PS3 Linux makes M$ antsy
John Bailo
They really seem to be rattled by the PS3 Linux combo.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?=12107
>>>
When asked about Sony's efforts to create a homebrew culture by allowing
Linux to be installed freely on the PlayStation 3 (albeit without access
to the RSX graphics chipset, among other restrictions), Mitchell
commented: "On the one hand I've got to commend them for moving up their
platform there, but we really don't view what Sony and PlayStation 3 and
particularly the Linux solution that they are making available - we
don't really view that as a competitive offering or trying to do
something in the same vein."
<<<
--
The Texeme Construct
http://you-read-it-here-first.com
Larry Qualig
What on earth are you talking about?
What he (Mitchell) said should be pretty obvious to just about anyone
with more than a dozen brain cells. Just because a very small
percentage of users will run Linux on the PS3 *Gaming Console* does not
make the PS3 a viable competitor to Windows.
Rex Ballard
> They really seem to be rattled by the PS3 Linux combo.
> http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?=12107
>
> When asked about Sony's efforts to create a homebrew culture by allowing
> Linux to be installed freely on the PlayStation 3 (albeit without access
> to the RSX graphics chipset, among other restrictions),
Keep in mind that the PS-2 also supported Linux. In Asia, many people
were able to get inexpensive PS-2 machines and add the keyboard, a
Linux CD, and some external storage.
It was shown and sold in the US during one of the Linux Expo shows, but
they were sold out by the time I got back to their booth.
The PS-2 Linux may have been one of the driving forces behind the
X/Box. Microsoft was concerned that Linux on the PS-2 could expose too
many people to LInux, and that would reduce demand for Windows.
In the United States, the availablity of sub $300 PCs, including some
$300 WalMart Linux machines tended to kill demand for PS/2 based Linux
machines. In Asia however, PS/2 Linux did very well, and many users
did upgrade from PS/2 Linux to PC Linux.
John Bailo
> The PS-2 Linux may have been one of the driving forces behind the
> X/Box. Microsoft was concerned that Linux on the PS-2 could expose too
> many people to LInux, and that would reduce demand for Windows.
Yes, agree throughly. I think it's the only reason for its existance
as a competitive "block" to Sony moving into the home/OS area.
The Ghost In The Machine
<lqu...@uku.co.uk>
wrote
on 15 Dec 2006 10:50:15 -0800
<1166208615....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> John Bailo wrote:
>> They really seem to be rattled by the PS3 Linux combo.
[crunch]
>>
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
>
> What he (Mitchell) said should be pretty obvious
> to just about anyone with more than a dozen brain
> cells. Just because a very small percentage of users
> will run Linux on the PS3 *Gaming Console* does not
> make the PS3 a viable competitor to Windows.
>
s/Windows/XBox360/g
:-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
It's a question of when.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Larry Qualig
John Bailo wrote:
> Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> > The PS-2 Linux may have been one of the driving forces behind the
> > X/Box. Microsoft was concerned that Linux on the PS-2 could expose too
> > many people to LInux, and that would reduce demand for Windows.
>
> Yes, agree throughly. I think it's the only reason for its existance
> as a competitive "block" to Sony moving into the home/OS area.
Too bad. Perhaps I expected more from you.
Unfortunately Rex appears to be manufacturing conspiracy theories as he
goes along and you blindly belive everything he writes.
<quote>
The PS-2 Linux may have been one of the driving forces behind the
X/Box. Microsoft was concerned that Linux on the PS-2 could expose too
many people to LInux, and that would reduce demand for Windows.
</quote>
Total and utter bullshit. Why? Here's a hint for you.
The XBox was released in 2001.
Linux for the PS2 wasn't released until 2002.
Otherwise yeah... of course Microsoft feared Linux on the PS2 so much
that they released their own gaming console specifically to combat the
400 or so people who ran Linux on a PS2. I'm sure the fact that the
gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry has nothing to do
with it. It's all really a move to combat that huge market force known
as "Linux on the PS2."
John Bailo
> Otherwise yeah... of course Microsoft feared Linux on the PS2 so much
> that they released their own gaming console specifically to combat the
> 400 or so people who ran Linux on a PS2. I'm sure the fact that the
> gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry has nothing to do
> with it. It's all really a move to combat that huge market force known
> as "Linux on the PS2."
Initially, of course, it was not "linux on the PS2" but the PS2's online
and home entertainment capabilities. I actually think that the linux
part was a counter to Xbox's counter to the PS2.
Rex Ballard
> John Bailo wrote:
> > Rex Ballard wrote:
> >
> > > The PS-2 Linux may have been one of the driving forces behind the
> > > X/Box. Microsoft was concerned that Linux on the PS-2 could expose too
> > > many people to LInux, and that would reduce demand for Windows.
> >
> > Yes, agree throughly. I think it's the only reason for its existance
> > as a competitive "block" to Sony moving into the home/OS area.
>
> Too bad. Perhaps I expected more from you.
>
> Unfortunately Rex appears to be manufacturing conspiracy theories as he
> goes along and you blindly belive everything he writes.
>
he is a master strategist, and a good master strategist is a master at
confounding conspiracy theorists.
Bill plans his strategies as much as 20 years ahead, and because he
doesn't have to worry about stockholders and proxy holders outvoting
him, he can have a few bad quarters, or even a few bad years. Had
Gates not had this control of Microsoft from 1992 to 1996, he probably
would have been fired in favor of some short-term strategist who would
have simply offered redecorated versions of Windows 3.1 and canceled
Windows NT completely.
> <quote>
> The PS-2 Linux may have been one of the driving forces behind the
> X/Box. Microsoft was concerned that Linux on the PS-2 could expose too
> many people to LInux, and that would reduce demand for Windows.
> </quote>
>
> Total and utter bullshit. Why? Here's a hint for you.
>
> The XBox was released in 2001.
> Linux for the PS2 wasn't released until 2002.
Sony had announced Linux for PS/2 almost as soon as it came out. It
wasn't formally released as a product until a few months later.
> Otherwise yeah... of course Microsoft feared Linux on the PS2 so much
> that they released their own gaming console specifically to combat the
> 400 or so people who ran Linux on a PS2.
In the United States, Linux on PS/2 was barely even introduced. In
Japan, China, Malaisia, and Korea, much of east asia, the Linux powered
PS/2 was often the first computer for many users who couldn't afford
PCs but could afford a PS/2 for the kids, then add the keyboard and
mouse for Linux a few months later.
The MIPs powered machines were fast and effecient, and Linux had been
produced by hobbiests using the MIPS version of Linux that already
existed. The biggest drawback was the limited memory. With only 8
megabytes of RAM plus the display RAM, the graphics display was
limited, but functional. It was enough for web browsing, authoring web
pages, and interacting with remote Linux servers, some of which could
provide full Linux desktop capabilities.
> I'm sure the fact that the
> gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry has nothing to do
> with it. It's all really a move to combat that huge market force known
> as "Linux on the PS2."
Microsoft had two issues going on in early 2001. They had an antitrust
lawsuit which an uncertain outcome. This could have opened the door
for Linux in the OEM market, which would have reduced Microsoft's OS
based revenues.
Microsoft wanted to find new sources of revenue, just in case the
bottom fell out of the PC market. They were exploring appliance
technology, such as set-top boxes, digital video recorders, and game
machines. In addition, Microsoft was selling Windows to China for 75
cents/copy and wanted to be able to buy something in China for that
money which could be sold in the US for 100 times price paid. The XBox
provided that.
Microsoft had been reeling from the failure of Windows ME, and Windows
2000 was not displacing Windows NT 4.0 fast enough in the corporate
desktop. They began to look at other revenue strategies used by Linux,
and used this as well to sustain revenue. Starting as early as 1997,
Microsoft began offering support contracts. The primary service was
notification of security patches and bug fixes as soon as they came
out. When XP was released at the end of 2001, Microsoft demanded that
all corporate customers immediately renew service contracts, and accept
XP licenses - even if the software itself wasn't installed. The
corporate customers were also required nearly 3 times what they had
originally been paying. They were given 30 days to renew, or they
would be left out in the cold. They wouldn't get security updates,
they wouldn't get anything else. Microsoft wanted these corporate
customers to sign up before they announced the availability of the same
update services for XP users of the OEM edition.
Strangely enough, most corporate customers who didn't immediately sign
up eventually did make their own deals, often for less than what they
had previously been paying. In 2003/4 when these support contracts
expired, Microsoft had the ability to deactivate corporate licenses.
This was little more than an extortion scheme, but even 24 hours
without functional PCs for even a few companies would be enough to
convinnce most of these companies to renew without argument before the
licenses were deactivated.
The new Windows Vista copyright licenses explicitly give Microsoft the
right to deactivate licenses automatically if they feel that the
license has been violated. Earlier this year, a few companies had
their XP systems "shut off" for a few days until they signed. It
wasn't much of a blurb in even the trade journals, and didn't make the
headlines at all. Perhaps this is because the new licenses prevented
disclosure and testimony related to this issue.
cc
NO ONE IS BUYING A PS3 TO RUN LINUX. Say that three times and memorize
it. Now we can stop posting the PS3 Linux News items.
chrisv
>> > Rex Ballard wrote:
>> >
>> > > The PS-2 Linux may have been one of the driving forces behind the
>> > > X/Box. Microsoft was concerned that Linux on the PS-2 could expose too
>> > > many people to LInux, and that would reduce demand for Windows.
I highly doubt that. It was the Playstation itself, intact with
Sony's OS, that threatens Microsoft.
Really, all this talk of Linux on Playstations and Ipods... I just
don't get it. Talk about your micro niches...
Larry Qualig
Rex Ballard wrote:
> Larry Qualig wrote:
> > John Bailo wrote:
> > > Rex Ballard wrote:
> > >
> > > > The PS-2 Linux may have been one of the driving forces behind the
> > > > X/Box. Microsoft was concerned that Linux on the PS-2 could expose too
> > > > many people to LInux, and that would reduce demand for Windows.
> > >
> > > Yes, agree throughly. I think it's the only reason for its existance
> > > as a competitive "block" to Sony moving into the home/OS area.
> >
> > Too bad. Perhaps I expected more from you.
> >
> > Unfortunately Rex appears to be manufacturing conspiracy theories as he
> > goes along and you blindly belive everything he writes.
> >
> I'm surprised at you. Whatever else you want to say about Bill Gates,
> he is a master strategist, and a good master strategist is a master at
> confounding conspiracy theorists.
It's hard to argue that he isn't a brilliant businessman.
> Bill plans his strategies as much as 20 years ahead,
Do you have an example of a product or stragegy that he planned two
decades in advance?
> and because he
> doesn't have to worry about stockholders and proxy holders outvoting
> him, he can have a few bad quarters, or even a few bad years. Had
> Gates not had this control of Microsoft from 1992 to 1996, he probably
> would have been fired in favor of some short-term strategist who would
> have simply offered redecorated versions of Windows 3.1 and canceled
> Windows NT completely.
Great... but what does this have to do with your claim of the XBox
being released to compete against people running Linux on a PS2?
> > <quote>
> > The PS-2 Linux may have been one of the driving forces behind the
> > X/Box. Microsoft was concerned that Linux on the PS-2 could expose too
> > many people to LInux, and that would reduce demand for Windows.
> > </quote>
> >
> > Total and utter bullshit. Why? Here's a hint for you.
> >
> > The XBox was released in 2001.
> > Linux for the PS2 wasn't released until 2002.
>
> Sony had announced Linux for PS/2 almost as soon as it came out. It
> wasn't formally released as a product until a few months later.
That's nice but it still has no relevance to your claim that the XBox
was released specifically to compete against people running Linux on a
PS2.
> > Otherwise yeah... of course Microsoft feared Linux on the PS2 so much
> > that they released their own gaming console specifically to combat the
> > 400 or so people who ran Linux on a PS2.
>
> In the United States, Linux on PS/2 was barely even introduced. In
> Japan, China, Malaisia, and Korea, much of east asia, the Linux powered
> PS/2 was often the first computer for many users who couldn't afford
> PCs but could afford a PS/2 for the kids, then add the keyboard and
> mouse for Linux a few months later.
So at most the marketshare/install-base of Linux running on a PS2 was
0.05%. But you expect people to believe that this is the reason that MS
created the XBox division.
> The MIPs powered machines were fast and effecient, and Linux had been
> produced by hobbiests using the MIPS version of Linux that already
> existed. The biggest drawback was the limited memory. With only 8
> megabytes of RAM plus the display RAM, the graphics display was
> limited, but functional. It was enough for web browsing, authoring web
> pages, and interacting with remote Linux servers, some of which could
> provide full Linux desktop capabilities.
That's nice. But MSFT didn't create a whole gaming division to combat
the small handful of users who ran Linux on a PS2.
> > I'm sure the fact that the
> > gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry has nothing to do
> > with it. It's all really a move to combat that huge market force known
> > as "Linux on the PS2."
>
> Microsoft had two issues going on in early 2001. They had an antitrust
> lawsuit which an uncertain outcome. This could have opened the door
> for Linux in the OEM market, which would have reduced Microsoft's OS
> based revenues.
>
> Microsoft wanted to find new sources of revenue, just in case the
> bottom fell out of the PC market. They were exploring appliance
> technology, such as set-top boxes, digital video recorders, and game
> machines. In addition, Microsoft was selling Windows to China for 75
> cents/copy and wanted to be able to buy something in China for that
> money which could be sold in the US for 100 times price paid. The XBox
> provided that.
Bingo!!! Golly-Gee. Microsoft is diversifying just as they've always
done. First they just had an OS. Then they started finding new revenue
streams. Office products, developer tools,
keyboards/mice/game-controllers, video games, server tools, PDA
software, and now a gaming console. YES - YES - YES! They created the
XBox in order to diversify and to find new revenue streams. NOT to
combat the miniscule number of people who ran Linux on a PS2.
<snip> - More conspiracy theories that are irrelevant to the topic.
Peter Köhlmann
>
> John Bailo wrote:
>> They really seem to be rattled by the PS3 Linux combo.
>>
>> http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?=12107
>>
>> >>>
>> When asked about Sony's efforts to create a homebrew culture by allowing
>> Linux to be installed freely on the PlayStation 3 (albeit without access
>> to the RSX graphics chipset, among other restrictions), Mitchell
>> commented: "On the one hand I've got to commend them for moving up their
>> platform there, but we really don't view what Sony and PlayStation 3 and
>> particularly the Linux solution that they are making available - we
>> don't really view that as a competitive offering or trying to do
>> something in the same vein."
>> <<<
>
>
> NO ONE IS BUYING A PS3 TO RUN LINUX.
So you want to believe. Please prove your claim
> Say that three times and memorize it.
> Now we can stop posting the PS3 Linux News items.
That one you would like, right?
Fine, lets stop then. The moment you show us how to run windows on it
--
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
Larry Qualig
Damn - I'm about to agree with chrisv here. But maybe nobody will
notice.
But what you say should be pretty much common sense. If Linux is going
to displace Windows then it is going to happen on the desktop/laptop
PC. The PS3 and PS2 are gaming consoles and that is exactly how they
will be used by nearly all of the people who buy them. Just because
less than 1% of people decide to try Linux on their gaming console
really doesn't mean anything. For the home or office user to embrace
Linux, it's going to be on the desktop/laptop computer. Not on the PS3
or iPod.
cc
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> cc wrote:
>
> >
> > John Bailo wrote:
> >> They really seem to be rattled by the PS3 Linux combo.
> >>
> >> http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?=12107
> >>
> >> >>>
> >> When asked about Sony's efforts to create a homebrew culture by allowing
> >> Linux to be installed freely on the PlayStation 3 (albeit without access
> >> to the RSX graphics chipset, among other restrictions), Mitchell
> >> commented: "On the one hand I've got to commend them for moving up their
> >> platform there, but we really don't view what Sony and PlayStation 3 and
> >> particularly the Linux solution that they are making available - we
> >> don't really view that as a competitive offering or trying to do
> >> something in the same vein."
> >> <<<
> >
> >
> > NO ONE IS BUYING A PS3 TO RUN LINUX.
>
> So you want to believe. Please prove your claim
So it's a bit of hyperbole, but as Larry is saying, there will be less
users running Linux on a PS3 as a % then on the desktop. It's a game
console, and in the real world people buy PS3s to play games. I don't
know how I can prove this bit of common sense to you at the moment, but
once they start shipping PS3s with Linux preinstalled(and no Roy they
haven't yet, not until March at the earliest) I'll show you their
meager sales.
> > Say that three times and memorize it.
> > Now we can stop posting the PS3 Linux News items.
>
> That one you would like, right?
> Fine, lets stop then. The moment you show us how to run windows on it
As I asked in the other thread, why? As usual you totally miss the
point. This has nothing to do with the merits of Linux running on a
PS3. Being able to run Linux on it, is in fact, a good thing. Or at
least it's not a bad thing. But it's not a selling point for the PS3,
and many many many won't even take advantage of it. Of course here in
COLA, it's BIG news...
cc
Larry Qualig wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
> > >> > Rex Ballard wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > The PS-2 Linux may have been one of the driving forces behind the
> > >> > > X/Box. Microsoft was concerned that Linux on the PS-2 could expose too
> > >> > > many people to LInux, and that would reduce demand for Windows.
> >
> > I highly doubt that. It was the Playstation itself, intact with
> > Sony's OS, that threatens Microsoft.
> >
> > Really, all this talk of Linux on Playstations and Ipods... I just
> > don't get it. Talk about your micro niches...
>
> Damn - I'm about to agree with chrisv here. But maybe nobody will
> notice.
What's that line from Dumb and Dumber, "Just when I think you couldn't
be any dumber, you totally redeem yourself"? At least chrisv gets it.
> But what you say should be pretty much common sense. If Linux is going
> to displace Windows then it is going to happen on the desktop/laptop
> PC. The PS3 and PS2 are gaming consoles and that is exactly how they
> will be used by nearly all of the people who buy them. Just because
> less than 1% of people decide to try Linux on their gaming console
> really doesn't mean anything. For the home or office user to embrace
> Linux, it's going to be on the desktop/laptop computer. Not on the PS3
> or iPod.
Once again some people here take this as an attack on Linux, when
really it has nothing to do with any OS whatsoever. It's a nice
feature, and in the future things like this may be more relevant, but
right now people are getting worked up and posting thousands of threads
about it in COLA, for absolutely no reason, and they make absolutely no
sense.
Hadron Quark
> The PS-2 Linux may have been one of the driving forces behind the
> X/Box. Microsoft was concerned that Linux on the PS-2 could expose too
> many people to LInux, and that would reduce demand for Windows.
Are you crazy? Most never even heard of Linux on a PS/2.
John A. Bailo
> Are you crazy? Most never even heard of Linux on a PS/2.
http://flickr.com/search/?q=ps2+linux
--
Texeme Construct
http://you-read-it-here-first.com
Quantum Leaper
"John A. Bailo" <jab...@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:pfedndSDiNcb2xnY...@speakeasy.net...
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Are you crazy? Most never even heard of Linux on a PS/2.
>
> http://flickr.com/search/?q=ps2+linux
>
Just about as useful as http://www.therealps3grill.com/index.htm
B Gruff
>> NO ONE IS BUYING A PS3 TO RUN LINUX.
>
> So you want to believe. Please prove your claim
>
>> Say that three times and memorize it.
>> Now we can stop posting the PS3 Linux News items.
>
> That one you would like, right?
> Fine, lets stop then. The moment you show us how to run windows on it
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G-Ecr8tWetI
(Does this count? It's virtual XP running under Linux....:-):-))
Peter Köhlmann
No, does not count. It has to run nativly
Otherwise those widiots will return claiming that windows runs on the top500
machines also
--
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken