Would An Arm Based Psp 2 Be Good For Pandora?

[Tom`]

Of course, an open system is always preferable (an open system does mean you can run unauthorized code, by definition: if you can freely modify the code, you can execute anything you want...)

No - open source just means that - open source - the source is open. It doesn't mean the platform is. If you hack the code to get your unauthorized app to work - how is that any different than hacking a closed system? The only difference is you have permission to do so.

Open system ≠ Open Source ≠ Open system

You can have an open system - like Mac OS X. Anyone in the world is free to write whatever software they wish to run on Mac OS X. But it is not open source. I cannot download the source code for Leopard.

But I could create a distro of OpenSolaris and lock it down so that every application on my operating system had to have a certain string of code in it before working, and I could copyright that particular code. So you would have to ask me for permission to use that code before your software would work on my OS. Now, any derivitve of OpenSolaris is, by definition, open source. I have to release the source. But my logo, my wall papers, my name - all could be copyrighted and/or trademarked. I could make it a part of my copyright protection that no one can release an OS under the name of my OS. So if you wanted to hack my code to run unsigned software - you'd have to release it under a different name. So - my open source operating system is a closed system. And by hacking my code - you've, in effect, created a new system. One that is both open source and an open system. While my OS remains closed.



Uh, not really. Part of the confusion is due to the term "open source", which is why RMS wants people not to use it. If a system like this exists, it's a closed system, and it's only technically open source, not free. Also it's somewhat doubtful whether you could copyright a string of code, see the 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0 situation. Plus you couldn't do this with OpenSolaris because the license forbids it. Plus, dragging trademarks into this is uselessly complicating the issue, all you'd have to do is what the Debian devs did when a very similar situation arose - the artwork for Firefox wasn't free enough, so they created their own and called it Iceweasel.

 

[chad78]

Uh, not really. Part of the confusion is due to the term "open source", which is why RMS wants people not to use it. If a system like this exists, it's a closed system, and it's only technically open source, not free. Also it's somewhat doubtful whether you could copyright a string of code, see the 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0 situation. Plus you couldn't do this with OpenSolaris because the license forbids it. Plus, dragging trademarks into this is uselessly complicating the issue, all you'd have to do is what the Debian devs did when a very similar situation arose - the artwork for Firefox wasn't free enough, so they created their own and called it Iceweasel.

I was completely accurate in what I said - I said "Open Source" not "Free Software". The term in question - and the source of the confusion - was over the term "Open Source" and "Open System". I was describing and demonstrating the differences.

I do not follow PMS - I mean RMS. I've talked with him online on the OpenOffice.org mailing lists, and I do not agree with him. Stupid crap like IceWeasel, and publicly bitching at open source projects to use the term "GNU/Linux" is ridiculous.

However, the IceWeasel garbage actually proves my point. If Mozilla clamped down the requirements for extensions on Firefox - if they wanted only approved extensions to work - they could do that. And someone else could take the code for Firefox and remove that restriction. However - they could not (legally) release that new software as "Firefox" they would have to release it as IceWeasel, or something else completely. Therefore Firefox proper would remain both open source *AND* a closed system - while IceWeasel would be open source and an open system.

Whether something meets RMS's definition of "Free Software" is not relevant to this conversation.... Or to life in general.

 

[Exophase]

No one's going to make an open source platform that you're not allowed to freely develop for, that's just silly, isn't that a pretty major conflict of interests? It'd also be so easy to find an exploit..

 

[Tom`]

Say what you will about RMS, but he's evolved a highly useful and straightforward way of talking about things that avoids ambiguity and misunderstandings.

Visionaries are often not easy people to get along with.

And it's misleading to talk about Firefox as a "closed system" or "open system," because it's not, in the sense we've been discussing systems. The name and artwork have nothing to do with the code.

 

[chad78]

No one's going to make an open source platform that you're not allowed to freely develop for, that's just silly, isn't that a pretty major conflict of interests? It'd also be so easy to find an exploit..

Really? Ever heard of TiVo? It's Linux. It's open source, (kinda has to be, don't it?). Show me how many apps you can install on TiVo. It is an open source closed system.

Are there exploits? A few. That doesn't make the system any less closed. It is just, like the PSP, a closed system that has been broken open.

 

[Megamixman]

No one's going to make an open source platform that you're not allowed to freely develop for, that's just silly, isn't that a pretty major conflict of interests? It'd also be so easy to find an exploit..

Really? Ever heard of TiVo? It's Linux. It's open source, (kinda has to be, don't it?). Show me how many apps you can install on TiVo. It is an open source closed system.

Are there exploits? A few. That doesn't make the system any less closed. It is just, like the PSP, a closed system that has been broken open.



Correction, TiVo is not open source. It uses open source components, namely a linux operating system. But that isn't what makes a TiVo a TiVo. It's the software they added on to it, and that software is closed source and proprietary. Just because something uses Linux, does not make it open source. The same way in which a product that uses closed source components can be open source, of which a good example are the Nokia Internet Tablets. In fact, there are even proprietary linux distros.

 

[Tom`]

In fact, there are even proprietary linux distros.

How's that? Linux, the kernel, is GPL, and anything you load into the kernel has to be GPL too. Hence NVIDIA, having a binary blob in userspace and interfacing with the kernel via GPL modules. If you mean ancillary components of the system, sure, they can be proprietary, but then it's not Linux itself that's proprietary. This is exactly why RMS is anal about terminology, because it can get confusing.

 

[Pleng]

Of course, an open system is always preferable (an open system does mean you can run unauthorized code, by definition: if you can freely modify the code, you can execute anything you want...)

Um if you're authorized to run anything you want, then there's no such thing as unauthorized software! It is therefore impossible to rununathorized software on such a platfrom!

 

[Exophase]

Normally, I am not this pessimistic. But the only reason the psp was cracked was that the very first firmware had no authentication management.

This didn't really help anything. Several software exploits were found in the firmware and in commercial games, which Sony would constantly fix in updates, only to be thwarted again.

The PSP "pandora battery" is not a hack-It merely replicates a Sony service battery.

The means aren't really important. If a simple hardware solution is found then people will be much less motivated to find software ones.

And the Xbox, the other popular homebrew console, was only cracked thanks to incredible negligence on Microsoft's part. Seriously, looking at the current situation with mainstream consoles, I do not think it would be a stretch at all for a PSP2 to be unable to run homebrew. Or they might take the route of the Iphone, 360 XNA, and PS3 linux-Make homebrew easy to make and good enough to satisfy a lot of people, but limit it severly. The fact that it can run homebrew of some kind removes a lot of the incentive to hack the console any further. Or...The PSP2 could be completely open. That would mess the market up!

I agree that allowing users restricted access would reduce incentive to hack the system, but from what I heard there may have been successfully efforts towards this end for PS3. And of course, everyone knows iPhone was hacked. Pretty early on too. Maybe if Apple made it possible to develop for it from the start this wouldn't have happened, but their restrictions are way too tight anyway, IMO.

People are probably much more interested in running their own code on handhelds than consoles anyway.

 

[sm1988]

No one's going to make an open source platform that you're not allowed to freely develop for, that's just silly, isn't that a pretty major conflict of interests? It'd also be so easy to find an exploit..

Really? Ever heard of TiVo? It's Linux. It's open source, (kinda has to be, don't it?). Show me how many apps you can install on TiVo. It is an open source closed system.

:blink:

 

[Megamixman]

In fact, there are even proprietary linux distros.

How's that? Linux, the kernel, is GPL, and anything you load into the kernel has to be GPL too. Hence NVIDIA, having a binary blob in userspace and interfacing with the kernel via GPL modules. If you mean ancillary components of the system, sure, they can be proprietary, but then it's not Linux itself that's proprietary. This is exactly why RMS is anal about terminology, because it can get confusing.


Xandros is a very good example of a proprietary Linux Distro. Yes the Kernel has to be GPL, but the distro as a whole is not. MontaVista Linux is another very good example.

 

[chad78]

Really? Ever heard of TiVo? It's Linux. It's open source, (kinda has to be, don't it?). Show me how many apps you can install on TiVo. It is an open source closed system.

:blink:

The blink - what did you mean?

 

[Tom`]

Xandros is a very good example of a proprietary Linux Distro. Yes the Kernel has to be GPL, but the distro as a whole is not. MontaVista Linux is another very good example.

I don't know about MontaVista, but Xandros is still mostly free software IIRC. Sure, they package it with a proprietary file manager and artwork and stuff, but it still uses KDE/XFCE and tons of GPL software. At what point does a distro that comes with some non-free stuff become a proprietary distro?

 

[crazedover]

Really? Ever heard of TiVo? It's Linux. It's open source, (kinda has to be, don't it?). Show me how many apps you can install on TiVo. It is an open source closed system.

:blink:

The blink - what did you mean?

I think he means that you obviously CAN run apps on TiVo. See: http://tivohme.sourceforge.net/

 

[chad78]

I think he means that you obviously CAN run apps on TiVo. See: http://tivohme.sourceforge.net/



From the linked apps.tv - there are a total of 32 applications available for the TiVo. (There are two pages of lists - and there are some overlap, so less than 32 - and some on the first page don't have webpages or downloads available.) Something tells me that the TiVo is not all that open. And, according to the site you linked to, that's only for "broadband-connected TiVo Series2 DVRs." (TiVo is on Series3 now.) And, from the way it's worded "applications that are displayed and controlled by..." Tivos - it's almost like they aren't installed on the TiVo - merely "displayed" by them. Kind of like web-based iPhone "applications".

Regardless of all of this - if there were millions of these applications, that all ran directly off of the TiVo - any TiVo... It's still not open. Because of this - "At this time, HME applications cannot control any of the TiVo DVR’s scheduling, recording, or video playback capabilities." Which is *kinda* what you use a TiVo for.

So - no - the TiVo is not an open system.

 

[Megamixman]

Xandros is a very good example of a proprietary Linux Distro. Yes the Kernel has to be GPL, but the distro as a whole is not. MontaVista Linux is another very good example.

I don't know about MontaVista, but Xandros is still mostly free software IIRC. Sure, they package it with a proprietary file manager and artwork and stuff, but it still uses KDE/XFCE and tons of GPL software. At what point does a distro that comes with some non-free stuff become a proprietary distro?


Thats the point im making. It has free software, and is in effect mostly free software, BUT the Distro is still proprietary. You have to pay for it, the same way you have to pay for Windows, if the company even wants to sell it to you. They have complete control on what happens to it and who can use it. Remember, no single package is a distro, but rather the combination is.

 

[Svartalf]

He's asking if software would be more easily ported between the two systems, not which one would be better.

I get the feeling that it would still take a bit of effort, as the rest of the hardware would all be different.

Actually, the graphics part probably would be straightforward- they're very likely going to be be using ES 2.0 as it's going to be easier to get titles out the door for it. While I can't talk to the input, sound, and networking interfaces that the PSP2 would end up using, they're liable to be also non-bare metal coding with this generation of unit. Given this likelihood, it's a good bet that while the absolute top-end titles wouldn't be doable if they DID use an A9 based CPU core on their SOC, most of the titles would come right on over- not that Sony would actually encourage this... >;-D

 

[anexanhume]

Actually, I'm taking an interest in Nvidia licensing the A9 because this is the only cortex core they've ever licensed. Cortex is intended for higher-end mobile devices like umpcs or gaming devices. Given that they've never really created anything like that, I'm guessing it's the psp 2 they're creating.

 

[Svartalf]

Actually, I'm taking an interest in Nvidia licensing the A9 because this is the only cortex core they've ever licensed. Cortex is intended for higher-end mobile devices like umpcs or gaming devices. Given that they've never really created anything like that, I'm guessing it's the psp 2 they're creating.

That'd be something I'd be thinking they might be doing- but even if they've licensed the core, how far away are they from tape-out on their SOC and if it's soon, would it be available to other possible clients?

 

[ldesnogu]

Actually, I'm taking an interest in Nvidia licensing the A9 because this is the only cortex core they've ever licensed. Cortex is intended for higher-end mobile devices like umpcs or gaming devices. Given that they've never really created anything like that, I'm guessing it's the psp 2 they're creating.

So you know for sure that they haven't licensed some other Cortex core. I guess you know some licenses remain secret?
BTW the apx2500 doesn't use an ARM11, it uses an ARM11 MP (and do you happen to know what apx2500 targets?).