Quantcast
Help graf_chokolo Fight Sony!

Forums - Sony Discussion - Help graf_chokolo Fight Sony!

Help graf_chokolo Fight Sony!

I Understand This is About Consumer Rights! 37 48.68%
 
I Don't Understand What This is About. 39 51.32%
 
Total:76

Oh my gosh. Lets blame Graf_Chocolo for Sony's poor security measures, and Infinity Ward's dismal support for their game. Because he did all of it!



Sig thanks to Saber! :D 

Around the Network
fps_d0minat0r said:
Xen said:
Munkeh111 said:
greenmedic88 said:

I'll be sure to send donations when he designs, engineers and produces his own successful console that has the full support of third party developers in addition to AAA first party studio games, and finds the security of his closed gaming platform compromised by consumer rights advocates who make deliberate efforts to crack any security measures implemented and threaten his legitimate business and viability as a secured gaming platform.

Simply put, his efforts do nothing for me as a legitimate consumer of games and there's no reason why I would want to nor should assist in footing the bill for the legal expenses he knowingly brought upon himself with his work.

Precisely. Sony are just trying to protect the ecosystem that they have created, and what they did was perfectly legal, there have terms of use, and what rights they have as platform owner, and they utilised them

I can understand there are some issues with consumer rights, but this is primarily a games machine, and if linux could threaten its profitability as one, then Sony had every right to stop it. As for current issues, they are seperate, and Sony seem to be making progress in dealing with them

Why are the hackers always seen as the good guys?

Security researchers, use proper language... and the answer you're looking for is obviously because the corporations are out there to screw us, even when it doesn't look that way ;)

If they dont work for sony then theres no reason for them to do "security research"

if a stranger was looking around your house at all the alarms and locks and entrance/exits surely you wouldnt think their up to something and report them to the police.

and it doesnt matter if hackers condone piracy or not.....it doesnt change the FACT that their the cause of it. without hackers, there would be no piracy.

and if they loved linux so much then why did they CHOOSE to REMOVE it?

as seem in http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=125489 people seem to love people researching companies security to hack, but a company researching the security of any player is just to screw...

because everybody knows that Sony is a living evil cyborg or the eye of sauron, there isn't people working there, just pirates and hackers are people... and if for 1% of population right you have to fuck all the rest and make they get the trouble of weekly patchs what is the problem?? at least this people can pira*urgggg* use Linux all they want.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

dsister said:
greenmedic88 said:

Legally, there was no mention of "Supports Linux" advertised anywhere. If there was, feel free to direct everyone to it.

If SCE wanted to play legal games, seeing as how there seem to be those who think they really know the law, they could just release a not-Linux "Other OS" that was effectively useless.

If anyone wants to argue that they should legally be able to use any firmware on their console dating back to say 2006, claiming that they must legally be able to play any current software being released, many of which won't run without memory optimized firmware updates (for those who don't understand how that works, current versions of firmware use less RAM than older versions, freeing up available memory for developers to optimize their games), they can feel free to hold out a tin cup for donations for their legal case too.

It was on every Amazon page in the world. That's why they paid out the teeth after Sony removed it. It was also in one of those stupid "It can only do everything" commercials... Not to mention Phil harrison pimping it out all over IGN saying you don't need a PC anymore

That would still be removing otherOS support...

Now you are just rambling.

You do realize that they never said in the commercial that Other/OS support would exist forever or printed in the box it??

What amazon advertise is their problem not Sony... and if you think that this is bad propaganda (to remove support after some years)... why don't you sue your car maker when you don't find a component for your car 30 years after it have been made and for the same price you would have paid at the time?

@last post... yes don't blame the person that hacked through the security or the bugglar let complain about the person that haven't made it hard enough... are you serious?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

dsister said:
greenmedic88 said:

Legally, there was no mention of "Supports Linux" advertised anywhere. If there was, feel free to direct everyone to it.

If SCE wanted to play legal games, seeing as how there seem to be those who think they really know the law, they could just release a not-Linux "Other OS" that was effectively useless.

If anyone wants to argue that they should legally be able to use any firmware on their console dating back to say 2006, claiming that they must legally be able to play any current software being released, many of which won't run without memory optimized firmware updates (for those who don't understand how that works, current versions of firmware use less RAM than older versions, freeing up available memory for developers to optimize their games), they can feel free to hold out a tin cup for donations for their legal case too.

It was on every Amazon page in the world. That's why they paid out the teeth after Sony removed it. It was also in one of those stupid "It can only do everything" commercials... Not to mention Phil harrison pimping it out all over IGN saying you don't need a PC anymore

That would still be removing otherOS support...

Now you are just rambling.

And that's why Amazon paid through the teeth and Sony didn't. Also, I don't see how it could have been in one of SCE's "It can only do everything commercials" considering that the ad campaign you're referencing didn't start until well AFTER the PS3 slim was released, which as everyone knows, never supported Other OS.

And no, if it was a legal issue that they were found liable for, they would restore an "otherOS" support of their choosing because once again, Linux support was never explicitly advertised nor included in the feature set. What Phil Harrison said is completely irrelevant; plenty of inane things were said by SCE in regards to the PS3 launch that have zero bearing on legal liability. 

Do we need a chart to make the whole updated firmware concept easier to understand? Older firmware uses more system RAM. Older games have less system RAM available to run. Newer firmware uses less system RAM. Newer games written to run on newer firmware may use that now unallocated system RAM to run optimally, or in some cases run at all as they won't run with less system RAM.

This is just one of many reasons for updated firmware and the reason why any game requiring updated firmware (whether it's to make use of freed up system RAM, security measures, whatever; it's irrelevant so long as it runs) would have the updater on the game disk. Nobody's liable because an end user can't run new software on an older version of a no longer supported (any previous firmware) version of the OS.

Disagree? Then reference a case that shows how any new software written for Windows or Mac OS for example, must run on any previous version of an operating system with the idea that Microsoft or Apple is legally liable if it doesn't.



Thanks to people like graf_chokolo we have stuff like this -

But the good news is I saw from one of the youtube comments that this was patched recently.

Finally!



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

You do realize that they never said in the commercial that Other/OS support would exist forever or printed in the box it??

What amazon advertise is their problem not Sony... and if you think that this is bad propaganda (to remove support after some years)... why don't you sue your car maker when you don't find a component for your car 30 years after it have been made and for the same price you would have paid at the time?

@last post... yes don't blame the person that hacked through the security or the bugglar let complain about the person that haven't made it hard enough... are you serious?

Phil Harrison made a huge deal about it to IGN. That is advertising... look up the definition

[More annoying rambling that has nothing to do with the topic at hand]

Oh my gosh, I am so close to flaming you. You aren't even sure what we are talking about here, do you? Honestly... Graf has done nothing, nothing... He didn't release any code to play pirated games, cheat on games, load custom firmware nothing of that sort. He simply released his info on the work he has been doing on the hypervisor. That's all



Sig thanks to Saber! :D 

greenmedic88 said:

And that's why Amazon paid through the teeth and Sony didn't. Also, I don't see how it could have been in one of SCE's "It can only do everything commercials" considering that the ad campaign you're referencing didn't start until well AFTER the PS3 slim was released, which as everyone knows, never supported Other OS.

And no, if it was a legal issue that they were found liable for, they would restore an "otherOS" support of their choosing because once again, Linux support was never explicitly advertised nor included in the feature set. What Phil Harrison said is completely irrelevant; plenty of inane things were said by SCE in regards to the PS3 launch that have zero bearing on legal liability. 

Do we need a chart to make the whole updated firmware concept easier to understand? Older firmware uses more system RAM. Older games have less system RAM available to run. Newer firmware uses less system RAM. Newer games written to run on newer firmware may use that now unallocated system RAM to run optimally, or in some cases run at all as they won't run with less system RAM.

This is just one of many reasons for updated firmware and the reason why any game requiring updated firmware (whether it's to make use of freed up system RAM, security measures, whatever; it's irrelevant so long as it runs) would have the updater on the game disk. Nobody's liable because an end user can't run new software on an older version of a no longer supported (any previous firmware) version of the OS.

Disagree? Then reference a case that shows how any new software written for Windows or Mac OS for example, must run on any previous version of an operating system with the idea that Microsoft or Apple is legally liable if it doesn't.

It is entirely possible that it was photoshopped I suppose. I remembered seeing it once long ago and never seeing it again .

Then you would still be running a Sony OS... OtherOS is awesome. There are several different ones to choose from. When the president or whatever Harrison is goes on and makes a huge fuss about a feature in order to get people to buy it? Guess what that is? An advertisement :o

Because it's so early I'm not even wure what we are arguing about here.. I'll get back to it after school...



Sig thanks to Saber! :D 

greenmedic88 said:
dsister said:
greenmedic88 said:

Legally, there was no mention of "Supports Linux" advertised anywhere. If there was, feel free to direct everyone to it.

If SCE wanted to play legal games, seeing as how there seem to be those who think they really know the law, they could just release a not-Linux "Other OS" that was effectively useless.

If anyone wants to argue that they should legally be able to use any firmware on their console dating back to say 2006, claiming that they must legally be able to play any current software being released, many of which won't run without memory optimized firmware updates (for those who don't understand how that works, current versions of firmware use less RAM than older versions, freeing up available memory for developers to optimize their games), they can feel free to hold out a tin cup for donations for their legal case too.

It was on every Amazon page in the world. That's why they paid out the teeth after Sony removed it. It was also in one of those stupid "It can only do everything" commercials... Not to mention Phil harrison pimping it out all over IGN saying you don't need a PC anymore

That would still be removing otherOS support...

Now you are just rambling.

And that's why Amazon paid through the teeth and Sony didn't. Also, I don't see how it could have been in one of SCE's "It can only do everything commercials" considering that the ad campaign you're referencing didn't start until well AFTER the PS3 slim was released, which as everyone knows, never supported Other OS.

And no, if it was a legal issue that they were found liable for, they would restore an "otherOS" support of their choosing because once again, Linux support was never explicitly advertised nor included in the feature set. What Phil Harrison said is completely irrelevant; plenty of inane things were said by SCE in regards to the PS3 launch that have zero bearing on legal liability. 

Do we need a chart to make the whole updated firmware concept easier to understand? Older firmware uses more system RAM. Older games have less system RAM available to run. Newer firmware uses less system RAM. Newer games written to run on newer firmware may use that now unallocated system RAM to run optimally, or in some cases run at all as they won't run with less system RAM.

This is just one of many reasons for updated firmware and the reason why any game requiring updated firmware (whether it's to make use of freed up system RAM, security measures, whatever; it's irrelevant so long as it runs) would have the updater on the game disk. Nobody's liable because an end user can't run new software on an older version of a no longer supported (any previous firmware) version of the OS.

Disagree? Then reference a case that shows how any new software written for Windows or Mac OS for example, must run on any previous version of an operating system with the idea that Microsoft or Apple is legally liable if it doesn't.


I would love to see people suing MS because Windows 3.11 don't suport DirectX11 and new games.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

dsister said:
DonFerrari said:

You do realize that they never said in the commercial that Other/OS support would exist forever or printed in the box it??

What amazon advertise is their problem not Sony... and if you think that this is bad propaganda (to remove support after some years)... why don't you sue your car maker when you don't find a component for your car 30 years after it have been made and for the same price you would have paid at the time?

@last post... yes don't blame the person that hacked through the security or the bugglar let complain about the person that haven't made it hard enough... are you serious?

Phil Harrison made a huge deal about it to IGN. That is advertising... look up the definition

[More annoying rambling that has nothing to do with the topic at hand]

Oh my gosh, I am so close to flaming you. You aren't even sure what we are talking about here, do you? Honestly... Graf has done nothing, nothing... He didn't release any code to play pirated games, cheat on games, load custom firmware nothing of that sort. He simply released his info on the work he has been doing on the hypervisor. That's all


Go there and flame me if you think what i said is offensive, just not sure what you tought is offensive...

Probably keep saying people are annoying and just ramble at topics is much more offensive than making analogies to your excuses saying that if someone break a security is the designer fault and "crime" it did happen and the breaker is some kind of saint that were pressured to do it.

Try release your work on how to circunvent security on bank systems and see if court and costumers will be pleased.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

It's not what you said offended me perse. It's just made in error and was woefully uninformed. I must ask do you know what Graf_chocolo has done??



Sig thanks to Saber! :D