C
cc
Then the source code for the PS3 should be available correct? Or my
flatscreen tv? Or my mp3/mp4 player?
Then the source code for the PS3 should be available correct? Or my
flatscreen tv? Or my mp3/mp4 player?
H
Hadron
cc said:
Except as he has been told before, the PS3 does not use Linux.
P
Peter Köhlmann
Hadron said:
Except it does, and the linux version for it is activly suported by Sony
H
Hadron
Peter Köhlmann said:
Link please to source story for the stock PS3 acting as a PS3 (e.g game
machine) running Linux please.
Note : it being able to RUN Linux is another issue. The PS3 you buy does
not run Linux to the best of my knowledge.
I don't mind being corrected.
P
Peter Köhlmann
Hadron said:
Google it yourself, Hadron Quark
"To the best of your knowledge" isn't very much, indeed
You do. All the time
T
The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
<[email protected]>
wrote
There are several responses to this.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_3
suggests that one can get a copy of Yellow Dog Linux and
install it on an otherwise unmodified PS3.
[2] The installation obviously counts as a modification,
though I'm not sure of the warranty implications.
(Presumably, there aren't any; it's just another piece
of software.)
[3] Clearly, the native PS3 OS is not Linux. I've no
idea what it is, precisely, but the issues appear vaguely
similar to those of the Amiga, long ago; the Amiga's native
Exec/Workbench was, after all, not Linux, yet Amiga can
run a variant of Linux without much difficulty.
[4] It is far from clear whether Yellow Dog, running on a
PS3, can access the PS3's display or sound capabilities,
or how many.
[5] The PS3 OS is probably not under GPL, and therefore
unaffected by its capability of installing a GPL, LGPL,
or other such software component thereon.
<[email protected]>
wrote
There are several responses to this.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_3
suggests that one can get a copy of Yellow Dog Linux and
install it on an otherwise unmodified PS3.
[2] The installation obviously counts as a modification,
though I'm not sure of the warranty implications.
(Presumably, there aren't any; it's just another piece
of software.)
[3] Clearly, the native PS3 OS is not Linux. I've no
idea what it is, precisely, but the issues appear vaguely
similar to those of the Amiga, long ago; the Amiga's native
Exec/Workbench was, after all, not Linux, yet Amiga can
run a variant of Linux without much difficulty.
[4] It is far from clear whether Yellow Dog, running on a
PS3, can access the PS3's display or sound capabilities,
or how many.
[5] The PS3 OS is probably not under GPL, and therefore
unaffected by its capability of installing a GPL, LGPL,
or other such software component thereon.
H
Hadron
The Ghost In The Machine said:
All of which confirm what I said. Thank you.
So you agree with me.
And again.
It can not access the core GPU.
And again.
T
The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
<[email protected]>
wrote
Absent more information I have to agree with you. PS3 is
*not a Linux machine*. It is a machine that can be
modified to run Linux. (The modifications do not involve
hardware or firmware, fortunately, unlike the XBox, which
required unauthorized modifications in order for hackers
to gain sufficient access to attempt Linux at all. Note
that one might consider a Windows-based PC system "modified"
in its own right if one installs Linux on it, using this
logic.)
If someone can refute all this, be my guest, but the
issues are similar to the Amiga, which had a beautiful OS
of its own but which can also run Linux, after a fashion.
(Very slowly, compared to today's machines; the best I
could do with the A3000 is about 6 Bogomips. Not the
fastest dog in the kennel, nowadays. Also, the loading
sequence might require that the existing OS be booted
first; Commodore's boot system was fairly elegant but not
quite compatible with GRUB.)
<[email protected]>
wrote
Absent more information I have to agree with you. PS3 is
*not a Linux machine*. It is a machine that can be
modified to run Linux. (The modifications do not involve
hardware or firmware, fortunately, unlike the XBox, which
required unauthorized modifications in order for hackers
to gain sufficient access to attempt Linux at all. Note
that one might consider a Windows-based PC system "modified"
in its own right if one installs Linux on it, using this
logic.)
If someone can refute all this, be my guest, but the
issues are similar to the Amiga, which had a beautiful OS
of its own but which can also run Linux, after a fashion.
(Very slowly, compared to today's machines; the best I
could do with the A3000 is about 6 Bogomips. Not the
fastest dog in the kennel, nowadays. Also, the loading
sequence might require that the existing OS be booted
first; Commodore's boot system was fairly elegant but not
quite compatible with GRUB.)
H
Hadron
The Ghost In The Machine said:
I'm sure Peter Koehlmann will prove us both wrong. He has gone on record
as saying that the PS3 is indeed a Linux machine.
P
Peter Köhlmann
Hadron said:
It is. Just install the (Sony supported) linux and it is one
H
Hadron
Peter Köhlmann said:
No. It is not.
It CAN run Linux. But it, as a product, is NOT a Linux machine in any
shape nor form.
Give it up Peter you vile,lying, misleading, bottom feeding, pond
dwelling low life.
C
Clogwog
Hadron said:
Isn't she THE Kohlmann he/she girl, in lederhosen, who's ****ing up the
Munich migration since 2005?
http://www.angelfire.com/psy/doctorbill/Culley_aka_Kohlmann_aka_Kent.jpg
T
thad05
Hadron said:
Why do you guys bother to keep going around in circles on this
topic? It is obvious you are working from different definitions
of 'Linux machine'. To Hadron it evidently means a system that
comes with Linux standard. To Rex it obviously means a system
*capable* of running Linux. By one definition almost no
system is a Linux machine and by the other almost every system
is. You are both right... and wrong... and getting very
repetitive. >
Thad
H
Hadron
Why do you guys bother to keep going around in circles on this
topic? It is obvious you are working from different definitions
of 'Linux machine'. To Hadron it evidently means a system that
comes with Linux standard. To Rex it obviously means a system
*capable* of running Linux. By one definition almost no
system is a Linux machine and by the other almost every system
is. You are both right... and wrong... and getting very
repetitive. >
No.
The PS3 is NOT a Linux machine. This is very simple to understand. The
PS3 is a machine with it#s own OS. This OS is not Linux.
The PS3 CAN RUN Linux.
It is NOT a Linux machine.
It really is that simple.
I can put a bmw engine into a Rover, but it doesn't make the Rover a BMW
I am afraid.
M
Meat Plow
Why do you guys bother to keep going around in circles on this
topic? It is obvious you are working from different definitions
of 'Linux machine'. To Hadron it evidently means a system that
comes with Linux standard. To Rex it obviously means a system
*capable* of running Linux. By one definition almost no
system is a Linux machine and by the other almost every system
is. You are both right... and wrong... and getting very
repetitive. >
Hardon for one likes to argue on about nothing endlessly. Keeps him busy
in an otherwise pitiful existence.
T
the wharf rat
It makes it a Bover! Or maybe a RoMW...
T
thad05
Hadron said:
So given that definition, is a standard desktop PC a Linux machine?
What about a Sun workstation? Considering just about every major
Linux capable computer platform I can think of was originally
developed with some other OS in mind... what exactly qualifies as a
'Linux machine?'
Thad
M
Mustafa Korn
Note: By the definition above a PS2, XBox and XBox360 are *ALL* linux
machines because linux is available for them.
only get linux by booting from a LiveCD (or equiv.) then no. Don't ask about
dual-booting.
Linux machine.
The "native" OS that the machine runs in it's current form. A standard XBox
can be made to run linux. Would you call that a Linux machine? Probably not.
If someone has a laptop that is "capable" of running Linux except that Linux
has never been installed on that machine and it runs nothing other than
Windows then it's a Windows machine... not a Linux machine. If someone else
took their laptop and wiped the hard drive and installed Linux and that's
the primary OS on the computer that would be a linux machine.
machines because linux is available for them.
If you turn it on and it automatically boots into Linux then yes. If you can
only get linux by booting from a LiveCD (or equiv.) then no. Don't ask about
dual-booting.
A Solaris machine. If SunOS has been overwritten with Linux then it's now a
Linux machine.
The "native" OS that the machine runs in it's current form. A standard XBox
can be made to run linux. Would you call that a Linux machine? Probably not.
If someone has a laptop that is "capable" of running Linux except that Linux
has never been installed on that machine and it runs nothing other than
Windows then it's a Windows machine... not a Linux machine. If someone else
took their laptop and wiped the hard drive and installed Linux and that's
the primary OS on the computer that would be a linux machine.
H
Hadron
Meat Plow said:
Meat, welcome to COLA. You belong here.
H
Hadron
A "standard PC" is not a Linux machine unless Linux is installed on it.
Are you having some sort of difficulty with such an easy to understand issue?
or do you think that any HW that CAN run linux should be counted as a
Linux machine?
They are potential linux platforms. But *POTENTIAL* does not equal
"is". Otherwise Linux machines would be 100% of the PC market share
.......
Come off it Thad.