SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Gamereactor UK reports
Back when Sony and Microsoft revealed their seventh generation consoles, the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, they were in a war of who could shove the most bullet points onto their spec sheets.
That war [...] probably [...] played a part in the fact that you could install and run the Linux operating system on early models of the PS3.
Sony later removed the Linux option with a software update, as hackers had discovered that they could use it to circumvent anti-piracy functions on the console. But removing the Linux features--which Sony had advertised in the marketing of the console--pissed off a bunch of people.
Ars Technica continues
After six years of litigation, Sony is now agreeing to pay the price for its 2010 firmware update that removed support for the Linux operating system in the PlayStation 3.
Sony and lawyers representing as many as 10 million console owners reached the deal on [June 24]. Under the terms of the accord, (PDF) which has not been approved by a California federal judge yet, gamers are eligible to receive $55 if they used Linux on the console. The proposed settlement, which will be vetted by a judge next month, also provides $9 to each console owner that bought a PS3 based on Sony's claims about "Other OS" functionality.
[...] To get the $55, a gamer "must attest under oath to their purchase of the product and installation of Linux, provide proof of their purchase or serial number and PlayStation Network Sign-in ID, and submit some proof of their use of the Other OS functionality".
To get the $9, PS3 owners must submit a claim that, at the time they bought their console, they "knew about the Other OS, relied upon the Other OS functionality, and intended to use the Other OS functionality".
Previous:
PlayStation 4 Hacked to Run Linux
Sony BMG Rootkit Scandal: 10 Years Later
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:14PM
If only we could make the government more like a corporation, where they too would actually be held liable for what they promise.
Yeah. We could set up something like a bi-annual job review where people could examine the promises politicians have made and then judge whether they should be allowed to continue their job or not. It's kind of complicated and it effects everybody, so the judges should probably be pretty much the entire adult population. And if the majority of those judges thought the politician was bad then they could cast a vote to cut them from the government, like on a reality TV show, and then select a replacement who could fix the previous bad laws and policies.
Hmm... but the more I think about it that is a bit slow. If there were a really big error, like crisis level, 2 years is too slow. There should also be some way to remove the person from office faster. Like if they were found guilty of a major crime, or to call the politican back from their post and be removed.
Meh... silly idea. I'm sure it would never catch on. Never mind. Carry on.