Tag Archives: piracy

Sony to remove Linux option from PS3 is either a PR April fools joke ever or the worst move ever?


I heard today that Sony plans on removing the “other OS” option from their systems. What was more shocking was their supposed reason for removing this feature. Now I have a PS3 and I personally think it is one of the best systems available today. However, this move makes absolutely no sense. Some of my colleagues use PS3 with Fedora and Ubuntu. However, why are they removing this feature? The timing is bad and moreover, this is not going over well in the community. Yes, not everyone uses this feature, but I can tell you that many of my friends planned to use it over the summer, with a larger hard drive installation. I tried to tell myself that maybe this is a PR April fools joke? But if it is, they certainly need to get rid of the entire department who thought of it.

Sony, if you have any sense at all, please DO NOT DO THIS! You are removing a “FEATURE”! Does anyone there understand this? I mean, imagine buying a car, with a little feature that you love and the manufacturer tells you that we need to remove it (after you paid for it and maybe even got it because it had that feature). Still thinking? Yes, the “Other OS” feature is a bit geeky, but hey, why fix something that isn’t broken. It was almost like I had additional value in the older model. Or maybe that was the problem?

In some sense, if this is true (and my sources tell me it is – Sony), it is in no way democratic. But who says business  has to be? In some sense, what irritates me, is the almost “threatening language from Sony”. If you decide, you will NOT be able to and so on. What is worse is the fact that Sony officials already promised to not remove this option to older users of the PS3. I wonder what Sony is really afraid of? Or is it all about control? Afraid of hacks to their, almost perfect system? I guess, in Sony’s mind, if you want a computer than go buy one? Or maybe they are afraid of the coming Microsoft war against Linux? I do not know? Are they being paid off? Who knows? Maybe a Microsoft Sony merger is on the horizon? With the new Google OS coming soon, sporting a challenge to Microsoft’s dominance, has fear war against Linux begun? Is this a tactical move?

But lets be truthful here. It is a simple numbers game and for those who are not in the Product Development field, let me put it to you this way. We are ALL numbers. I imagine that someone, in their product development department decided that they no longer wanted to support this option, since it is not in the PS3 slim. Maybe it cost too much? They stated that they do not want to encourage “piracy” or have a security hole? What security hole? Just tell the truth Sony, you want control. In essence, there is the slight chance that this is fake, but it probably is not (still praying). If Sony does this, it will be a BIG and very DUMB move by Sony, from a PR perspective in my opinion. However, there is a chance that this could be a social experiment to see if anyone cares? Now that would be interesting. Maybe the firmware will change the system into a Google OS, and shortly after the Sony Google merger will occur? OK, I am stretching it now! I am just trying to understand this decision.

Sony plans on making the move on April 1, 2010 with a firmware update. Sony has already made a lot of enemies across the globe by even suggesting (joke or no joke). No, there will be no compensation for early adopters of the PS3. As indicated, Sony plans to release this update to do only one thing. Put a nail in the coffin to Linux, or any other OS on the Sony Playstation 3. Or as Emperor Palpatine would say to any Linux user, “now you will experience the full power of the dark side…”

By Andy MJ (a.k.a The GTA Patriot) – Who also loves Linux, BSD and Windows 7. Yes, Windows 7 is a pretty good Operating System!

P.S. By the way Sony, I cannot imagine that Yellow Dog is too happy about this? Also, while you are at it why not remove the browser also (since you are so concern about security). In fact, why not remove all options and make you do exactly what YOU want? Maybe Sony has learned from Apple, how to control? It is probably one of the most POWERFUL SYSTEMS EVER CREATED and you want to lock it up? Yes, I am ranting! If you have additional links, please share them.

Microsoft addresses new reports of forced Windows updates and reboots


Microsoft has posted a long and complex explanation to its Windows Software Update Services (WSUS) blog, explaining the latest case of why software updates are being pushed to users who believe they’ve turned automatic updating off. Here’s the abridged version of what the Redmondians said.

read more | digg story

WARNING: device driver updates causing Vista to deactivate


After weeks of gruelling troubleshooting, I’ve finally had it confirmed by Microsoft Australia and USA — something as small as swapping the video card or updating a device driver can trigger a total Vista deactivation.

Put simply, your copy of Windows will stop working with very little notice (three days) and your PC will go into “reduced functionality” mode, where you can’t do anything but use the web browser for half an hour.

You’ll then need to reapply to Microsoft to get a new activation code.

How can this crazy situation occur? Read on for the sorry tale.

read more | digg story

Windows auto-update case closed? Microsoft thinks users are to blame!


I am really not sure if Microsoft truly understands what is happening in the real world. Maybe they do not care or is there something else at play? They are smarter than this, aren’t they? Unfortunately they do not realize that the confidence of a once solid company is slowly breaking down. I run the Windows Vista 64-bit edition in my workplace and I have also experienced the “phantom update and restart”. There have always been Microsoft haters and I am not particularly one of them. Sure I have used Linux and Macs but I use them to complete a job or task. Microsoft needs to “re-think” how they do business. People may opt not to automatically update their system so that they can test or ensure that adverse issue will not take place. Overiding the will of the user is a blantent dictatorship, as far as I am concerned. I should be a Liberty, after purchasing their product, to do what needs to be done. Unfortunately, what has actually been lost is “confidence” and “trust”. Microsoft better start to realize soon that they are not the only game in town. Manipulating this issue, however which way they want to, is not helping the image. Microsoft can try to spin this issue but they have definaetely broken the trust of the user.

By: Andy MJ
a.k.a “The G.T.A Patriot”
Toronto, Ontario

To read more from the article from ZDNET, see below.

—————-

It’s time for the latest and possibly final installment of the seemingly never-ending saga of “Why is my copy of Windows automatically updating and rebooting itself?” Microsoft says users just don’t realize that their machines are set to update. They think users are to blame! Is Microsoft completely incompetent or are they lying?

In the last episode, the Windows Update Product team stated on its blog on October 12 that neither Automatic Update (AU) nor the bunch of patches that Microsoft rolled out on October 9, Patch Tuesday, were responsible for reports from Windows users earlier this month that their machines were automatically updating without their approval.

The Product Update team continued to investigate. At some point (I’m not sure exactly when, as the time stamp does not reflect the post update time/date) the team updated its blog again, suggesting a few possible causes for the reports by certain Windows users of their machines updating automatically. On the team’s list of possible reasons that AU settings can be (re)set or changed:

  • “During the installation of Windows Vista, the user chooses one of the first two recommended options in the “Out of Box Experience” and elects to get updates automatically from Windows
  • “The user goes to the Windows Update Control Panel and changes the AU setting manually
  • “The user goes to Security Center in Windows Vista and changes the AU setting
  • “The user chooses to opt in to Microsoft Update from the Microsoft Update web site
  • “The user chooses to opt in to Microsoft Update during the installation or the first run experience of another Microsoft application such as Office 2007.”

In short, Microsoft’s explanation was that users were knowingly or unknowingly changing their own Automatic Update settings and complaining about the results.

read more | digg story