Port XBMC to PS3 (PlayStation 3) to run on Linux ("Other OS") or natively on GameOS? - Printable Version
+- XBMC Community Forum (http://forum.xbmc.org)
+-- Forum: Development (/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+--- Forum: Feature Suggestions (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Port XBMC to PS3 (PlayStation 3) to run on Linux ("Other OS") or natively on GameOS? (/showthread.php?tid=21849)
- htpc guy - 2011-02-06 01:19
muterobert Wrote:Not wishing to start my time here under a controversial cloud, but I'd say this debate just got a whole lot more interesting.
We've got 55 pages of users and more importantly developers saying no. Why is the debate continuing? Lets hope it doesn't go to 56 pages.
S**T! My post pushed it to 56
- wannabegt4 - 2011-02-06 03:13
topfs2 Wrote:Because nothing have changed since last time other os was available...
Hate to be devil's advocate but:
graf_chokolo Wrote:It has all GameOS features, it has access to all HDD, VFLASH and FLASH regions. It can communicate with Dispatcher Manager, Update Manager, SYSCON Manager, it can run isolated SPUs, and of course RSX
graf_chokolo Wrote:I’m installing just an ordinary unmodified Debian distribution, nothing changed by me. Just normal PPC64 distribution.
So when graf_chokolo is done there should be a full PPC64 distro running with access to the RSX graphics chip. Could make all the difference in the world... or not...?
- topfs2 - 2011-02-06 03:18
wannabegt4 Wrote:Hate to be devil's advocate but:
If there are drivers and all that crap, yeah. If there are proper ogl drivers then there is most likely nothing which the dev team even have to do. XBMC runs already on PPC linux afaik.
- wannabegt4 - 2011-02-06 03:33
wiki says x86 for linux.
also RSX is only OpenGl ES 1.1. Would that be an issue?
- ashlar - 2011-02-06 03:34
topfs2 Wrote:But it feels like people here wants a promise, something none of us will ever give.yeah, they would be fools in wanting a promise. But I sympathize because I still remember my struggle to get devs to approach a computer based version (I wanted HD playback). And it's funny because I see you fully embraced what I thought back then: that the project was too great to stay confined in the gray area of unofficial builds, hacked consoles and the like.
- topfs2 - 2011-02-06 04:24
wannabegt4 Wrote:wiki says x86 for linux.
We have some code laying around from GLES port by mcgeagh which was gles 1.1. However, it may not work anymore and some stuff never worked like video playback. Unless a proper port shows up which needs gles 1.1 I'm fairly certain it will get removed, we are already contemplating cleaning it up since no real significant hardware supports GLES 1.1, or atleast no real hardware which is fast enough for xbmc. I agree that ps3 might be fast enough but unless a port ever shows up and gains popularity and a dev actually steps up and wants to support the bad GLES 1.1, yeah its gonna be a problem.
- muterobert - 2011-02-06 20:07
topfs2 Wrote:Because nothing have changed since last time other os was available...Oh dear, someone didn't follow the link did they.
I can understand the levels of hostility towards this given the undoubted levels of 'tards requesting a PS3 port. But I do think that the XBMC community needs to realise that this is now the most significant potential platform since the original Xbox version spawned this entire project. It is that big.
I've watched these boards from afar for a while, and the knee-jerk reactions that follow any suggestion or question on this subject mean that this almost becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It's against the spirit of the original project and it screams a reactionary 'Not in my back yard' mentality.
Come on guys, let's get the fledgling community spirit back into this place. This is an exciting prospect that could help spread the good XBMC word further and wider.
Surely that can't be a bad thing.
- ashlar - 2011-02-06 20:32
When Xbox were current tech, there was nothing else available that coul provide comparable price at a similar price. The situation today is far different, so the "most significant platform" thing really doesn't sound right.
- maruchan - 2011-02-06 20:54
muterobert Wrote:...I do think that the XBMC community needs to realise that this is now the most significant potential platform since the original Xbox version spawned this entire project. It is that big.
I'm not sure why one would think this. The media playback landscape has changed a lot from the original XBOX days. Back when I first ran XBMC (and before that, XBMP), there was nothing like it. There were a handful of DVD players with Sigma chipsets in them that could decode some DivX/XviD files, but it had to be in the right container and it was clunky and prone to issues. There was a small niche of HTPC enthusiasts, but PC parts at the time were relatively expensive, the electronics market was largely unaware and unresponsive to the concept, and only those with a lot of free time and expendable cash could think about taking it on as a hobby.
XBMC changed this all. I could play back every single file I encountered, from the bizarre proprietary formats on my digital camera to the old RealMedia fansubs I had downloaded from some crappy Angelfire website. I could replace the hard drive and store my entire DVD collection as ISOs and stream files over my network from my main PC. And all of this in a piece of hardware roughly the size of a VCR.
Now the game has changed. It's possible to pick up $99 boxes that are roughly the size of a CD case, run very close to silent, and can play most of the formats out there fairly well. Thanks to Davilla, some of these same boxes now run XBMC natively and play your content very well. Sigma is porting XBMC to run on their embedded systems. You can put together your own HTPC for $300 or less or can just buy a tiny ION system and have XBMC Live booted up in 15 minutes.
What is there to gain from a port to the PS3? Sony is already filing massive lawsuits against every PS3 developer it can find. Why venture back down the road of questionable legality? It would be one thing if the hardware was years ahead of anything on the market, but the PS3 really isn't that powerful unless you're taking advantage of the SPUs, which is notoriously hard to do. It has limited RAM and a poor graphics chip that's easily trumped in features by most low-end cards you can get today.
To top it off, the system has a lower market penetration than any of its competitors and Sony will continue to try and destroy the ability to run unlicensed code with every update (so the devs could do an enormous amount of work porting it, only to have it unable to run on new systems/systems that have been updated.)
Nobody's saying it can't be done, just that there isn't much of a point to it unless you already own a PS3. Now that graf_chokolo has Linux running, it isn't unreasonable to think that someone will manage to get XBMC running anyways, but sitting around whining about the very legitimate reasons the devs don't want to bother isn't helping anyone.
- topfs2 - 2011-02-06 22:09
muterobert Wrote:Oh dear, someone didn't follow the link did they.
I did follow it, I skimmed through it because I had other stuff to do. My point still remain, if its running linux (with or without gfx accel) nothing have really changed its just xbmc for linux. I have not followed PS3 stuff to closely (since I don't own a PS3).
At any rate, if its running linux try to build xbmc and see if it works, start producing patches and perhaps interest arises from the devs. Its not like anyone is stopping you or the community, I have stated this MANY times already in this very thread.
EDIT: And with that I will tap out of this thread, everything which could be said on the matter have been said.