Petition to open up the RSX up under Linux

There is a reason why Sony haven't allowed access from the start and I'm guessing a petition signed by everyone on the entire planet wouldn't change their minds on the issue.

Especially as you seemed to have asked the Inquirer to lead the campaign.

The only time they'd have a good word to say about Sony is if Sony suddenly disappeared.
 
Publicity is publicity, and if enough pressure was applied to Sony they would change their stance.

There are many thing that could be done to limit its uses for PS3 piracy, in fact just giveing us decent 2d acceleration would help enormously.

Saying big companies dont respond to public opinion is wrong on many levels, they almost always do if enough public pressure is applied and they are looking stupid by sticking to there current position.

I am not saying this is achieavble in this situation, it maybe it may not, however without attempting to we will not know.

I feel it is worth trying,

Phil
 
Yea because these online petitions have proven their effectiveness in swaying corporate stances. :idea:

If you're serious about this you're better off leading a write-in campaign.
 
EDIT (the entire quote makes much more sense)

Here's a recent comment from Phil Harrison in regards to homebrew development. However, he doesn't directly address the question asked of him, which is access to the RSX.

4.) 'Homebrew Gaming' by Anonymous Coward, maynard, and flitty
If someone manages to get homebrew games running on the PS3, will there be firmware updates to stop this kind of development, to protect your software developers, or is homebrew something you are planning on and even encouraging? Is there a chance that the policy of restricting access to PS3 graphics hardware (via the hypervisor) could be revised to encourage us homebrew developers? How does this strategy differ from your strategy with PSP homebrew? Has Sony considered offering kernel patches and an RSX optimized OpenGL library for PS3/Linux?

Phil Harrison: Now, let me first say that Homebrew is sometimes a misused term and so for the purposes of this answer I will exclude pirates and hackers with illegal intentions from the definition.

I fully support the notion of game development at home using powerful tools available to anyone. We were one of the first companies to recognize this in 1996 with Net Yaroze on PS1. It's a vital, crucial aspect of the future growth of our industry and links well to the subtext of my earlier answers. When I started making games on the Commodore 64 in the 1980's, the way I learned to make games was by re-writing games that appeared in magazines. Really the best bit about a C64 was when you turned it on it said "Ready?" with a flashing cursor - inviting you to experiment. You'd spend hours typing in the code, line-by-line, and then countless hours debugging it to make it work and then you'd realise the game was rubbish after all that effort! The next step was to re-write aspects of the game to change the graphics, the sound, the control system or the speed of the gameplay until you'd created something completely new. I might share this with a few friends but not for commercial gain at that time. But the process itself was invaluable in helping me learn to program, to design graphics, animations or sounds and was really the way I opened doors to get into the industry. Now, those industry doors are largely closed by the nature of the video game systems themselves being closed. So, if we can make certain aspects of PS3 open to the independent game development community, we will do our industry a service by providing opportunities for the next generation of creative and technical talent. Now having said all that, we still have to protect the investment and intellectual property rights of the industry so we will always seek the best ways to secure and protect our devices from piracy and unauthorized hacking that damages the business.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
personally im against allowing access to the RSX, heres a perfect opportunity to use a super fast cpu (in many ways faster than any desktop cpu) for new content creation methods. having access to the RSX will be like opening up a path of least resistance (ie revert to the same old tried + tested methods).
whilst u could argue 'if both were available u could choose to ignore the RSX' but we know human's dont work that way, im sure we'll see some amazing stuff done on the cell within its lifetime which wouldnt happen if the RSX was available.
 
This [ not allowing access to RSX ] can lead to good things about Cell's graphical capabilities ... If devs focus only on Cell they probably will find new and improved ways to get graphics out of Cell ... And maybe this will lead better RSX + Cell partnership later ... Too optimistic ?.. :smile:
 
personally im against allowing access to the RSX, heres a perfect opportunity to use a super fast cpu (in many ways faster than any desktop cpu) for new content creation methods. having access to the RSX will be like opening up a path of least resistance (ie revert to the same old tried + tested methods).
whilst u could argue 'if both were available u could choose to ignore the RSX' but we know human's dont work that way, im sure we'll see some amazing stuff done on the cell within its lifetime which wouldnt happen if the RSX was available.
At the very least it should be able to access the framebuffer and add 2D-Acceleration & CSC so you have more memory to work with and Cell aint abused doing such pityfull (computational) simple stuff and be fully available for neat stuff.
The next stop would be texturing, another thing that would just waste Cells computational potential. Im not speaking about pixel shaders, just plain texture mapping and blending.

There are a couple things that already have a nearly optimal solution in form of a Hardware Rasterizer and Cell wont change anything about that.
Hypothetical, suppose you procedurally create geometry and render in simple 3D (no fancy PS): you could assign a Rasterizer-task to some SPUs that runs at 10% of the SPUs peak or you could instead run a funky-never-imagined-new algorithm that utilize 90% of them and use (a restricted) RSX for Display.
If you need Cell to substitute a GPU you wont see anything amazing at all, thats not to say there are other areas where it will shine, but if "Texture-Work" is included then Cells potential is wasted, if "Texture-Work" is not needed then you likely wont use RSX even if you have full access to it.

But petitions lead to nowhere.
 
Back
Top