I am one of those techs that does not settle and it simply for one reason. Cost of living. If I am forced to suffer a tech job that will pay me 20k a a year or less for my abilities and experience, why bother put up with the stress. I could simply go work commission based retail or go back into the catering business. I have been in the workforce for so long and worked in so many different fields that I find that it is just plain silly to "accept" what they are offering. IMO all techs that see jobs that underpay for experience and knowledge should just avoid applying for that position because that is a trend that needs to be curbed.
Entitlement is one thing, but estimating your own worth is another. No one can tell you what you are worth (even if it is an inflated estimation) these companies are the ones that will have to make a sacrifice or simply not be able to fill a need that will only grow worse.
The internet itself is the sidewalk. An example of pciketing on this sidewalk is creating your own site or another method/rallying cry against said business. Facebook, youtube, and many other forms of social media are extremely powerful tools to get the message out.
Whether blocking access irl or online, chances are it coste someone money. And there is no minor infraction when someone takes something from you or costs you your time as an individual. Why would businesses or small user created sites be any different?
I don't buy that DDoS os the nly meaningful way and I doubt such a harmful action is reasonably viewed by most as the same harmless actions of picketing or jaywalking.
Problem is, picketing is an imperfect analogy for DDoS attacks. The internet has no "public sidewalk" for protesters to stand on, making their message heard loudly & clearly, yet without blocking access.
By definition a DDoS attack... a distributed denial-of-service attack, is intended to block access. It is more akin to picketers actually blocking the entrance of a hotel while on a public sidewalk. That is not legal in the real world and certainly isn't legal online either.
I think I recall Stallman likening DDoS to a picketing. There do seem to be parallels.
The picketing that is allowed is something that is next to the entrance of a business that is informing but not blocking entry and exit to said business. And mainly it has to be off the property of the business because they can hit the protestors with trespassing.
Problem with a DDoS is that it is everything that is NOT allowed in a peaceful picketing. It denies access to a site, Which is the equivalent of blocking the doors to a business. Also any modification of a site is messing with the companies property, which wouldn't be allowed in real life either.
The fact is that those kids did no work whatsoever - not one shred, and they are getting paid for it by society (by the government, really). That makes it pure charity, which I am fine with, but I think limiting the charity to something reasonable like 10 years is more than sufficient and it might encourage artists to create, knowing that their kids will get a nice little 10-year annuity.
I am sorry, I don't understand the 'getting paid by government' part how does this work out?
So, you're basically saying that if person X wrote the lyrics to a song, person Y wrote the music, they both did it under contract to corporation C, who then hired performers P Q and R to perform it, P.1 should receive remuneration for every reproduction of that performance. At the same time, you're saying that if performer S then decides to cover the song, P.1 should not receive remuneration.
What you also loosely implied (but likely didn't mean to) was that at no time should X and Y benefit from "anyone" performing the song. I say this because MJ was often not just the performer, but also the songwriter (both X AND Y) and as such, it seems his children should have the same right to profit should those works (the lyrics and the tune) be reproduced by others.
In reality, X, Y C, P, Q and R can all be unique, the same, or any permutation. However, all of those variables have their own contracts and their own copyright protection, which is distinct for each role, even if they're not distinct in the person performing the function.
This is why the copyright issue is messy, and likely has no right answer.
What I mean, is that 'everyone' involved in making the tangible product should still receive royalties for that particular product. After copyright lapse though, they shouldn't be entitled to receive anything from people who cover the song or any variants of it as long as the new material doesn't contain snippets from the older work.
I guess, to be more clear is that I believe people should get paid for tangible products they create within the scope of original CP law but the intangible elements should be shared.
You are right, this does bring up interesting arguments about the line between copyright and consumers sense of entitlement. Copyright is all about profit and ownership. But the original intent of copyright is hundreds of years old now. As with all things it has changed and adopted with society and technology. 400 years ago, they crafted it most likely because of the limitations of spreading someones work around. Today we have the internet.
Even if I were to agree with you about the music in question becoming available for all to use and recreate as a source of inspiration, I really don't see how it would entitle anyone to the work as performed by a particular artist.
Shold MJ's kids profit form "anyone" singing MJ's songs? I don't think so. Should they profit from copies of their Father singing the song? I don't see a problem in that.
As always people forget a step. What you have is...
"Customer purchased product from store. Customer owns product from store. Customer after some period of time sells product used to somebody else. Store already got paid, so they have no legal interest, much less moral or ethical interest, in the second sale.
First Sale Doctrine covers this. Everywhere else in the physical world you cannot pull this fucking shit for two seconds without being called crazy greedy retarded sons of bitches."
But before the customer purchases the product from the store it is well within the manufacturer's right to sell the product how they want it and how much they want it for. As long as they are not being misleading and are upfront with what is happening they are in the right and it falls under buyer beware. Now whether it deals with a service like online play (which is not subject to first sale doctrine) or DLC (which is NOT found on disc) then you as a consumer are not entitled to that material. Your personal opinions about the "value" of the game doesn't allow you step over the companies rights to distribute the product how they see fit.
The real question that keeps popping up in my head when people complain about this is.... are people practically PLANNING on selling this game after buying it brand new? If you do not think a game is worth it, why buy brand new? If you don't plan on keeping the game (a choice made before purchase) then why not just "rent" the game? I really don't get the overwhelming sense of entitlement this generation of gamers seem to have regarding DLC and services and expect these companies to feel pity when you loudly proclaim your desire to fuel the second hand market.
I think these devs and companies are making a stand. If you think these games are worth it, support them outright. If not, feel free to hold on to your personal feelings of entitlement and let them burn. Either way, the message will be felt if these devs close up shop. It would entice the pubs to only shift big bucks into guaranteed successes and the more unique titles drop tremendously in budget and quality or simply fall by the wayside.
The only difference?
Read again. Sony is putting this on all "FIRST PARTY" games. Which means Sony is the publisher of those games. Doesn't seem any different from PC now does it?
Attrition. It is expected that at some point in time interest wanes and the game players move on to different things. It is extremely easy to see accounts that are added and used alot after the time the estimate for decline.Normally the publishers handle the costs and they constantly crank out products that may need attention as well. It becomes a numbers game.
This is a how-to. So while it is understandable about raging against someone bragging about a bit of ingenuity. This guy should be commended for taking the time out to inform instead of brag and I assure you, it is much easier to brag or insult than it is to inform.
Exactly. I am reading this article and thinking this doesn't explain deductive reasoning, which in fact, a person can do that on their own and not need to debate or talk to another person about. Reasoning has existed to let people reach beyond mere perception and reflex in the search for truth. It is reasoning that allows us to recognize and deduce correctly at times patterns in all sorts of creatures, objects and phenomena.
I am not sure why they are trying to pigeonhole reasoning as a product of human interaction when chances are it started from our need to hunt and protect ourselves.
But of course, it MUST be the Sony firmware. That explains why 360 owners exhibit the same exact issues. Man, sony is evil and far reaching with that kind of pull. SMH.
Well, the amount of spin and FUD being outputted here makes that understandable. You can read the full response here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/sets/72157626521862165/
While they mention finding a file on their servers that references Anonymous and noting that the intrusion takes place around the same time. They letter enver blames Anonymous.
What I find worse is the mob mentality that has gone along with this circus show.
1. People are assuming that Anonymous is a formal group and has one particular set of behavior.
2. People are assuming that "everyone" that took up the Anonymous title, are altruistic and/or have a very limited set of skills.
This behavior reminds me of basic conformation bias. It is sort of how people in the US are quick to point out violent/negative behaviors done by certain people who identify themselves as muslim to paint the entire islam community despite any denouncements yet when violence/negative behaviors of that nature are done by people who claim they are christians are relatively ignored or brushed over stateside (like the murder of Dr. Tiller).
No I am not a guy who "hates" any of the big three companies. I am an avid gamer who reads these sites all the time, and I can't help but notice the amount of BS people love to have aimed against sony. Sony is in the wrong for going after someone who exposed proprietary keys? Sony is at fault for being a victim of data theft? You seriously believe that keeping abreast of all activity on a network while defending against a DDoS attack is easy? Is there such thing as an unhackable network?
For such a tech saavy site with supposedly mature tech minded people, the vast majority of these upmodded comments are seeming ownright immature and ill informed.
They didn't say anything different this time. Even after an audit by three separate companies they hired, they have no evidence that CC info was taken.
Alot of these headlines are simply rewording it. Because they didn't say it with finality it allows the attention grabbing headlines of "may have" which in turns fuels the anti sony rhetoric that seems ever so popular this gen.
"they're willing to take any sandpaper-wrapped anal raping that Sony will give them"
You seem to have some very interesting insider knowledge. Care to elaborate?
Social Engineering is not a form of hacking. Hacking is not always a negative connotation but in every case it involves modifying hardware and software in ways it wasn't intended. Social Engineering existed as a term way before the term hacking and has more in common with fraud because it deals with people and not with devices and software.
It is a very simple concept. You can do whatever you want to the hardware, the OS is licensed to gamers. Games are also licensed to gamers. This is nothing new, this has been going on for generations. Iirc there ware similar verbiage in the Eula/tos of the previous 2 consoles as well. You agreed to it either by agreeing to the Eula or by use. If you have done neither then you have less of an argument.
Just because you assume ownership of something doesn't mean that it is true. Now if you were to use that info to compeletey wipe the native OS of the machine then that would be your right. The sticky nature of the DMCA and Eula is simply the bypassing of security to do so. The act of bypassing it violates the contract and the DMCA but running another OS is not.
The truth is though, people do not want to lose the abilities given in the native OS so they pretend like they don't understand the distinction between license and owner ship and try to justify using a modified version of the native OS. If you are going to knowingly do something like hack the console (for pirating reason or for hombrew) please man up and admit what you are doing is in the green. It makes sense for Sony to do this. They are probably obligated to do this because of the way their game console generates revenue, their partners involved and the investors they have to answer to.
I just wish this woe is me, I am an innocent abused hacker/hobbiest/tinkerer act. Here is the deal if you use the software, just accept the fact that you not get to use the PSN again.If you are distributing the proprietary sony code/information (that they can identify),expect for them to come after you. it is really that simple and it is justified.
I say it because if the installed base. They are loss leaders, so piracy would harm them at the starting gate but not now. The people that purchase the software far outstrips those that pirate.
Launching a missile against the smartphones is a farcry from taking it to the BR plans. Sony also has patents on TV, controller, radio, microprocessor, and many more. It isn't a smart idea to make enemies across divisions because now the game division is taking heat for something the Sony Ericsson dept has an issue with? If Sony can get its act together and act as one force this could get really nasty overall for LG.
Which means LG going after Sony in this manner could probably result in a retaliatory action that would call for the halt of sale for all blu ray devices that LG makes because of some obscure BR patent owned by Sony.
This doesn't seem like a good idea at all.
People are really looking at this from a very simplistic point of view. It is humerus to read some of these quotes.
Chances are they aren't really convinced they can stop it, but they must at least show effort and they are going to try to set a precedent. It is doubtful that piracy can kill the console.
1. Fantaisie-Impromptu is public domain. That only happens when the IP rights expire or are forfeited. So this is a different situation.
2. The copyright protections on the IP is not to protect a trade secret, so it doesn't matter how many people know or are familiar with the game.
3. The Tetris Company was formed and the creator of the game started getting paid. They copyright protections is for the people that own the rights to the property and still actively defends and use it, to retain control so they can continue making profits. The still make tetris games. There is one even scheduled for the 3DS. So are they right in protecting their interest? Sure they are. I believe ANYONE should be entitled to the same protections whether it is an indiviual or a the company that forms thanks to an individuals work. The implication that because they become a successful business that they shouldn't be afforded the right to protect their IP has to be one of the silliest things I have read in a long time.
4. Have you seen the game people are mocking? It is like a carbon copy clone. I would understand if this was a scenario of them going after a title that only barely resembles tetris (like lumines) but no this game is a clone. Down to shape, design and function. Even the blocks are the same. How is a clone like this beneficial in anyway?
I am not sure why Sony is was brought into this but lets tell the truth here. Linux was NEVER officially supported by Sony. OtherOS feature was not on the box, or on any promotion/merchandising materials. No mass media market campaigns for other os, no radio, print or TV ads for OtherOS. Given the army of features that are pretty open for the PS3, it is silly and indicative of this decisive generation thanks to media and gamers in general.
It was one of many unadvertised features that shipped for the PS3.
I am not going to say Nintendo is anti consumer ( I don't think so myself) but to point to the removal of OtherOs as some sort of counter to what was presented above is not even on the same page.
Slashdot Mirror
I am one of those techs that does not settle and it simply for one reason. Cost of living. If I am forced to suffer a tech job that will pay me 20k a a year or less for my abilities and experience, why bother put up with the stress. I could simply go work commission based retail or go back into the catering business. I have been in the workforce for so long and worked in so many different fields that I find that it is just plain silly to "accept" what they are offering. IMO all techs that see jobs that underpay for experience and knowledge should just avoid applying for that position because that is a trend that needs to be curbed.
Entitlement is one thing, but estimating your own worth is another. No one can tell you what you are worth (even if it is an inflated estimation) these companies are the ones that will have to make a sacrifice or simply not be able to fill a need that will only grow worse.
The internet itself is the sidewalk. An example of pciketing on this sidewalk is creating your own site or another method/rallying cry against said business. Facebook, youtube, and many other forms of social media are extremely powerful tools to get the message out.
Whether blocking access irl or online, chances are it coste someone money. And there is no minor infraction when someone takes something from you or costs you your time as an individual. Why would businesses or small user created sites be any different?
I don't buy that DDoS os the nly meaningful way and I doubt such a harmful action is reasonably viewed by most as the same harmless actions of picketing or jaywalking.
Problem is, picketing is an imperfect analogy for DDoS attacks. The internet has no "public sidewalk" for protesters to stand on, making their message heard loudly & clearly, yet without blocking access.
By definition a DDoS attack... a distributed denial-of-service attack, is intended to block access. It is more akin to picketers actually blocking the entrance of a hotel while on a public sidewalk. That is not legal in the real world and certainly isn't legal online either.
I think I recall Stallman likening DDoS to a picketing. There do seem to be parallels.
The picketing that is allowed is something that is next to the entrance of a business that is informing but not blocking entry and exit to said business. And mainly it has to be off the property of the business because they can hit the protestors with trespassing.
Problem with a DDoS is that it is everything that is NOT allowed in a peaceful picketing. It denies access to a site, Which is the equivalent of blocking the doors to a business. Also any modification of a site is messing with the companies property, which wouldn't be allowed in real life either.
It is about "how" things are done not why.
The fact is that those kids did no work whatsoever - not one shred, and they are getting paid for it by society (by the government, really). That makes it pure charity, which I am fine with, but I think limiting the charity to something reasonable like 10 years is more than sufficient and it might encourage artists to create, knowing that their kids will get a nice little 10-year annuity.
I am sorry, I don't understand the 'getting paid by government' part how does this work out?
So, you're basically saying that if person X wrote the lyrics to a song, person Y wrote the music, they both did it under contract to corporation C, who then hired performers P Q and R to perform it, P.1 should receive remuneration for every reproduction of that performance. At the same time, you're saying that if performer S then decides to cover the song, P.1 should not receive remuneration.
What you also loosely implied (but likely didn't mean to) was that at no time should X and Y benefit from "anyone" performing the song. I say this because MJ was often not just the performer, but also the songwriter (both X AND Y) and as such, it seems his children should have the same right to profit should those works (the lyrics and the tune) be reproduced by others.
In reality, X, Y C, P, Q and R can all be unique, the same, or any permutation. However, all of those variables have their own contracts and their own copyright protection, which is distinct for each role, even if they're not distinct in the person performing the function.
This is why the copyright issue is messy, and likely has no right answer.
What I mean, is that 'everyone' involved in making the tangible product should still receive royalties for that particular product. After copyright lapse though, they shouldn't be entitled to receive anything from people who cover the song or any variants of it as long as the new material doesn't contain snippets from the older work.
I guess, to be more clear is that I believe people should get paid for tangible products they create within the scope of original CP law but the intangible elements should be shared.
You are right, this does bring up interesting arguments about the line between copyright and consumers sense of entitlement. Copyright is all about profit and ownership. But the original intent of copyright is hundreds of years old now. As with all things it has changed and adopted with society and technology. 400 years ago, they crafted it most likely because of the limitations of spreading someones work around. Today we have the internet.
Even if I were to agree with you about the music in question becoming available for all to use and recreate as a source of inspiration, I really don't see how it would entitle anyone to the work as performed by a particular artist.
Shold MJ's kids profit form "anyone" singing MJ's songs? I don't think so. Should they profit from copies of their Father singing the song? I don't see a problem in that.
As always people forget a step. What you have is...
"Customer purchased product from store.
Customer owns product from store.
Customer after some period of time sells product used to somebody else.
Store already got paid, so they have no legal interest, much less moral or ethical interest, in the second sale.
First Sale Doctrine covers this. Everywhere else in the physical world you cannot pull this fucking shit for two seconds without being called crazy greedy retarded sons of bitches."
But before the customer purchases the product from the store it is well within the manufacturer's right to sell the product how they want it and how much they want it for. As long as they are not being misleading and are upfront with what is happening they are in the right and it falls under buyer beware. Now whether it deals with a service like online play (which is not subject to first sale doctrine) or DLC (which is NOT found on disc) then you as a consumer are not entitled to that material. Your personal opinions about the "value" of the game doesn't allow you step over the companies rights to distribute the product how they see fit.
The real question that keeps popping up in my head when people complain about this is.... are people practically PLANNING on selling this game after buying it brand new? If you do not think a game is worth it, why buy brand new? If you don't plan on keeping the game (a choice made before purchase) then why not just "rent" the game? I really don't get the overwhelming sense of entitlement this generation of gamers seem to have regarding DLC and services and expect these companies to feel pity when you loudly proclaim your desire to fuel the second hand market.
I think these devs and companies are making a stand. If you think these games are worth it, support them outright. If not, feel free to hold on to your personal feelings of entitlement and let them burn. Either way, the message will be felt if these devs close up shop. It would entice the pubs to only shift big bucks into guaranteed successes and the more unique titles drop tremendously in budget and quality or simply fall by the wayside.
The only difference? Read again. Sony is putting this on all "FIRST PARTY" games. Which means Sony is the publisher of those games. Doesn't seem any different from PC now does it?
Attrition. It is expected that at some point in time interest wanes and the game players move on to different things. It is extremely easy to see accounts that are added and used alot after the time the estimate for decline.Normally the publishers handle the costs and they constantly crank out products that may need attention as well. It becomes a numbers game.
This is a how-to. So while it is understandable about raging against someone bragging about a bit of ingenuity. This guy should be commended for taking the time out to inform instead of brag and I assure you, it is much easier to brag or insult than it is to inform.
Exactly. I am reading this article and thinking this doesn't explain deductive reasoning, which in fact, a person can do that on their own and not need to debate or talk to another person about. Reasoning has existed to let people reach beyond mere perception and reflex in the search for truth. It is reasoning that allows us to recognize and deduce correctly at times patterns in all sorts of creatures, objects and phenomena. I am not sure why they are trying to pigeonhole reasoning as a product of human interaction when chances are it started from our need to hunt and protect ourselves.
But of course, it MUST be the Sony firmware. That explains why 360 owners exhibit the same exact issues. Man, sony is evil and far reaching with that kind of pull. SMH.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-hbgary-hack.ars It isn't true that "all" the people taking up the banner do not have methods more advanced than DDoS.
Well, the amount of spin and FUD being outputted here makes that understandable. You can read the full response here http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/sets/72157626521862165/ While they mention finding a file on their servers that references Anonymous and noting that the intrusion takes place around the same time. They letter enver blames Anonymous. What I find worse is the mob mentality that has gone along with this circus show. 1. People are assuming that Anonymous is a formal group and has one particular set of behavior. 2. People are assuming that "everyone" that took up the Anonymous title, are altruistic and/or have a very limited set of skills. This behavior reminds me of basic conformation bias. It is sort of how people in the US are quick to point out violent/negative behaviors done by certain people who identify themselves as muslim to paint the entire islam community despite any denouncements yet when violence/negative behaviors of that nature are done by people who claim they are christians are relatively ignored or brushed over stateside (like the murder of Dr. Tiller). No I am not a guy who "hates" any of the big three companies. I am an avid gamer who reads these sites all the time, and I can't help but notice the amount of BS people love to have aimed against sony. Sony is in the wrong for going after someone who exposed proprietary keys? Sony is at fault for being a victim of data theft? You seriously believe that keeping abreast of all activity on a network while defending against a DDoS attack is easy? Is there such thing as an unhackable network? For such a tech saavy site with supposedly mature tech minded people, the vast majority of these upmodded comments are seeming ownright immature and ill informed.
They didn't say anything different this time. Even after an audit by three separate companies they hired, they have no evidence that CC info was taken. Alot of these headlines are simply rewording it. Because they didn't say it with finality it allows the attention grabbing headlines of "may have" which in turns fuels the anti sony rhetoric that seems ever so popular this gen.
"they're willing to take any sandpaper-wrapped anal raping that Sony will give them" You seem to have some very interesting insider knowledge. Care to elaborate?
Social Engineering is not a form of hacking. Hacking is not always a negative connotation but in every case it involves modifying hardware and software in ways it wasn't intended. Social Engineering existed as a term way before the term hacking and has more in common with fraud because it deals with people and not with devices and software.
It is a very simple concept. You can do whatever you want to the hardware, the OS is licensed to gamers. Games are also licensed to gamers. This is nothing new, this has been going on for generations. Iirc there ware similar verbiage in the Eula/tos of the previous 2 consoles as well. You agreed to it either by agreeing to the Eula or by use. If you have done neither then you have less of an argument.
Just because you assume ownership of something doesn't mean that it is true. Now if you were to use that info to compeletey wipe the native OS of the machine then that would be your right. The sticky nature of the DMCA and Eula is simply the bypassing of security to do so. The act of bypassing it violates the contract and the DMCA but running another OS is not.
The truth is though, people do not want to lose the abilities given in the native OS so they pretend like they don't understand the distinction between license and owner ship and try to justify using a modified version of the native OS. If you are going to knowingly do something like hack the console (for pirating reason or for hombrew) please man up and admit what you are doing is in the green. It makes sense for Sony to do this. They are probably obligated to do this because of the way their game console generates revenue, their partners involved and the investors they have to answer to.
I just wish this woe is me, I am an innocent abused hacker/hobbiest/tinkerer act. Here is the deal if you use the software, just accept the fact that you not get to use the PSN again.If you are distributing the proprietary sony code/information (that they can identify),expect for them to come after you. it is really that simple and it is justified.
I say it because if the installed base. They are loss leaders, so piracy would harm them at the starting gate but not now. The people that purchase the software far outstrips those that pirate.
Launching a missile against the smartphones is a farcry from taking it to the BR plans. Sony also has patents on TV, controller, radio, microprocessor, and many more. It isn't a smart idea to make enemies across divisions because now the game division is taking heat for something the Sony Ericsson dept has an issue with? If Sony can get its act together and act as one force this could get really nasty overall for LG.
Which means LG going after Sony in this manner could probably result in a retaliatory action that would call for the halt of sale for all blu ray devices that LG makes because of some obscure BR patent owned by Sony. This doesn't seem like a good idea at all.
People are really looking at this from a very simplistic point of view. It is humerus to read some of these quotes. Chances are they aren't really convinced they can stop it, but they must at least show effort and they are going to try to set a precedent. It is doubtful that piracy can kill the console.
1. Fantaisie-Impromptu is public domain. That only happens when the IP rights expire or are forfeited. So this is a different situation.
2. The copyright protections on the IP is not to protect a trade secret, so it doesn't matter how many people know or are familiar with the game.
3. The Tetris Company was formed and the creator of the game started getting paid. They copyright protections is for the people that own the rights to the property and still actively defends and use it, to retain control so they can continue making profits. The still make tetris games. There is one even scheduled for the 3DS. So are they right in protecting their interest? Sure they are. I believe ANYONE should be entitled to the same protections whether it is an indiviual or a the company that forms thanks to an individuals work. The implication that because they become a successful business that they shouldn't be afforded the right to protect their IP has to be one of the silliest things I have read in a long time.
4. Have you seen the game people are mocking? It is like a carbon copy clone. I would understand if this was a scenario of them going after a title that only barely resembles tetris (like lumines) but no this game is a clone. Down to shape, design and function. Even the blocks are the same. How is a clone like this beneficial in anyway?
http://wmpoweruser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Tetrada11.png
Stephen Toulouse, also known as Stepto, is the Director of Xbox LIVE Policy and Enforcement at Microsoft. http://www.stepto.com/
I am not sure why Sony is was brought into this but lets tell the truth here. Linux was NEVER officially supported by Sony. OtherOS feature was not on the box, or on any promotion/merchandising materials. No mass media market campaigns for other os, no radio, print or TV ads for OtherOS. Given the army of features that are pretty open for the PS3, it is silly and indicative of this decisive generation thanks to media and gamers in general. It was one of many unadvertised features that shipped for the PS3. I am not going to say Nintendo is anti consumer ( I don't think so myself) but to point to the removal of OtherOs as some sort of counter to what was presented above is not even on the same page.