Geohot Brings Other OS Support To PS3 With Custom Firmware

suraj.sun tips news that hacker Geohot is following through on his promise to fight Sony's removal of the "Install Other OS" feature on the PS3. He posted a video of the work he's done so far that shows a PS3 console booting into Linux. Quoting Engadget: "While it's not available to the public just yet, Geohot's 3.21OO custom firmware will apparently be simple to install and, as you can see in the video after the break, it works just as you'd expect and simply restores the 'other OS' option to its previous place. Geohot even says that the custom firmware might actually enable the other OS feature on the PS3 Slim, but he hasn't yet had a chance to try it out."

Comments

not on slim

[swanriversean]

I will be completely surprised if this works on the PS3 slim.
I understood that one of the ways Sony cut the price and reduced the size for the slim was that they did not include the IBM hypervisor that made the whole thing possible.
(see:
      http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-ps3-1/
      http://www.osnews.com/story/22073/Why_No_OtherOS_Option_on_PS3_Slim_Sony_Answers
for a few more details)

Without the hypervisor, its just not possible.

Re:not on slim

[millennial]

No, that's definitely not true. The hypervisor isn't what made running Linux possible; it's what made it limited when it did run. The hypervisor is also actively involved in the regular PS3 OS. It's an essential part of the PS3, and they'd never build a retail version without one.

Re:not on slim

[PhunkySchtuff]

I don't believe they have dropped the hypervisor - that's one of the major security strongpoints and partly what has kept the PS3 from being totally pwned by now...
From the osnews article you linked, they say (with emphasis mine)

I’m sorry that you are frustrated by the lack of comment specifically regarding the withdrawal of support for OtherOS on the new PS3 slim. 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.

What I read into this is that they don't want to keep updating the hypervisor drivers for OtherOS support with the major hardware changes they made for the Slim, not that they're dropping the hypervisor altogether...

Well done Sony

[cyborch]

I hope you are happy Sony.

You made it this far without people building custom firmware. Now you've forced people to find ways to put custom firmware on the PS3. Next up is "indie" games followed by pirates followed by the game industry going back to PCs or over to other consoles.

Too bad. I actually liked by PS3. Hopefully something new will come along soon so I won't have to buy an xbox...

Re:Well done Sony

[NickFortune]

Too bad. I actually liked by PS3. Hopefully something new will come along soon so I won't have to buy an xbox...

There's a little known platform called a "personal computer". It works a lot like a gaming console, except that it isn't crippled at the hardware level by the OEM and has a wider range of software available. You can even install Linux on it :)

Seriously, I've never understood the appeal of spending serious money on a deliberately crippled computer, when I have a perfectly good one already. Doubly so from a company that even rootkits their audio CDs.

Re:Somethings messed up his MAC address

[WrongSizeGlass]

It says FF:FF:FF etc in the info screen. Thats not right. I wonder if his "firmware" has any side effects he's not letting on about.

You mean that maybe it stutters?

Re:Repeat After Me:

[Thanshin]

PS3 is a GAME CONSOLE, not a COMPUTER.

Mustang is a MUSCLE CAR, not a VEHICLE!

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

[PhunkySchtuff]

I don't know if America has anything like the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission but if you do, I'd urge you to raise this issue with them (and if you're in Australia, please get onto the case).

This is a simple case of a company changing the specs on a product that you have bought, after you've bought it and changing it in an adverse fashion. It is removing a feature that you have paid for and have possibly had for years, without offering any workaround or compensation.

Sony claim that the update is not mandatory, and that it is entirely your choice if you wish to install it or not, but the simple fact is that by not installing the patch, you lose even more functionality than if you do install it. No PSN. No Playstation Store. On online gaming. No access to new games that require this or a newer firmware. No access to bluray content that requires this or a newer version of the firmware. Etc.

Here's the text of the submission I made to the ACCC (you're limited to 1500 characters)

Sony have recently released a firmware update for the PlayStation 3 Games Console.
From what I can see, all this update does is remove a feature from the console. The feature removed is the "Other OS" support - the ability to install another operating system, such as Linux, on the PS3 and use it as a general purpose computer.

Sony claim that the update is not mandatory, however by not installing this update, you lose access to the PlayStation Network, so any games that require this for online play will no longer work. One of the main reasons for owning a PS3 is the online gameplay component.

More information about other features that will be locked out are here on Sony's web site: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/03/28/ps3-firmware-v3-21-update/

"Consumers and organizations that currently use the “Other OS” feature can choose not to upgrade their PS3 systems, although the following features will no longer be available; Ability to sign in to PlayStation Network and use network features that require signing in to PlayStation Network, such as online features of PS3 games and chat Playback of PS3 software titles or Blu-ray Disc videos that require PS3 system software version 3.21 or later Playback of copyright-protected videos that are stored on a media server (when DTCP-IP is enabled under Settings) Use of new features and improvements that are available on PS3 system software 3.21 or later"

Re:Inevitable, really

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Somebody", specifically "Sony".

I'm getting tired of this "But that insolent peasant just wouldn't know his place and show proper gratitude for the scraps he'd been given, so poor Sony was forced to retroactively remove a feature; let us all shed a tear for Sony." crap.

Interesting

[Reisrdok]

I bought PS3 mainly because of OtherOS. Now they remove it. Can I get my money back, the product does not have the features I paid for and wanted? Oh well. Probably there is a paragraph in sony EULA that allows them to do this. There's probably few lines about my soul too..

Re:Australian Competition & Consumer Commissio

[Man On Pink Corner]

Reply from the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission:

Crikey! Thank you for bringing this egregious behavior to our attention. Effective April 30, 2010, the Sony Playstation 3 is hereby banned for import, sale, and possession in the states and territories of Australia and surrounding lesser islands.

This is why you can't have nice things.

Re:Ha.

[Vanderhoth]

The PS3 was the only console not hacked for piracy. I bought my fat PS3 because of Linux support, Sony was underhanded and took that away. I think they deserve to lose out on some profits because of the disrespect they showed their paying customers. IMHO, no one hacked the PS3 because Sony was being semi-open and allowing people to use a piece of hardware the bought for something they wanted to use it for.

I won't be spending anymore money on Sony products or PS3 games in general, but I'm pissed off they took something I have already paid for away.

I sent e-mails and complained in forums and to the BBB. What I got back from Sony was a quote of Section 11 from the EULA saying they have the right to change the way their console, that's taking up space in my den, at anytime. The BBB sent me response saying "We're investigating".

Dispute what Sony did to screw me and all other PS3 Linux users over if you wanted to continue to hack the PS3 all you had to do was not update. So did what they do really effect someone trying to open the console for piracy? NO.

Re:Ha.

[sortius_nod]

The whole point of the removal was to thwart Gehot's efforts on the PS3 hack.

I'm not 100% on this, but I really don't see Sony taking this lightly. They want to remain unhacked, so this is the way they see fit.

To me, this expands the base of people hacking their console.

Re:Ha.

[MoonBuggy]

Hacking the PS3 to run 'backup' games would be a suitable punishment for sony imho

Which would be precisely the reason they made this change in the first place and does nothing but prove them right.

I'm inclined to believe that the 'Other OS' functionality did more to prevent copyright infringement than it did to assist it.

There are plenty of very skilled hackers out there who have no interest in copied games, they just want the freedom to use their hardware as they wish, or even just the challenge and the kudos for breaking a supposedly secure system. Once the work is done, however, it is often a relatively simple matter for the same exploits to be used by others to run copied discs.

By giving the hackers (used in the traditional sense of the word) what they wanted in the first place with the 'Other OS' functionality, Sony prevented them from needing to bother cracking the security, and that meant that the pirates didn't have anything to build on. As soon as Sony took that function away, we see exploits to restore it - I don't know how much this is linked to the DRM on the game discs, but my instinct would be that some of the work there has already been done now.

Re:Ha.

[Chatterton]

Sorry, but at the time he bought his console, he had access to the Sony network, can plays all of its bought games and OtherOS. Patching it's console mean that he keep access to the network but lose the OtherOS, not patching mean that he lose access to the Sony Network and some of it's games (how insist to access the network), but keep the OtherOS. In the 2 case he lose something that he had pay for.

Re:Inevitable, really

[Bert64]

Their console is in third place...
Their console is the only one which doesn't have rampant piracy...

Anyone else notice the connection?
I know plenty of people with xbox or wii consoles, most of which are modchipped to run copied games... Most of these people have a mix of copied and original games.
The few people i know who have ps3 consoles have a much smaller number of original games, and no copied ones...