Game Over For Sony and Open Source?

Glyn Moody writes "Sony has never been much of a friend to hackers, and its infamous rootkit showed what it thought of users. But by omitting the option to install GNU/Linux on its new PS3, it has removed the final reason for the open source world to care about Sony. Unless, of course, you find Google's new distribution alliance with Sony to pre-install Chrome on its PCs exciting in some way."

Comments

Who Cares

[MightyMartian]

Buy a damned computer, or one of the mobiles you can install Linux on.

Re:Who Cares

[PrescriptionWarning]

without the use of most of the computing power when you actually put linux on it, it seemed gimped to begin with. In other words they weren't exactly being open source friendly from the start any way.

Re:Who Cares

[vadim_t]

A console is a computer, just with annoying restrictions tacked on.

But generally good advice, that's why I don't buy consoles in general, and avoid Sony like the plague.

Re:Who Cares

[sopssa]

From the article

Sony explained their decision on the Playstation 2 developer forum, in a post that has since been removed:

"The reasons are simple: The PS3 Slim is a major cost reduction involving many changes to hardware components in the PS3 design. In order to offer the OtherOS install, SCE would need to continue to maintain the OtherOS hypervisor drivers for any significant hardware changes--this costs SCE. One of our key objectives with the new model is to pass on cost savings to the consumer with a lower retail price. Unfortunately in this case the cost of OtherOS install did not fit with the wider objective to offer a lower cost PS3."

And this is understable, seeing how much PS3 price has come down from its launch.

Old PS3 owners still have the option, it just affects the 'slim' model.

Re:Who Cares

[nomadic]

A console is a computer, just with annoying restrictions tacked on.

But much cheaper, and with far less software glitches.

Re:Who Cares

[sunderland56]

For how many more months will the Old PS3 remain available with a hardware warranty?

If you're interested in running Linux on a PS3, you probably already own one. If you don't, Sony has given you fair warning to get a "chubby" PS3 while they are still available.

Besides, I don't think this is going to stop anyone from running Linux on the slim PS3. It's not like the iPhone comes with a "install other OS" option in the boot code.

Re:Who Cares

[Quarters]

My rerfigerator is a a computer. My thermostat is a computer. My car's engine has a computer. My remote control is a computer. I don't get persnickety about not being able to Linux on those devices. Why should I, or anyone else, get upset that I can't put Linux on a console? The other poster is right. If you want to install Linux and use it buy a device that lets you easily install and run arbitrary code. You'll never achieve the mythical "year Linux takes over the desktop" if you keep wasting time trying to put it on everything *BUT* desktop computers.

Re:Who Cares

[Gizzmonic]

Pain free? have you ever heard of titles breaking,

On a console? Is that like when PC games are released early in the alpha stage and the first 3 months are so are devoted to patching the game into a somewhat-workable state? And a broken console can't stop me from doing work (at least not directly, heh heh) but a broken PC means not only can I not play games, I probably can't work either.

or that you have to pay for every add-on that PC users get free,

Ah, but you can sell your console games when you're finished (for the most part). That's much better to me than getting some crappy after-the-fact add-ons.

or that you can't upgrade your hardware like a PC and constantly stay up to date?

You mean that crushing feeling you get when your PC that used to be bleeding edge gets sloooower and sloooower every time you install a newer game? Don't miss it.

And both users of PS3 Linux were sad

[Anonymous Coward]

It didn't sell them any significant number of new PS3's. That they did it for the first generation was fine, but it's not a contract they signed in blood.

Cost/Benefit

[TJ_Phazerhacki]

RTFA. Sony has chosen not to maintain the Hypervisor for the new hardware. You can still run linux on the old systems, and they do not plan to disable that feature. This isn't open source hate, it's a practical business decision by a company that loses money every time they sell a console. They made the console cheaper.

Re:Cost/Benefit

[Aladrin]

And stopped people from buying it that weren't going to buy games and accessories with it.

Yes, some gamers also installed Linux, but there were -many- people who bought it just to install Linux, for various reasons. Each of those sales was an absolute loss for Sony and it doesn't make sense to encourage it.

I don't blame them one bit. Besides, I installed linux and it wasn't a very good experience on the PS3, between horrible installs and slowness and general awkwardness like having to choose what to load on reboot/etc. I ended up just putting a PC in the room instead.

Re:Cost/Benefit

[VGPowerlord]

I hate to say it, but Sony probably lost more PS3 sales by removing the PS2 compatibility than they did removing the ability to run Linux.

Re:Cost/Benefit

[CronoCloud]

I agree, anyone who wanted to run Linux on a PS3 probably already has one. The slim model is not aimed at Sony's hardcore fanbase (who probably wanted backwards compatibility and already have a PS3) or open source geeks, but those who don't have one already.

Sony said something similar when they released the slim PS2 without the hard drive bay: "Look, most likely anyone who wanted to play the few hard drive enabled games already has a fat PS2 because they're hardcore fans"

Also saddened by the fact that ...

[neonprimetime]

... PS3 Slim won't run PS2 discs

Stupid Article.

[Reason58]

I'm in the "open source world".

Should I stop caring about Burger King because I can't run Linux on a Whopper?

Do we really need the commentary?

[brkello]

Just summarize the article, don't whine to me about how you don't like Sony. I am able to evaluate actions they take individually. Rootkit = bad. PS3 not supporting linux = good business decision. They are in no way related to each other since this isn't replacing Linux on the PS3 with a rootkit.

And seriously wake up. If you get pissed at Sony for the dumb things they do, then you probably wouldn't buy a product from anyone if you actually paid attention to all the crap that has gone on in each company's history.

I'm with you on this one.

[Malkin]

I agree. This quote really made me giggle:

But by omitting the option to install GNU/Linux on its new PS3, it has removed the final reason for the open source world to care about Sony.

Unless they -- I don't know -- like playing console games, like the vast majority of people who buy game consoles. My microwave oven doesn't run Linux, either, but it somehow manages to still be useful to me.

Honestly, I think out-of-touch rants like this only serve to further reinforce the "Linux zealot" stereotype, and drive the mainstream away from Linux.

Be fair, now.

[Toonol]

All Sony has done is reverted to the status quo for game consoles. The Wii and 360 don't allow Linux to be run. While Sony should be praised for including a (mostly gimped) linux option with the PS3, they shouldn't be condemned any more than Nintendo or Microsoft for not including it. I'm not a Sony fan at all.

There's FAR better things to criticize Sony about.

Re:It didn't bring people to the platform

[masmullin]

It didn't spark the development push because Sony crippled the ability for Linux to use all of the hardware.

If they wanted to spark development, they should have let the OtherOS have free reign.