Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sony's PlayStation 4 Is Running Modified FreeBSD 9

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by brosis View Post
    Would also be interesting if at least Sony contributed anything back?
    There will be no "back contributing". That's why they choosed BSD.

    Comment


    • As always a lot of nonsense. First of all GLSL is a C dialect for graphics similar to OpenCL or HLSL or CG. With Unigine if you program with HLSL you have also source or bytecode extensions for GLSL to. Other engines use the back end system, they easy auto regenerate an OpenGL backend from a D3D one. Usually all those engines they don't use a 10% of the one api that has low efficiency with the other. Second for emulators we don't emulate edram and those things, only instruction sets and compatibility layers for firmwares. First we use recompiling like qEmu has. In this step you transform PPC instructions to qEmu instructions that are higher level and they almost represent the source, then you compile to x86. Today's efficiency(recompiler+output) is 40%, so you need 3 times the Cpu to emulate a PS3. Cell gives one thread with a 2dmips/mhz for general computing when a sse4.2 celeron has 8drystone and a sandybridge has 9.5drystone all per core, so emulation is possible. As for GPU we don't emulate that because we have shaders. With GLSL ES2 shaders of PS3, we can load them with our standard drivers/compilers, GLSL or CG. Then we can cut antialising, anisotropic and anything we want in order to run them with lower GPUs. In fact PS3 uses CG and offloads those shaders to GPU(200gflops) and the same time to 6 cell spes(1800Gflops): 1spe=8Vectors@128bit(4 issue)Fmac@3.2Ghz. To make compatibility layer for OS is easy because PS3 has a lot of BSD open source libraries, from C for cell to network. I may try myself and with friends in the future.
      Last edited by artivision; 06-25-2013, 10:22 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        Funny, considering I can still select the OGL renderer on older source games (CS:S comes to mind). The engine supports OGL, Value simply chooses to stick exclusively to D3D on Windows. Which kinda makes my point about OGL.
        So why does CS:S ship with the togl library (located at ~/.local/share/Steam/SteamApps/common/Counter-Strike Source/bin/libtogl.so) and why does Valve tell they use it: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1017850/ ?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by artivision View Post
          Second for emulators we don't emulate edram and those things, only instruction sets and compatibility layers for firmwares. First we use recompiling like qEmu has. In this step you transform PPC instructions to qEmu instructions that are higher level and they almost represent the source, then you compile to x86. Today's efficiency(recompiler+output) is 40%, so you need 3 times the Cpu to emulate a PS3. Cell gives one thread with a 2dmips/mhz for general computing when a sse4.2 celeron has 8drystone and a sandybridge has 9.5drystone all per core, so emulation is possible. As for GPU we don't emulate that because we have shaders. With GLSL ES2 shaders of PS3, we can load them with our standard drivers/compilers, GLSL or CG. Then we can cut antialising, anisotropic and anything we want in order to run them with lower GPUs. In fact PS3 uses CG and offloads those shaders to GPU(200gflops) and the same time to 6 cell spes(1800Gflops): 1spe=8Vectors@128bit(4 issue)Fmac@3.2Ghz. To make compatibility layer for OS is easy because PS3 has a lot of BSD open source libraries, from C for cell to network. I may try myself and with friends in the future.
          You aren't emulating an instruction set, you are emulating a system. Thats emulation 101.

          For example, taking the case of the PS3, there is an instruction that requests data from the ERAM. So you have to maintain a 32MB data structure in order to service that instruction. And I'm sure, somewhere, someone did a really low-level optimization assuming some specific timing for that data to get fed into a register on a specific core, and knows due to program semantics that the data will be executed before its needed by some other core, so no software lock is necessary. And if you do nothing but emulate the instruction set of the hardware, boom, you blow up because your emulator clobbered some memory somewhere by doing things out of order. This is especially noticable when emulating multi-core systems.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
            You aren't emulating an instruction set, you are emulating a system. Thats emulation 101.

            For example, taking the case of the PS3, there is an instruction that requests data from the ERAM. So you have to maintain a 32MB data structure in order to service that instruction. And I'm sure, somewhere, someone did a really low-level optimization assuming some specific timing for that data to get fed into a register on a specific core, and knows due to program semantics that the data will be executed before its needed by some other core, so no software lock is necessary. And if you do nothing but emulate the instruction set of the hardware, boom, you blow up because your emulator clobbered some memory somewhere by doing things out of order. This is especially noticable when emulating multi-core systems.


            ?????? An instruction that requests data from edram? A program is never compiled with such operations in mind (if they exist at all) and are not part of the recompilation. When you recompile, how the first processor uses its sources its not important, the second processor has its own way. Recompilation means that a game runs to the new processor like you had the source of this game.
            Last edited by artivision; 06-25-2013, 02:19 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
              Let us speak about dictatorship: You want that any project is GPL licensed because you deem it to be the better license. Who is the tyrant now, those that accept the freedom of the developers to choose any license they want, regardless of the consequences, or those who want to dictate which license has to be used.
              Here we come to definition of freedom. Sure, laws which forbid you to shot 10 random people and then leave crime scene unpunished IS a limitation of your freedom. However this limitation of your freedom is required to protect freedom of other people to live and actually use their freedoms. Because if you'll shot them, they will be no longer able to use thier freedoms.

              BSD license is anarchy where stronger one eventually wins and turns into dictator (with full set of freedoms, lol ) as nothing could prevent it anyway. GPL is more resembling modern set of laws where certain restrictions are imposed on everyone to allow everyone to have equal set of freedoms and actually use them without limiting ability of other entities to do the same.

              Basically, your freedom ends where others freedom starts. Unfortunately DRM f...ks like Sony utterly fail to recognize this fact. So if you're about to tell me that current set of laws is limiting freedom of killers to do their "jobs", I would agree on that. Law prohibits this activity, sure! If you're about to tell me that I should be sorry about that, nope, I would not. I'm really glad that killers are usually receive retribution and overall this approach is strongly discouraged. Same should be done to e-parasites who dares to conduct harmful activity and/or cripple freedoms of other humans.

              That's where your logic miserably fails. There could be no "absolute" freedom as it have to harm someone else freedom in this case. It's only possible to have balanced set of freedoms which can be equally granted to everyone. In particular, we have to forbid one entity to eliminate freedoms of other entities (you see, it's illegal to take slaves/hostages, etc). And that's what GPL is all about.

              In ideal world where humans are good, we don't need laws and BSD license would do. In real world we have to consider bad guys, unfortunately...
              Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 06-25-2013, 10:24 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                BSD license is anarchy where stronger one eventually wins and turns into dictator (with full set of freedoms, lol ) as nothing could prevent it anyway. GPL is more resembling modern set of laws where certain restrictions are imposed on everyone to allow everyone to have equal set of freedoms and actually use them without limiting ability of other entities to do the same.
                No, it doesn't. The fact one can make a closed copy or derivative of the code doesn't make you unable to use the original BSD code in any way, and it doesn't mandate you close your improvements (this is specifically because you imply it somehow limits your ability to give this set of freedoms). So, the only thing they can actually take from you is THEIR improvements, their invested time. They can't take from you what you or others did.
                Basically, your freedom ends where others freedom starts. Unfortunately DRM f...ks like Sony utterly fail to recognize this fact. So if you're about to tell me that current set of laws is limiting freedom of killers to do their "jobs", I would agree on that. Law prohibits this activity, sure! If you're about to tell me that I should be sorry about that, nope, I would not. I'm really glad that killers are usually receive retribution and overall this approach is strongly discouraged. Same should be done to e-parasites who dares to conduct harmful activity and/or cripple freedoms of other humans.
                Specifically, your freedom stops where the freedom of a dev to choose the license they want starts.
                That's where your logic miserably fails. There could be no "absolute" freedom as it have to harm someone else freedom in this case. It's only possible to have balanced set of freedoms which can be equally granted to everyone. In particular, we have to forbid one entity to eliminate freedoms of other entities (you see, it's illegal to take slaves/hostages, etc). And that's what GPL is all about.

                In ideal world where humans are good, we don't need laws and BSD license would do. In real world we have to consider bad guys, unfortunately...
                You are wrong about the inexistence of absolute freedom, but you are wrong about considering it 'taking hostages'. The work made by the original devs, who used a free license, keeps being free, even when someone makes a closed source copy or derivative. This derivative will not be free, but there are still the original code AND THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT OWNER.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                  Here we come to definition of freedom. Sure, laws which forbid you to shot 10 random people and then leave crime scene unpunished IS a limitation of your freedom. However this limitation of your freedom is required to protect freedom of other people to live and actually use their freedoms. Because if you'll shot them, they will be no longer able to use thier freedoms.
                  And what exactly is THE definition of freedom? Why should that be THE definition.

                  Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                  BSD license is anarchy where stronger one eventually wins and turns into dictator (with full set of freedoms, lol ) as nothing could prevent it anyway. GPL is more resembling modern set of laws where certain restrictions are imposed on everyone to allow everyone to have equal set of freedoms and actually use them without limiting ability of other entities to do the same.
                  What GPL resembles is communism; only GPL shall exist, nothing more, nothing less. In what universe is that freedom? NOT IN MINE.

                  Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                  Basically, your freedom ends where others freedom starts.
                  Sure, thats what everybody says. The truth is that i've rarely found such a vague 'definition' of freedom; basically you use freedom in the definition of freedom. It's not as simple as that.

                  Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                  Unfortunately DRM f...ks like Sony utterly fail to recognize this fact. So if you're about to tell me that current set of laws is limiting freedom of killers to do their "jobs", I would agree on that. Law prohibits this activity, sure! If you're about to tell me that I should be sorry about that, nope, I would not. I'm really glad that killers are usually receive retribution and overall this approach is strongly discouraged. Same should be done to e-parasites who dares to conduct harmful activity and/or cripple freedoms of other humans.
                  The point is that freedom si a controversial term.

                  Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                  That's where your logic miserably fails. There could be no "absolute" freedom as it have to harm someone else freedom in this case. It's only possible to have balanced set of freedoms which can be equally granted to everyone. In particular, we have to forbid one entity to eliminate freedoms of other entities (you see, it's illegal to take slaves/hostages, etc). And that's what GPL is all about.
                  Again, you fail to define precisely what freedom means. And it's not your fault; it is really REALLY difficult to do so. That's why I see BSD as providing freedom, and GNU as resembling communism, while you seem to think that GNU provides freedom. Well, that's why the controversy never ends.

                  Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                  In ideal world where humans are good, we don't need laws and BSD license would do. In real world we have to consider bad guys, unfortunately...
                  Let me just quote this guy Benjamin Franklin: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” You seem to agree that, in order to ensure something (this something cannot be called freedom), the GNU guys have got to limit the freedom. Or what is it?
                  Anyway, stop dictating what freedom is and accept once and for all that the best you can do is say what freedom MEANS TO YOU.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    Exactly this. BSDs are basically good only for few proprietary f...ks who can afford enormous resources waste to turn freely available crap into something working. You want to present some extra proof? Nice idea!
                    exactly what? You mean me pointing out that you claiming this is something new, when in reality isn't at all...

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    <sarcasm> I'm so happy that bunch restrictive proprietary f...ks got free ride, yay. Long live e-parasites! </sarcasm>
                    They aren't getting a 'free ride'. They are using code that is available to them, no different than anyone else. Or are you now going to claim recycling code in general is just a free ride and should be frowned upon?

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    Actually it is. If we'll read EULAs/ToS/... from Windows, MacOS, sony, etc - there will be lot of mumbling about their rights and virtually nothing about user's rights. Most of these agreements are strongly asymmetric and biased if favor of some large corporation. This is qualifies as dictatorship attempt.
                    no it doesn't. You do not have to use any of these companies products, you choose to buy them and choose to accept their agreement. Your distortion of reality is retarded. (no offense).

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    Oh, thanks, Cap'n Obvious. Now tell me: can you make yourself PS4 replacement on your kitchen? No? Oh, such a pity. This implies that either you do not have "feature" at all or forced to agree with fairly bad terms and conditions. That's what qualifies as dictatorship. Especially only if only couple of corporations are producing equipment in question and both stick to equally nasty and restrictive approach.
                    again, does not qualify as a dictatorship. ~ no one is forcing you to use PS4 and that is your choice... nor should you have the expectation that Sony owes you jackshit, since they don't. They don't owe you free games, source code, their OS or anything. You can choose to buy Sony products and use them under their terms, if you don't like that - then don't use their products, it's that simple.

                    how you have come to the conclusion that having choice equals being forced to do something is beyond me.

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    It does. However, only Sony benefits from it. Project as whole loses, or to be exact, does not gains anything. Hey, Linux example has shown us this crappy sequence could be improved by orders of magnitude if things are done in better ways. By joining those who makes changes into united powerhouse. It's utterly dumb to code same thing again and again just because of greed of some dumb corporate manager, etc. Unfortunately BSD license allows to excersize in greed well beyond reasonable limits. This often plays bad joke on BSD projects, keeping them third-rate crap which is doomed to be footpad for some "better" proprietary products.
                    again, BSD is not GPL. People who develop for BSD clearly prefer BSD license and are often not fans of the GPL. ~ they aren't complaining about the license they choose - so why do you continue to (?) anbd why do you think it is even relevant? (it's not, in the slightest). And as i said before - it does probably provide some of the BSD-devs with employment opportunities.

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    I do understand differences very well. And that's exactly why I think BSD license sucks. In particular it explains why "free" BSD OSes are in such a crappy condition. Nobody seriously considers "free" BSD versions as gaming OSes these days. In fact they're really crappy as desktop.

                    So BSD "freedom" usually comes to fairly simple chouce: you're free to use third-rate crap for free or have to pay money, agree dictator-style EULA/ToS, give up all freedoms BSD nuts were mumbling about, and of course you will never see a source and can't change anyting.. GPL (and Linux in particular) surely provides much better deal terms for most of people (unless they're Sony or somesuch huge corp capable of wasting tremendous amounts of resources on dumb duplicate work).
                    If you see the difference between licenses then why do you continue to cry like a little baby??? You don't use BSD, right? ~ so what's the problem, exactly? (...that developers have chosen a license that YOU don't approve of? ... ya, that's about it.) The point is: people, developers, companies can choose whatever fricking license they want. GPL is great, but it's not the end-all-be-all of licenses - so complaining that XYZ has chosen a BSD license and/or software is pointless.

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    They already used BSD code in PS3. So if they wanted to do something good for BSDs, they had all chances to do it, ages ago. But it has not occured so far. So it's very easy to estimate history would repeat self with PS4.
                    BSD != GPL ... stop with this nonsense. There is no expectation that they have to contribute back. Is this really too hard for you to grasp?

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    I can bet freebsd will not become usable as gaming OS in reasonable time. Right now FBSD lacks proper graphic drivers for AMD GPUs at all. While Sony already owns something more or less working. Quite a difference, yep? Sure, Sony can ask AMD to write custom drivers. You can't. Sony wins. You lose. Simple! .
                    it's not a win/lose situation. BSD license is permissive, developers choose to use it knowing contributions aren't expected back... that is the deal, again GPL != BSD ... no one has lost here, unless they are a developer that regrets choosing BSD over GPL.

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    To be honest, they seems to have no clear goals at all. Overall project management is crap and it remains fairly uncompetitive to proprietary OSes and Linux.
                    I'm sure some got hired by Sony, Apple, Netflix and other companies using BSD code... Maybe you don't appreciate developers being able to make an income off of their code / projects but I can see how being able to pay bills and/or feed your family may not be the worst thing. ~ So maybe their goals don't align with yours, but who cares ~ it's not your code, an OS that you are using, etc... so your opinions aren't worth jacksh*t on the subject to them (most likely).

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    Well, I just can admit GPL approach worked better for Linux. So these days it's much better bet unless you're absolutely inclined on keeping changes private. Which is proven to be counterproductive, to say the least. Sure, Sony could afford being inefficient and do duplicate work. "Free" bsd versions can't. So they're doomed to be losers.
                    oh well (for FreeBSD)... While i agree with GPL is good for linux ~ one could just as easily argue that XYZ permissive license or even proprietary license is better for XYZ company. You also assume that Sony's efforts are duplicating something - they may not be ~ it may very well be that for their use-case a lot of code may not even be that useful in FreeBSD. (we don't even know what their supposed AMD driver supports, for example)

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    I'm just comparing different approaches and making conclusions what works better and why. Simple, huh?
                    no, you've been holding BSD license to GPL standards, expecting that it should offer you the same things, which it does not. nor should it. (since it is a completely different license).

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    Problem? Well, problem is simple. It increases number of e-parasites like Sony who thinks it's okay to get free ride and then deny everyone else equal rights. Furthermore, their DRM restrictions are increasing numbers of dumb consumers who are denied any chance to "upgrade" to creators and authors. Humans should be strong and creative. They should evolve and develop. Downgrading human being to "just consumer" should be considered as crime to my taste.
                    if Sony is using code licensed under BSD they are not being parasites ~ this is a fundamental point that you have consistently ignored. it's a permissive license and NOT the GPL - they don't have to contribute anything back, nor should they be expected to (unless using a license that specifies that). If you wanna come back and argue they are parasites when they haven't contributed back, when a license DOES require that - then be my guest, but complaining over and over again about them utilizing BSD, but holding them to your GPL expectations is retarded and nonsensical.

                    as far as DRM, im not a fan either, but that had nothing to do with my original point at all.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                      Anyway, stop dictating what freedom is and accept once and for all that the best you can do is say what freedom MEANS TO YOU.
                      +1 ... Very well said.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                        Here we come to definition of freedom. Sure, laws which forbid you to shot 10 random people and then leave crime scene unpunished IS a limitation of your freedom. However this limitation of your freedom is required to protect freedom of other people to live and actually use their freedoms. Because if you'll shot them, they will be no longer able to use thier freedoms.
                        Seriously? If you shot people you are taking something away from them, when using BSD code you take exactly this away from the developers: Nothing.

                        Have fun in your further life, with such a dumb comparison you have earned a place on my ignore list.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                          Your life is totally dominated by Stallman. Brainwashing at its best. Those terrorists that brainwash people in blowing themselves up couldn't have done a better job than the Stallman Cult...
                          As a matter of fact, even Stallman and the FSF recognizes the BSD license is a free software one.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                            Your life is totally dominated by Stallman. Brainwashing at its best. Those terrorists that brainwash people in blowing themselves up couldn't have done a better job than the Stallman Cult...
                            GNU -- Free Software Foundation owns your code, you'll get sued

                            BSD -- You can own it, they can own it, anybody can own it.


                            The big problem is Nvidia and ATI don't actually support FreeBSD.

                            The code is good. They were natively translating RedHat's v6 libraries in real-time back in 1996.

                            You could run Linux compiled Netscape natively.

                            build world built the world./

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by squirrl View Post
                              The big problem is Nvidia and ATI don't actually support FreeBSD.
                              /
                              Nvidia has native freebsd blob that works great.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                                No, it doesn't. The fact one can make a closed copy or derivative of the code doesn't make you unable to use the original BSD code
                                Right. But there is only one reason to close code: it's become better than original. It was improved. So one who closes it haves reasons to think they're now king of the hill. Else they would not need to close their source, lol.

                                in any way, and it doesn't mandate you close your improvements
                                Sure. But in fact by default all corporations are greedy up to degree where it could impact project success. It's so funny to see BSD nuts are claiming it's "unfair" that so many corps are working in Linux and actually contributing to it. As for me, it appears GPL is a really good cure, which converts e-parasites into e-contributors. Much better form of life for sure.

                                (this is specifically because you imply it somehow limits your ability to give this set of freedoms).
                                Sure. If I will buy PS4, I would lack any freedom to change source and use BSD "freedom". Hopefully you're not going to offer me to

                                So, the only thing they can actually take from you is THEIR improvements, their invested time. They can't take from you what you or others did.
                                They refuse treat community as equals. Community put their job for everyone. They refuse to do the same. This what makes free BSD versions third-rate crap which is mostly unusable and losing to other OSes. Is this so hard to understand? Every decision haves it's price. Sony wins. Everyone else loses.

                                Specifically, your freedom stops where the freedom of a dev to choose the license they want starts.
                                Specifically, I have a freedom to show middle finger to those morons who want to get my money for their device and then dares to dictate me what to do, limit my rights with nasty DRM schemes and not giving rights to change system software to suit my needs. Effectively it looks like it is me who owes Sony something after buying their crap. This is really flawed approach to my taste.

                                You are wrong about the inexistence of absolute freedom, but you are wrong about considering it 'taking hostages'. The work made by the original devs, who used a free license, keeps being free, even when someone makes a closed source copy or derivative. This derivative will not be free, but there are still the original code AND THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT OWNER.
                                That's why there was GPL invented. It ensures that everyone can get equal set of rights. That's what makes game fair for all sides, both big and small. And we see, GPL worked better. BSD nuts had 10 more years to make somethinh worthy but in fact, free BSD versions are still complete crap. And only couple of commercial derivatives are anyhow able to do the things.

                                So what? Couple corps won. Community lost. And since I'm not Sony and I don't like to be on losing side, I would rather stick to Linux. There are no "losing side" at all: everyone wins together. At the end of day, collaboration just proven to be more efficient. Fairly predictable outcome, should I admit .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X