SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the imagine-a-beowulf-cluster...oh-never-mind! dept.
Liliputing reports
Hacker group fail0verflow recently showed off a PlayStation 4 running Linux[1] at the Console Hacking 2015 conference, marking the first time someone has managed to install a full-blown, desktop operating system on the game console.
Although others have tinkered with the PS4 in the past, including a Brazilian hacker group that used a Raspberry Pi to break into Sony's Orbis operating system, fail0verflow is the first group to successfully install a full version of Linux on the PS4.
Sony's flagship gaming console has had a tumultuous relationship with the DIY community. The third-generation PlayStation came stock with "OtherOS", which was a feature that allowed users to upload Linux to the operating system, which the company eventually removed.
The PS4 has been much less hacker-friendly in the 2 years since the console launched... at least until now. Fail0verflow took advantage of an exploit found by another hacker earlier this year, which allowed them to get around Sony's content protections.
They fiddled with a WebKit bug discovered by the programmer to trick the browser into freeing the processes from the core of the operating system. This hack essentially turns the PS4 into a fully operational PC.
[...] The group noted that some of the differences between the PS4 operating system and a PC are "crazy" and some are "batshit crazy". Oh, and the Marvell Tech engineers that designed the PS4's southbridge chip were "smoking some really good stuff".
[1] The nugget is an embedded video in an iframe, apparently. Link to the video
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:39AM
The problem is that Sony's PS3 was doing so pitifully bad at the start due to the hideously high pricetag that they HAD to find ways to encourage people to even LOOK at their console. OtherOS did in fact do that, although Sony didn't really stop to think that the people buying the hardware for OtherOS wasn't buying it for PS3 -software- which is what they actually needed. But I guess Sony needed hardware sales numbers beefed up to convince developers to make games on their system in the first place, which was another thing they had a problem with at the time.
Although it's worth pointing out that nobody was seriously attempting to hack the PS3 until after OtherOS was taken away, and the main reason they were trying to hack it was to get OtherOS back, as well as to unlock the full power of the console in OtherOS at that point. Since then the PS3 has had it's fair share of attempted jailbreaking resulting in this very firmware war we've been seeing for the last decade.
Which is why I wonder why the hell hackers bother revealing their successful system hacks while the console is still actively supported. As we all know it's just going to cause another forced firmware update.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Sunday January 03 2016, @04:09PM
it's worth pointing out that nobody was seriously attempting to hack the PS3 until after OtherOS was taken away, and the main reason they were trying to hack it was to get OtherOS back, as well as to unlock the full power of the console in OtherOS at that point. Since then the PS3 has had it's fair share of attempted jailbreaking resulting in this very firmware war we've been seeing for the last decade.
Just to clarify, it was a hacking attempt that prompted Sony to remove Other OS. That hack was an attempt to open up the graphics hardware to Linux so that a desktop OS would be more useful (it was barely be able to play DVD quality video with the stock hypervisor limitations). Of course, even if that hack was successful (required glitching the hardware manually each startup), it would not have had any impact on the game OS or made it easier to copy games in any way. Sony responded to that with the nuclear option of blowing away Other OS entirely, thereby making themselves a target. That hit the news and kicked off all of the efforts to actually hack the console (and company in general) to bits.
Now if Sony had taken a different tack and responded by allowing full graphics card access, that would have likely garnered a little good will with the hackers and they wouldn't have had a target on their backs for every major hack since. I wonder how much money they could have saved by simply not pissing people off by intentionally breaking their stuff?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday January 03 2016, @09:51PM
so in response to people who wanted to use their computer to its actual specification limits, beyond the limits put on it by the creators, said creators stole features that were used as a selling point for said computer. what i don't get is how so many people still actively defend sony for doing this, along with all their other criminal, anti-customer, and anti-human rights bullshit. i did not lease my cell-based computer from sony, i bought it - sony has no control over what i do with my computer after i purchase it from them, they can have no say over what i do with my own property. if they request that people only use the original firmware to participate online, thats fine, but many of us have no wish to participate in anything online. that so many people don't seem to grasp this simple concept of "ownership" blows my mind, its especially egregious that sony has actually managed to win in court, punishing people for modifying their own property in ways that the creator doesn't agree with - a direct violation of human rights (the right to own things).
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday January 03 2016, @10:19PM
The really amazing part is the number of people who adamantly oppose communism because it defies the right of ownership but are more than happy to allow private entities to defy personal ownership rights.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday January 03 2016, @10:46PM
it really doesn't. you can own anything you want privately - you can own all the land, property, cars, personal items, wtf ever you want - you just can't own your own business and keep all the profits to yourself. that is communism, everyone co-owns the means of production (corporations), but all your private belongings are yours and yours alone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @12:25AM
you just can't own your own business
Under Cuba's brand of "socialism", you -can- own a business and hire non-owner employees.
The gov't doesn't allow you to make it into a chain|franchised operation, however.
At a national level, Cuba is about as close as any place has come to Marx's ideal--and it's still quite far off.
and keep all the profits to yourself. that is communism
Under Communism in its ultimate expression, there is a commonwealth and there is no need of money.
Everyone has his needs met from the common pool of resources.
The Shakers (starting before the USA existed) and the Iroquois (again, long before the USA existed) were useful examples of this organizational paradigm.
When you know that in the USA there are 20 individuals (new number for 2015; the previous year it was 40) whose collective wealth equals the collective wealth of over 50 percent of the populace of 320 million, you realize that there is plenty of wealth--it's just hogged by a few (who will never actually spend it into the economy).
everyone co-owns the means of production
Yes.
More specifically, the workers involved in the production of the good|service collectively own the factory|vehicle fleet|whatever.
(corporations)
That's a term commonly used by Capitalists.
In an egalitarian society, the concept that replaces it is a worker-owned cooperative.
but all your private belongings are yours and yours alone.
Yes, your toothbrush belongs to you. See also "common pool", above.
N.B. Done properly, the USA could get by quite comfortably with far fewer vehicles (which currently sit idle for a huge percentage of the time).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]