• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why did Sony remove Linux from the PS3 slim?

V

Visualante

Member
Can anyone shed light on this matter? It's something that has bugged me since I heard the news.
To my understanding Linux was included on the PS2 as a method of taking advantage of an EU tax break for computer hardware. Which indirectly led to some hobbyist programming and cool projects which I don't mean to belittle.

The wiki suggests that Sony lost this case so any benefit from them at a corporate level was nullified. But in terms of hardware and support one would imagine the costs would be minimal to continue supporting this community.

Is it really simply a case of Sony Corporate cutting costs where ever they can, or did Sony cut PS3 Linux for another reason? Reading today on Shawn Elliott's twitter he linked to an article on the Economist that noted the following.

But the desire to play games is not the reason why the United States Air Force recently issued a procurement request for 2,200 Sony PlayStation 3 (PS3) video-game consoles. It intends to link them up to build a supercomputer that will run Linux, a free, open-source operating system.
Click to expand...
The article goes on to note that the military is making a substantial saving by creating a network like this compared to building a traditional super computer. Do you think that other investors in Cell technology. Such as IBM might be a little pissed at Sony selling devices that are near equivalent to their own more expensive products? One could speculate the pressure to remove PS3 linux came from external sources. Likewise anyone with hardware or PS3 OS expertise is welcomed to weigh in on this.
 
C

Combichristoffersen

Combovers don't work when there is no hair
As far as I know, Sony's never given any real reason for the removal of Linux support, but if I were to guess, I'd say it was because they didn't want the army, universities etc. to buy a bunch of PS3s just for setting up server clusters, as Sony were (are?) taking a loss at each PS3 sold, and they expected to make up this loss by sales of games, peripherals etc., but the US army obviously ain't gonna buy a whole lot of PS3 games and DS3s, so..
 
H

hirokazu

Member
Because realistically, nobody really used it outside from organisations who weren't interested in games at the same time.

I'm guessing scientists and government organisations can get non-standard slims that still have the ability to run OtherOS.

But it was still cool to have it out of the box, and I'm sad to see it go.
 
Dr. Zoidberg

Dr. Zoidberg

Member
IF they put it in there for the end-user's benefit, then the reason they stopped supporting it is that almost nobody used it. The reason nobody used it was that it was crippled to the point of being useless for what most people would want to do with it.

I'm sure it was great for these big computer cluster projects but I somehow doubt that was the goal when it was designed and implemented. As already stated, if anything it hurt Sony's bottom line.
 
E

EXGN

Member
Probably so pirates couldn't use it to find some way to backwards engineer some security work around.
 
M

Massa

Member
Visualante said:
The article goes on to note that the military is making a substantial saving by creating a network like this compared to building a traditional super computer. Do you think that other investors in Cell technology. Such as IBM might be a little pissed at Sony selling devices that are near equivalent to their own more expensive products? One could speculate the pressure to remove PS3 linux came from external sources. Likewise anyone with hardware or PS3 OS expertise is welcomed to weigh in on this.
Click to expand...

That's what I would bet on.

Dr. Zoidberg said:
IF they put it in there for the end-user's benefit, then the reason they stopped supporting it is that almost nobody used it. The reason nobody used it was that it was crippled to the point of being useless for what most people would want to do with it.
Click to expand...

They didn't stop supporting it, they still support it for old PS3's. They're just intentionally not letting PS3 slim owners take advantage of the work they're doing anyway.
 
J

jonabbey

Member
They didn't want to subsidize government agencies, etc., using the PS3 as a soooper-cheap Cell compute engine, is my thinking.

It's not like Linux on the fat PS3 ever resulted in any significant open source Cell development, as far as I ever heard.
 
B

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
alr1ghtstart said:
so the haxxorz have a reason to tinker with it.
Click to expand...
Yes I always thought that one of the more interesting reasons for why PS3 is not hacked (and piracy enabled) is because, with Linux installation, the homebrew tinkerers can already do most of the things they'd want to.

Now I suppose there'll be more incentive to hack it.. But I'm not worried about piracy... By the time BR burners because popular, I believe the heyday of PS3 software sales will be over.
 
The Faceless Master

The Faceless Master

Member
it's because they didn't want to code and test new hypervisor code for the new hardware in the slim. i remember reading it on a ps3 linux forum somewhere3, the answer was from a sony rep, and they removed their post after it was posted on some blogs.
 
J

jonabbey

Member
BocoDragon said:
Yes I always thought that one of the more interesting reasons for why PS3 is not hacked (and piracy enabled) is because, with Linux installation, the homebrew tinkerers can already do most of the things they'd want to.

Now I suppose there'll be more incentive to hack it.. But I'm not worried about piracy... By the time BR burners because popular, I believe the heyday of PS3 software sales will be over.
Click to expand...

It will take a lot more than BD burners to get cracked copies of PS3 games to play.
 
ReBurn

ReBurn

Gold Member
Sony removed Linux support because they didn't want to continue to subsidize the cost of the supercomputer clusters people were making. There's really no way for them to know exactly how many people were installing other operating systems. If there is then I have a huge privacy beef with them. But honestly, if it costs you $350 to $400 to make something that people are buying because it's cheaper and much more powerful than commodity hardware, you don't want to subsidize their efforts.

Makes me wonder how many of the 30 million or so PS3's that have been sold have been purchased for this purpose. I can't imagine it's a huge percentage, but that's a group of buyers that won't be ringing the registers for Sony any more. For those that play sales as their main hobby that's going to pinch a bit.
 
P

Piper Az

Member
I remember when the specs of PS3 was first announced, a whole gaggle of people on GAF argued that the PS3 would replace PC as we knew it and that via LINUX, we would be using the PS3 to do word processing, computing, email, and the PS3 would become this giant "everything" super "computer"...yeah.
 
H

hirokazu

Member
jonabbey said:
It's not like Linux on the fat PS3 ever resulted in any significant open source Cell development, as far as I ever heard.
Click to expand...
That's because hardware access is fucking nerfed.
 
V

Visualante

Member
hirokazu said:
That's because hardware access is fucking nerfed.
Click to expand...
I don't think you know much about the PS3's capabilities. It was far from crippled, it had the GPU cut out in an attempt to stop piracy but having access to the Cell for programming hardware accelerated tasks has a huge range of applications that are desirable.
Rollo Larson said:
to cut manufacturing costs
Click to expand...
Can you cite that?
 
R

rainer516

That crazy Japanese Moon Language
The Faceless Master said:
it's because they didn't want to code and test new hypervisor code for the new hardware in the slim. i remember reading it on a ps3 linux forum somewhere3, the answer was from a sony rep, and they removed their post after it was posted on some blogs.
Click to expand...

Basically this. Testing hardware for compatibility is an expensive task, and it was deemed useless because most people don't use their PS3's as a linux box any how. It was a cost-cutting measure, plain and simple.
 
wolfmat

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
Piper Az said:
I remember when the specs of PS3 was first announced, a whole gaggle of people on GAF argued that the PS3 would replace PC as we knew it and that via LINUX, we would be using the PS3 to do word processing, computing, email, and the PS3 would become this giant "everything" super "computer"...yeah.
Click to expand...
Don't be fooled, this is all doable. It's just that people usually already have a computer and have no interest in getting to know Linux.
 
R

rainer516

That crazy Japanese Moon Language
hirokazu said:
That's because hardware access is fucking nerfed.
Click to expand...

This was always intended because Sony makes money from software licensing and they probably want to keep future PSN-indie game licensing options open. As far as using your PS3 to perform standard PC uses goes, it's completely doable, you can run word processors, spread sheet programs or even custom compiled versions of Octave (it's an open source knock-off of MATLab) to do some serious computation.

It's just that no one is gonna bother to do this because everyone who would use the PS3 for these functions has a PC anyhow.
 
D

dogmaan

Girl got arse pubes.
ReBurn said:
Sony removed Linux support because they didn't want to continue to subsidize the cost of the supercomputer clusters people were making. There's really no way for them to know exactly how many people were installing other operating systems. If there is then I have a huge privacy beef with them. But honestly, if it costs you $350 to $400 to make something that people are buying because it's cheaper and much more powerful than commodity hardware, you don't want to subsidize their efforts.

Makes me wonder how many of the 30 million or so PS3's that have been sold have been purchased for this purpose. I can't imagine it's a huge percentage, but that's a group of buyers that won't be ringing the registers for Sony any more. For those that play sales as their main hobby that's going to pinch a bit.
Click to expand...

flip side of that argument is:

The money lost in research units, is gained back via lack of casual piracy due to the Linux community not having to hack the PS3 to run Linux, thus by proxy enabling piracy

I have a feeling all bets are off now

this decision may hurt Sony in the long run
 
The Faceless Master

The Faceless Master

Member
http://www.daniweb.com/news/story220780.html

found a url with the story...

A (since deleted) forum post on an official Sony PlayStation website stated:

"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."
Click to expand...

cost cutting measure.

http://www.sonyinsider.com/2009/09/07/no-linux-on-ps3-revisited/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/28/sony_ps3_slim_linux_install_loss/

http://www.taranfx.com/why-no-linux-install-support-for-ps3-slim-there-could-be-a-solution

http://www.pressthebuttons.com/2009/08/linux-on-ps3-slim-isnt-cost-effective.html

etc.
 
J

jonabbey

Member
dogmaan said:
flip side of that argument is:

The money lost in research units, is gained back via lack of casual piracy due to the Linux community not having to hack the PS3 to run Linux, thus by proxy enabling piracy

I have a feeling all bets are off now

this decision may hurt Sony in the long run
Click to expand...

I don't think the availability of Linux has had a significant impact on the lack of piracy on the PS3.

Sony really did design the system to be resistant to that sort of hijinks, down to a very deep level, with the Cell even having built-in support for running the 7th SPU in a TPM style, with encrypted code firewalled off from the rest of the system, and etc.

It's hard to hack a system if you have to crack open the CPU and cut traces, etc. on a 90nm or smaller process.
 
Schrade

Schrade

Member
Subliminal said:
Sooo. the Slim doesn't have the Hypervisor?
Click to expand...
No it does. It just doesn't (Well, the firmware doesn't) have OtherOS Hypervisor drivers so OtherOS won't work on it. There are still PS3 Fat OtherOS drivers for the Hypervisor in the firmware though.
 
D

dogmaan

Girl got arse pubes.
jonabbey said:
I don't think the availability of Linux has had a significant impact on the lack of piracy on the PS3.

Sony really did design the system to be resistant to that sort of hijinks, down to a very deep level, with the Cell even having built-in support for running the 7th SPU in a TPM style, with encrypted code firewalled off from the rest of the system, and etc.

It's hard to hack a system if you have to crack open the CPU and cut traces, etc. on a 90nm or smaller process.
Click to expand...

I agree that the security is very good on the PS3, but all it takes is one weak link to be found in the security

If you remember the XBOX 360 has ridiculous security as well, but that was originally hacked via a demo disc and an edited custom shader in king kong

as tough as the PS3 hardware is to crack, I'm certain there is a software vulnerability yet to be found in the PS3, I mean there are vulnerabilities in practically every piece of software ever made

look, I'm no expert programmer, but 'something' during runtime has to access that 7th SPU, also I believe it is locked in software (i.e. on boot an SPU receives a call to lock for security, thus becoming a black box of sorts), so you may be able to 'attack' it during boot, that will be significantly harder though if the key is on the CPU like the xbox360 ( it probably is )

it wouldn't surprise me if the security is cracked eventually due to a shader writing to the CPU or a place in RAM it shouldn't be, and redirecting a *pointer to something nefarious

fuck I don't know, I'm thinking to hard, conjecture conjecture blah blah etc
 
D

Dreamwriter

Member
You gave the answer yourself. The *only* reason the PS3 supported Linux was to get the European tax break. They didn't get the break, so they didn't bother spending extra money when they redesigned the PS3 to a form-factor designed specifically to cut costs. Exact same reason the PS3 no longer supports PS2 games, they don't need it anymore so why spend money on it? Sony is a business, they've never really cared about making people happy without earning a buck at the same time.
 
A

Alphahawk

Member
Because it was something that they could cut that 99.9% of users wouldn't even notice. Should of cut it before they cut BC IMHO.
 
J

jonabbey

Member
dogmaan said:
I agree that the security is very good on the PS3, but all it takes is one weak link to be found in the security

If you remember the XBOX 360 has ridiculous security as well, but that was originally hacked via a demo disc and an edited custom shader in king kong

as tough as the PS3 hardware is to crack, I'm certain there is a software vulnerability yet to be found in the PS3, I mean there are vulnerabilities in practically every piece of software ever made

look, I'm no expert programmer, but 'something' during runtime has to access that 7th SPU, also I believe it is locked in software (i.e. on boot an SPU receives a call to lock for security, thus becoming a black box of sorts), so you may be able to 'attack' it during boot, that will be significantly harder though if the key is on the CPU like the xbox360 ( it probably is )

it wouldn't surprise me if the security is cracked eventually due to a shader writing to the CPU or a place in RAM it shouldn't be, and redirecting a *pointer to something nefarious

fuck I don't know, I'm thinking to hard, conjecture conjecture blah blah etc
Click to expand...

Oh, you may well be right. I certainly can't say either way. I just don't imagine that past returns are any guarantee of future results.

Somebody has to be the first to make a system that can't be effectively attacked, after all. :D
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Without access to the GPU it was a really poor Linux box anyway, compared to something you could make out of old shit from your PC bin. I don't miss it.
 
D

dogmaan

Girl got arse pubes.
Speevy said:
So the owners of still-working Kutaragistations could feel proud and elite.
Click to expand...

I miss my Kutaragistation, i can't use Linux anymore on my Kazstation or perhaps it's a Welshstation due to Stringer
 
T

Totobeni

An blind dancing ho
Speevy said:
So the owners of still-working Kutaragistations could feel proud and elite.
Click to expand...

original 60GB units you mean ? aren't they actually Superior and ELITE ? nothing on the Slim can match SACD and GS+EE.
 
C

Combichristoffersen

Combovers don't work when there is no hair
MWS Natural said:
Wow I didn't even know that. Is the PS3 the first system to actually lose capabilities after each revision??
Click to expand...

No, the PS2 slim lost the HDD expansion bay. Some later revisions of the PS1 also lost a port that the original PS1 had.
 
B

Blackface

Banned
Visualante said:
Can anyone shed light on this matter? It's something that has bugged me since I heard the news.
To my understanding Linux was included on the PS2 as a method of taking advantage of an EU tax break for computer hardware. Which indirectly led to some hobbyist programming and cool projects which I don't mean to belittle.

The wiki suggests that Sony lost this case so any benefit from them at a corporate level was nullified. But in terms of hardware and support one would imagine the costs would be minimal to continue supporting this community.

Is it really simply a case of Sony Corporate cutting costs where ever they can, or did Sony cut PS3 Linux for another reason? Reading today on Shawn Elliott's twitter he linked to an article on the Economist that noted the following.


The article goes on to note that the military is making a substantial saving by creating a network like this compared to building a traditional super computer. Do you think that other investors in Cell technology. Such as IBM might be a little pissed at Sony selling devices that are near equivalent to their own more expensive products? One could speculate the pressure to remove PS3 linux came from external sources. Likewise anyone with hardware or PS3 OS expertise is welcomed to weigh in on this.
Click to expand...

1. No IBM won't be mad. The PS3's are a good way to make a cheap "super-computer", but with a lower price you have many many many issues and problems that can arise. Such as no support, no reliability, using pieces of hardware not purpose build for what they are being used for. Little chance of expansion outside of adding more PS3's, and wasted hardware and tech that won't be utilized (Thats a hell of a lot of Blu Ray players).

2. Virginia tech did the same thing by linking a bunch of Mac's together. It works, it's fast, it saved them a tonne of money. However, they are now having lots of problems with the system as those machines were not purpose built like a super computer should be. Apple also doesn't offer fucking super-computer support.

In terms of Linux, they removed the ability for PS3 to use Linux from what I understand. This probably wasn't because IBM was mad. It was because SONY was mad.

Sony doesn't want to sell 10 stores worth of inventory to the military who are going to use it for a super computer. Why? because the military won't be buying controllers, games, cables, Sony HDTVs, or anything else that comes with a standard purchase of a game console.

So they yanked Linux support so other companies don't get the same bright idea and their inventory is being shipped out to non-consumers who will never buy another Sony gaming product for those systems.

Every PS3 sold to a company or person who isn't going to buy more products for it is a loss.
 
T

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
Dr. Zoidberg said:
IF they put it in there for the end-user's benefit, then the reason they stopped supporting it is that almost nobody used it. The reason nobody used it was that it was crippled to the point of being useless for what most people would want to do with it.
Click to expand...


Yep, it was a catch 22 situation. But can you blame Sony? People running emulators off the RSX/GPU chip (whatever it's called) would've gotten them into a legal quagmire. So taking it out = covering their asses, meanwhile taking that ability out = no one gives a damn because you can't really do shit other than browse the internet or use it as a web/mail server in Linux now.
 
Z

ZAK

Member
MWS Natural said:
Wow I didn't even know that. Is the PS3 the first system to actually lose capabilities after each revision??
Click to expand...
Well, the DS eventually lost the GBA slot, if that counts. :lol though.
 
A

AlternativeUlster

Absolutely pathetic part deux
Does the Ps3 still have SACD support? I don't think I would buy one without it. I need to listen to the Can reissues they put out years ago.
 
P

Prezhulio

Member
Dizzan said:
How many people actually use Linux? Buy an old one if you want it.
Click to expand...

after i upgraded my 60gb to 320, i installed some flavor of linux (i don't remember), went on firefox and have yet to use it again. there's no reason for me to use it i guess, and at this point i'm fairly certain there won't be anything released/developed as incentive to use it.
 
V

Visualante

Member
Blackface said:
1. No IBM won't be mad. The PS3's are a good way to make a cheap "super-computer", but with a lower price you have many many many issues and problems that can arise. Such as no support, no reliability, using pieces of hardware not purpose build for what they are being used for. Little chance of expansion outside of adding more PS3's, and wasted hardware and tech that won't be utilized (Thats a hell of a lot of Blu Ray players).
Click to expand...
The difference here is that the military could afford a super computer from IBM. But they chose not to. That's a significant client lost for a little science project. I'm skeptical these isolated customers building a super computer are even that big of an influence for Sony as you claim. I think it's literally just cost cutting as the Faceless Master cited above.

They were toying with the idea of testing the code, and it would have cost more, potentially delayed the release of the slim so they shitcanned it. Seems to me the case is closed.
 
T

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
MWS Natural said:
Wow I didn't even know that. Is the PS3 the first system to actually lose capabilities after each revision??
Click to expand...

I don't think "cutting thigns out because people bitch about our console being fucking expensive" is "losing capabilities."

Hardly anyone except Linux nerds give a shit about Linux on the PS3 (it's nice to tinker, but gimped, so even then they don't give a shit).

Only feature that's been cut that people (well, most people) DO give a shit about is PS2 BC. And that was cut to save some cash because people bitched about the $400-500 price-tag. :|

AlternativeUlster said:
Does the Ps3 still have SACD support? I don't think I would buy one without it. I need to listen to the Can reissues they put out years ago.
Click to expand...

Don't buy a Slim in that case. It drops SACD but gains some other benefit (video, IIRC?) in the tradeoff.
 
V

Visualante

Member
TheSeks said:
I don't think "cutting thigns out because people bitch about our console being fucking expensive" is "losing capabilities."

Hardly anyone except Linux nerds give a shit about Linux on the PS3 (it's nice to tinker, but gimped, so even then they don't give a shit).
Click to expand...
The cell can do so much raw processing, having one beside your desktop PC rendering out work or calculating stuff is actually viable. Stop posting what you heard as fact it really just makes you look silly to those who actually use it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8
 
T

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
Visualante said:
The cell can do so much raw processing, having one beside your desktop PC rendering out work or calculating stuff is actually viable. Stop posting what you heard as fact it really just makes you look silly to those who actually use it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8
Click to expand...

And outside of raw processing power it has... nothing?

Yeah, that's what I thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
SONY/SIE: The Balance Of Chasing Margins, Multiplat Expansion, And Maximizing The Console
Opinion Business Analysis 2 3
101
8K
vaibhavpisal replied
  • Poll
Why Xbox Abandoning The Traditional Console Business Model, Makes Business Sense
Business Analysis Platform 2
72
5K
WitchHunter replied
[Part II] Thoughts on six patent applications related to a unique PS5, and what it may mean for SIE's future
2
1K
Daneel Elijah replied
  • Locked
Gamingbolt: Sony’s Decision To Make PSVR2 Over A PlayStation Handheld Is Baffling
2 3 4 5 6
269
18K
Jimmyisback replied
Phil Spencer interview - Says that their intent is for all Xbox games, including Call of Duty, to be available on Xbox Game Pass Day One
2 3
102
7K
Kenneth Haight replied
Top Bottom