary blob that lets the rubber meet the road.

    Also, loading it taints your kernel. This means nobody is allowed to distribute the combination of linux kernel + NVidia driver in the kernel module tree, strictly speaking. That's why you have to jump through a few hoops to get it installed.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  19. Re:Sony was rumored to use Linux as well by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a very, very Tivo-ized way, yes. You can buy Linux for your PS2, and it will come standard on the PS3, but based on how crippled PS2 Linux was, I don't have much hope for the PS3.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  20. SCO by stud9920 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does this mean the Wii will cost $249 + $699 in license fees ?

  21. Sony PS2 linux by homer_ca · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sony did something similar with the Linux kit for the PS2. The kernel was completely open source, but it ran in a VM that didn't expose any native hardware interfaces to prevent console modding.