Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Wii Will Have an Updatable Linux OS 330

Posted by Zonk
from the penguin-with-a-wand dept.
eldavojohn writes "There's bits and pieces of information floating around that revolve around Iwata Asks interviews on Nintendo's website. What I found interesting was the tidbit about the updatable operating system: 'Wii is the first system from Nintendo that we can continue to be involved in (via operating system updates) after the customer buys it. This means that Wii will greatly expand and diversify the ways in which people will enjoy games in the future.' The Wii is reported to operate on top of a proprietary form of the Linux kernel, although there are already efforts to make a GNU/Linux for the console. So, the answer to the age old question is that it already runs Linux."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wii Will Have an Updatable Linux OS

Comments Filter:
  • How proprietary, exactly? Potential GPL violation, anyone?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by megla (859600)
      I'm glad I'm not the only one whose immediate reaction was "say what?"
      How does this work with respect to the GPL, requirements to release sourcecode, copyright, etc?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by msh104 (620136)
        it could be filled be proprietary modules that actually controll the hardware itself.
    • by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Sunday October 08, 2006 @06:47PM (#16358227) Homepage
      It could be like MkLinux, basically a modified Linux kernel running atop a proprietary microkernel.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It could be like MkLinux, basically a modified Linux kernel running atop a proprietary microkernel.

        There is also the fact that MkLinux is directed at PowerPC, which is what the Wii uses.
      • by X0563511 (793323) * on Sunday October 08, 2006 @08:42PM (#16358879) Homepage Journal
        Or it could be linux using proprietary binary modules to talk to the Wii hardware and software... kinda like Nvidia is doing.
      • by macshome (818789)
        MKLinux was Linux on the Mach kernel.
      • Sony PS2 linux (Score:4, Interesting)

        by homer_ca (144738) on Monday October 09, 2006 @04:09AM (#16361465)
        Sony did something similar with the Linux kit for the PS2. The kernel was completely open source, but it ran in a VM that didn't expose any native hardware interfaces to prevent console modding.
    • by Chris Pimlott (16212) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @06:47PM (#16358231)
      Who knows? The article linked says nothing about it, there's just the submitters comment. If there is anything behind this, a source would be helpful...
    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@gmFREEBSDail.com minus bsd> on Sunday October 08, 2006 @06:48PM (#16358237) Journal
      I don't think so. I guess I phrased this badly. It's reportedly (no official Nintendo release yet) that the Wii will be using a Linux kernel with a proprietary GUI. Whether or not they are modifying the kernel (like Google has done so that it fits there needs) I cannot say. All I know is that they can either look at the GUI separately from the kernel and leave the kernel under the GPL or they can bundle it all together and not fret over releasing it under the GPL.

      I'm not a lawyer so I'm not too clear on the GPL. I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code. I could be wrong though.
      • It's not reportedly so unless you can provide a link to some reputable organization that's reporting that. Otherwise it's just a rumor.
      • by Toveling (834894) * on Sunday October 08, 2006 @07:09PM (#16358349)
        You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by tepples (727027)

          Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

          But under GPL 2, there's no guarantee that the hardware provided with the software will allow an improved version to run, which makes an end-run around FSF freedom #1 [gnu.org]. Linus Torvalds reportedly likes GPL 2 much better than the GPL 3 drafts [google.com], deliberately not caring about freedom #1 for hobbyist end users of proprietary hardware.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by peragrin (659227)
          No sources only need to be available if the end person asks for them. under the GPl Nintedo could release the source code only if you filled out a card asking for it and then paid a few for the creation and mailing of a cd with the source. So $5-$10 depending on where thy are mailing it from.

          Granted the first person to do that then has a right to post the complete source code minus Nintedo's trade marks on any website they choose.

          It just makes more sense to hook it up to your web site and alllow people to
          • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

            by Burdell (228580)
            Nope, you are wrong. Re-read section 3 of the GPLv2; for a commercial product, it either has to come with the source or include a written offer to give ANY third party a copy of the source (for at most the cost reimbursment of the cost of distribution).

            My TiVo manual includes a written offer for example (also with their download site URL); anyone (not just TiVo customers) can request a copy of the source from TiVo.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by BKX (5066)
              Um, that's what the man said. Kids with their lack of reading comprehension skills today.
        • by Kjella (173770) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @07:41PM (#16358549) Homepage
          You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

          As a general rule, yes. There are things which definately require you to release it, using GPL'd code or a GPL'd library. There are various shade of gray with different encapsulations of the code, I won't go into that. But there's also a few very clear cases where you do not have to distribute source:

          a) By mere aggregation, i.e. the software has to actually work together, not just come on the same media
          b) Using standard OS API calls (otherwise there could be no GPL'd softwara for Windows, or proprietary applications on linux)
          c) Using libraries that come standard with the OS/compiler (e.g. Microsofts standard C/C++ library)

          So in the example he quoted, yes Nintendo could use the Linux kernel, but not release any of the userspace code if they built that from scratch, or only the modified libraries if using GTK (which is LGPL). They do need to distribute any chances they make to the kernel, but since binary drivers are tolerated it need not be more than a stub. Also, there's nothing preventing them (and I imagine they will be) using a digitally signed kernel, so that modified kernels can't be used to copy game disks.
        • by Servo (9177)
          IANAL but I think you've oversimplified the GPL. If you've written an app that links to GPL libraries, I don't believe it falls under the GPL requirements to release the source. If that were the case, you'd never see apps on Linux like Oracle or whatnot.
          • by Rix (54095)
            No, if you link to GPL libraries (such as QT), you must release the source. Most libraries are released under the LGPL, which allows linked non-GPL binaries.

            Which is why almost all proprietary X software uses GTK.
            • by jZnat (793348) *
              A lot of non-free software uses GTK+ since they don't have to spend thousands of dollars on proprietary licences for Qt. I'm quite positive it's a choice of cost over quality.
          • by KarmaMB84 (743001)
            Standard language libraries are generally okay even if they aren't LGPL. Then there's the question of who decides which ones are part of the standard OS and may the original developer of the library just change their mind and sue no matter what.
          • by be-fan (61476)
            Linking against GPL libraries requires you to release the source (since otherwise the GPL could be circumvented trivially, just by compiling the code you want to steal into a library and calling it). However, applications do not link against the kernel, which is why they're not affected by the licensing condition.
            • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

              by senatorpjt (709879)
              Yet, nvidia links against the kernel and doesn't release source code. I guess it's just a question of which has more lines.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by cduffy (652)
                No, that's an example of who is operating under an explicit exemption made by the copyright holder.
              • Nvidia supplies the source to an interface module. This module is linked against the kernel, and then it links in a seperate binary blob that lets the rubber meet the road.

                Also, loading it taints your kernel. This means nobody is allowed to distribute the combination of linux kernel + NVidia driver in the kernel module tree, strictly speaking. That's why you have to jump through a few hoops to get it installed.
        • by crankyspice (63953) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @09:29PM (#16359141)

          You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

          Actually, you are wrong. The GPL is only required (i.e., only applicable) when copyright is involved; i.e., making a derivative work. For there to be a derivative work, there has to be a copying within the ambit of the copyright act. If you look to the Altai test (adopted by pretty much every court), you'll see that code dictated by external requirements (i.e., pretty much every piece of software running on a UNIX/Linux system has to use malloc, etc., and thus must either call the system calls directly or via the C Library) is specifically filtered out of the copyright comparison. So any interface calls, even symbols brought in from include files, are [strongly] arguably not even copyrightable (a 'method of operation'; see, e.g., 17 U.S.C. 102, and Lotus v. Borland, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995)) and even if they are, would be stripped out of any comparison of code done in an infringement action. Absent an infringement, there's no need for GPL applicability...

          Further, the COPYING file for the Linux kernel (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING [kernel.org]) specifically carves out "user programs that use kernel services by normal system call." So, with appropriate facts, one could easily argue copyright estoppel in the (unlikely) event that Linus (as the copyright holder for much, if not most, of the kernel, AFAIK -- the FSF, etc. would not have standing to sue, it would have to be Linus or some other kernel contributor whose work was in the Wii) brought suit.

      • by fossa (212602)

        I think Nintendo could have a modified Linux kernel for which they offer the source code to Wii owners to satisfy the GPL requirements. Atop that they could have any proprietary system without needing to release that code, just as various proprietary software packages run atop Linux. The only potential issue would be a binary-only video driver, though Linus' stance is that this is not a derivative work of the Linux kernel.

        • by Aladrin (926209)
          Not just 'Wii owners'. Everyone. That's the whole point of the GPL. It gives you the freedom to run it and distribute it as much as you want, but if you change ANYTHING you must provide those changes to EVERYONE.

          So as long as they don't actually modify the kernel, and ship it with a custom GUI (under any license), they are fine.

          I'm sure if Nintendo finds the need to fix/modify the kernel, or any other GPL'd software they use, they'll release the changes.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Talchas (954795)
            Umm, yes just 'Wii owners'. Or rather, anyone who gets a binary copy of the OS must be able to get a source version easily and w/o real charge. You do NOT have to give the source to everyone.
          • No, they need only provide the source to the people you ship it to. Of course this is academic as they must apply the GPL to the work-as-a-whole, so those people would in turn have the right to redistribute the code under those same terms. at least.. as I read the GPL... IANAL
      • by mhore (582354)
        I'm not a lawyer so I'm not too clear on the GPL. I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code. I could be wrong though.

        Well, they're certainly free to write their own proprietary modules and have their own GUI, that's for sure.

        Mike.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Lorkki (863577)

        To be bluntly, you don't seem to be a software engineer either. It wouldn't be the first time that rumour sites would be mixing up technical terms and concepts, though.

        A graphical user interface would most likely sit completely in userland [wikipedia.org], while the Linux kernel [wikipedia.org] would only contain a device driver for communicating with the hardware. The user-mode parts can be as proprietary as Nintendo wants them to be, but any changes to the kernel itself must be released or they'll be violating the terms of use of th

      • The GPL says you can distribute the software and charge for distribution, but you MUST make sure the users get (or can get) the source.
      • by Rix (54095)
        The GPL requires you to give source to anyone you give a binary to. You can modify GPL software for internal use and not release the source, but if you release the source, you are required to release the binaries.
      • by NitsujTPU (19263)
        They could indeed develop a proprietary GUI without modifying the kernel at all. The kernel code is entirely separate from the GUI code, aside from a few drivers, and they can inject propietary drivers and taint the kernel.

        The short answer is, yeah, it's incorrect, and it is a little alarming to read, but people are probably overreacting with their responses to this one.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ZakuSage (874456)
        So in other words this could be complete crap, and yet Zonk posts "Wii Will Have an Updatable Linux OS"? Hm...
    • by joe 155 (937621)
      I was wondering about that, although I found this;

      "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other lic
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by grapeape (137008)
        Because no one wants to be the developer of the next dreamcast.
    • by Reverend528 (585549) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @08:10PM (#16358701) Homepage
      It's running SCO linux.
    • by metamatic (202216) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @08:29PM (#16358805) Homepage Journal
      Assuming the Wii really does run Linux, they will doubtless be using the TiVo hole to get around the GPL v2.

      That is, they'll provide the source code with their proprietary modifications for the Wii hardware, but it'll be totally useless as the Wii hardware will be designed so that it will only run code signed by Nintendo. So the modified code will be useless to Wii owners, and also useless to everyone else as PC hardware won't have any use for the Wii hardware support.

      And Linus will no doubt say that this is just peachy.

      I think it's exactly the kind of crap the GPL was supposed to stop. If I purchase hardware and software that's GPL licensed, I should be able to modify the software and run the modified version on the only hardware it's useful for, the hardware I own. That's why I support RMS's efforts with GPL v3 [ath0.com] and think they're a good thing. In fact, I think they should go further.
  • This is New? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quasicorps (897116) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @06:48PM (#16358247) Homepage
    The title is misleading. It isn't going to run a user customisable Linux GUI when turned on, the Wii just has that capability. Just like the XBox. And The PS2. To make this a selling point is just another example of how people are doing everything they can to suck up to Nintendo. I know Sony hasn't been on top of any game for a while, but with the sheer hatred suffers has and all the Nintendo worship going on, I'm starting to feel like there are very few important people who are dedicated to making me want to buy a Wii. And they aren't from Nintendo.
  • The Wii is reported to operate on top of a proprietary form of the Linux kernel,

    Who is reporting that? Its the first time I hear that and the linked webpages don't really give any more detail, the Iwata interview simply states that the Wii will have upgradable firmware, nothing Linux related.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08, 2006 @08:27PM (#16358787)
      It was "reported" once at a single site and, like so much Wii speculation that has gone before, passed through the fanboy blog echo chamber until it has far more credibility than it deserves.

      The person who posted the original story really should have done the 5 minutes research I just did, there is zero credible evidence that Nintendo has done anything at all with Linux. The "source" of the original speculation is someone named "Kiyoshi Saruwatari", who claims to be a designer who doesn't work for Nintendo, but has worked with them. He never names a company, specific business interactions, the nature of his work, nothing. His "facts" seem to consist of pure conjecture and swizzling of common publically released information (Virtual Console, etc).

      In the months before the Wii controller was revealed at Tokyo Game Show 2005, there was a rash of "insider" blogs, with a lot of suspiciously made-up sounding Japanese names, with calculatedly poor English skills. These blogs were the source of a lot of the early misinformation, the "VR helmet" nonsense, the "secretly more graphically powerful than both Xbox 360 and PS3", the "Kid Icarus sequel", etc. My guess is half of them were American or European fanboys who were trying to stir things up.

      In short I don't consider it responsible to call the single, highly dubious rumor that Nintendo is using Linux "reporting", and I hope this doesn't touch off a lot of controversy over what began with nothing more than a big fat lie / hoax.
  • Tsk. Pure BS. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Greger47 (516305) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @06:59PM (#16358313)
    I call bullshit on this one, Nintendo wouldn't touch GPLed code with a 10 foot pole. They have always kept their platforms in an iron grip, using GPLed code would allow outsiders to take a peek. Nintendo vs. Tengen [wikipedia.org] anyone?

    /greger

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by LiquidCoooled (634315)
      Just having have an Open source platform does not require you to open source the applications running on that platform.
    • by c_forq (924234)
      What if they use Linux like TiVo does? TiVo releases the source of their changes to the linux kernel, but that is pretty much it.
      http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp [tivo.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by xenocide2 (231786)
      Which is obviously why the standard compiler for the GBA (and probably DS) is GCC. Because they're deathly afraid of anything even related to "Open Source", as evidenced by 20 year old lawsuits. Who can imagine that anything's changed in such a short time frame?
  • by anon101 (972986) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @07:03PM (#16358329)

    Where exactly in the Iwata Asks article does it say it runs on a proprietery version of the Linux kernel?
    Infact where does it mention the Wii runs Linux on it at all?

    I think I found the story, thanks google. And it says that its a rumor from one of the designers who said:
    "Wii will have Linux as operating system with proprietary GUI and applications based on commonly open source for Linux programs."

    Since when did "GUI applications" count as in the kernel?

    Story found on:
    http://wii.qj.net/Wii-Will-Use-Linux-as-Operating- System-with-Proprietary-GUI-/pg/49/aid/60531 [qj.net]

    Another quote direct from the so called "insider"
    but the final system in closed and will allow only signed code etc and will be very secure, even though it's technically compatible with a world of already existing software
    I bet Nintendo are thanking their lucky stars that GPLv3 isn't out and that Linus Torvalds prefers v2 anyway, isn't there going to be something in it about locking out modified versions?

    I am skeptical about this guy, but make up your own mind,
    Orriginal blog post about Nintendo Wii having Linux on it: http://saruwatari-wii.blogspot.com/2006/07/softwar e-in-wii.html [blogspot.com]

    If anyon can find a quote about a proprietery kernel please post a reply, :D
    • but the final system in closed and will allow only signed code etc and will be very secure, even though it's technically compatible with a world of already existing software


      in other words.. the claim of an open platform is completely specious..

      we won't have anything similar to xbmc for wii without the standard modchips because theyre greedy (*)#$@$#'s
    • by ArwynH (883499)

      I am skeptical about this guy, but make up your own mind, Original blog post about Nintendo Wii having Linux on it: http://saruwatari-wii.blogspot.com/2006/07/softwar e-in-wii.html [blogspot.com]

      Oh he's a fake alright. The most obvious reason is that if he did have any connections with Nintendo he'd of been fired or sued for NDA breach by now. Another obvious reason is that some of his previous statements have already been proven false.

      As for a Linux OS on the Wii, I doubt it. It's memory footprint is too large for one

  • by Executive Override (605018) <spam@skewed.de> on Sunday October 08, 2006 @07:08PM (#16358345) Homepage
    There's no such thing as a "proprietary form" of Linux. The kernel is released under the GPL, and therefore any derivations/modifications must be released under the GPL, and hence are not proprietary. If they deny source code, or release it under a license non-compatible with the GPL, it will be clearly illegal.

    You would imagine that people would know this by heart by now...
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Lord Kano (13027)
      You would imagine that people would know this by heart by now...

      Restricting the hardware to only run signed binaries, would allow them to comply with the letter of the GPL if not the spirit. Any modifications could be released under the GPL and no one would be able to compile a custom kernel for the Wii.

      LK
    • by elronxenu (117773)
      But releasing the source code for a machine which can only run signed binaries is defeating one of the fundamental freedoms - the freedom to change the program, and run changed versions.

  • Vaportalk (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @07:10PM (#16358359) Homepage Journal
    Running Linux that can be downloaded to a Wii means old Wiis will still be around to compete with new ones. Combined with their dubious (no matter how you look at it) claim that their Linux will be a "proprietary Linux", that sounds a lot like the vaporware announcement game console makers are used to peddling to credulous game "journalism" media.

    Will the new generation of game consoles get converted to the slightly more cross-examined PC press tricks from their generations of easy lying to game press? Or will they turn the tiny amount of PC journalism accountability into the standard lying that defines the much larger market?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by PygmySurfer (442860)
      Combined with their dubious (no matter how you look at it) claim that their Linux will be a "proprietary Linux", that sounds a lot like the vaporware announcement game console makers are used to peddling to credulous game "journalism" media.

      Except its not Nintendo's claim, just some asshat blogger's.
      • You're right, every reference to the OS apart from being "updatable" is apparently made up by eldavojohn, who submitted the story without sourcing the "Linux" allegations.
    • It would vaporware talk if Nintendo actually said they're running Linux. They didn't. Nowhere in the linked article does it say this. The comments in the Slashdot summary were based off rumor.

      As for "upgradable OSes" on consoles, not exactly a new concept. PS2 had several revisions. Both Xbox and Xbox 360 have updates via Xbox Live. The fact that it's going to be an online console should've been evidence enough that there would be udpates.
  • by solevita (967690) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @07:17PM (#16358383)
    Will it be able to perform cunnilingus on a hardwood floor?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08, 2006 @07:24PM (#16358429)
    .. Liinux?

  • Nothing to see here, move along.
  • If this is true... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ADamiani (983317) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @07:52PM (#16358611)
    What are the implications for PC-based Linux as a gaming platform? The reason I usually see people explaining games not being published to run on Linux is that there just aren't enough of them to make it economically viable, creating a chicken-and-the-egg problem. Does this slice through that particular Gordian knot?
    • Nope. In the end, you still need a large audience of people running Linux ready to purchase games. (Not that it would ever be easy in Nintendo's case in the first place considering the controller.)

      It's not so much a 'chicken-and-the-egg' problem, it's an installed user-base problem.
    • by aztektum (170569)
      Ok first off, my guess is no.

      Why?

      If you're running a Wii then the developers of Wii games will have a dev environment designed by Nintendo to run on their specific platform.

      There are too many variables for designing Linux based games for PC's. Do you design for FC, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Slackware (yes please:), Mandriva, ... you get the idea.

      No commercial developer that exists today wants to deal with that headache.

      Second, hardware support. If you develop for Wii, you know all the *hardware* features that you can
      • by jZnat (793348) *
        Uh, you design for the LSB, and that's it. If a user's distro doesn't comply with LSB, you can't support that user (to an extent).

        Besides, things like UT2k4 work just fine, and it isn't really designed with any specific distro in mind.
  • Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ColaMan (37550) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @08:16PM (#16358735) Homepage Journal
    Wii is the first system from Nintendo that we can continue to be involved in (via operating system updates) after the customer buys it. This means that Wii will greatly expand and diversify the ways in which people will enjoy games in the future.

    Translation: Firmware updates to prevent hacks, a-la PSP.
  • by Britz (170620) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @08:21PM (#16358751) Homepage
    A proprietary from of the Linux kernel? That can only come from someone who has just maybe Slashdot a bit and doesn't know a thing about Linux, free software or mabye software at all.

    Any Linux kernel is per definition (of the GPL) free. That is the whole point of the GPL. There can't be a proptietary version. If they include the Linux kernel, they will have to include the source to it and to all the components that directly link to it, like drivers (proprietary drivers exist, but there is a discussion, sometimes on Slashdot as well, if that is legal). If they ship userland stuff along they can keep the source, for example for a gui.

    What they can do is lock it all up so you can't mod it. Then the device will only accept signed modifications (like upgrades) from CDs or their server. Wether you do this with open or closed source doesn't matter. It might be easier to find security holes to smuggle in your mod this way. But OTOH they already mod the PSP this way even though it is closed source.
    That is the big discussion about the GPLv3 btw. I guess what the FSF wants to achieve is that if you use GPLv3 code you may not lock down your device this way.

  • by Carcass666 (539381) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @08:59PM (#16358959)

    Maybe Nintendo couldn't get fully-functional, reliable drivers for current chipsets like the rest of us.

    • Maybe Nintendo couldn't get fully-functional, reliable drivers for current chipsets like the rest of us.

      What you see as funny, I see as an oportunity.
      Nintendo will get drivers for the wii chipset, and, being linux under the GPL, it could be an excellent oportunity to get some open source drivers.

      Even if they use binary drivers, there will be some sort of stub module that can be used to interface with the binary portion. That driver will probably be useful somewhere else, unless the wii is 100% custom hardwa

  • by acvh (120205) <geek@msciAUDENgars.com minus poet> on Sunday October 08, 2006 @09:16PM (#16359069) Homepage
    Story: Company is allegedly thinking of using Linux as OS for new hardware device.

    Response: I want the source. I want the source.

    More responses: This does/doesn't violate GPL.

    More responses: This is why we need/don't need GPL v3

    Conclusion: The story was wrong, the device doesn't use Linux, there might be a way to boot Linux on it, but we don't know yet.
  • This may be a bad sign. Now they can turn off features by remote control, insist that you connect frequently to get updates, introduce new bugs remotely, and try to force you to sign up for new "revenue streams". Just like Microsoft and Tivo.

    • In addition to that, there's also a web-browser. They could show Goatse to the whole family! The ability for them to do that is downright terrifying!
  • Regioning? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by atomicstrawberry (955148) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @10:12PM (#16359383)
    If this article proves to actually be true - and I'm taking it with a rather large grain of salt - is it possible that we might be able to turn off region coding? At the moment I'm refusing to buy a Wii because of the regioning, especially on the virtual console games. PAL games from the 8/16-bit era were usually absolutely horrible.
  • Sony and Linux [ign.com]. So was Sony ever confirmed?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      In a very, very Tivo-ized way, yes. You can buy Linux for your PS2, and it will come standard on the PS3, but based on how crippled PS2 Linux was, I don't have much hope for the PS3.
  • If nintendo were to release the a PC version of the GUI this could mean big trouble for microsoft. The only reason I boot into "wintendo" is to play games. Who needs wintendo when you can run nintendo :)
  • It would make a lot more sense for them to use NetBSD. You can run NetBSD on anything and there's no GPL zealots asking you for source all the time.
  • SCO (Score:3, Funny)

    by stud9920 (236753) on Monday October 09, 2006 @03:39AM (#16361319)
    Does this mean the Wii will cost $249 + $699 in license fees ?

FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies.

Working...