Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Danpascooch]

Sony did not promise Linux capability and normal use as concurrent features. Nowhere does the advertising referenced in these suits state that the linux-based machines will also be able to use normal gaming functions, nor that they would continue Linux support (or, for that matter, online support) for any given length of time.

The availability of the EULA online prior to purchase means that consumers knew the limitations of their quasi-contractual relationship with the company from the get go. It can't be false advertising if (a) the company is not removing a feature which was advertised, (b) the company did not advertise the feature existing for any definite period of time, or (c) the knowledge of the company's ability to change such features was available prior to purchase.

Sony did promise Linux capability, is was a feature of the machine, and it was a feature not a service because it required no support from Sony going forward, they cannot retroactively pull a service

a) Here are the advertisement examples:
http://playedstation.blogspot.com/p/sony-ps3-promotion.html
b) It was a feature not a service, services exist for definite amounts of time, Features exist for the life of the machine, for example, my comb wasn't advertised to be able to comb my hair for "any definite amount of time" but I don't expect the "hair combing service" on my comb to be discontinued. It's a FEATURE, not a SERVICE
c) The EULA is only viewable after the console is purchased, and it doesn't supersede false advertising laws anyway

 

[Seldon2639]

That online support still required regular upkeep for bandwidth and server costs ect. they weren't REMOVING a feature, they were discontinuing a service (those definitions I gave are broad, for example, some MMO's have a lifetime pay feature, but they are still services)

After all, a company can't expect to keep pouring money into maintaining a service forever, however, Linux required no upkeep, they actually had to do more work to remove it than to let it continue to exist, so that is a FEATURE, because it would continue to be there if the company just let it be.

Can you honestly see no difference at all?

From a common-sense perspective, the difference is clear.

From a legal perspective, the difference is irrelevant. Consider this:

The playstation 2 no longer plays new games. The games are made for a different system, following different rules, which I had to upgrade to. I can still use the PS2 to play older games, but if I want to play the new games, I have to upgrade.

You will still be able to play games on Linux, but will have to upgrade to the current standards in order to use the full functionality of the machine. Hell, think of it this way:

The most recently made games for PCs are going to be made for Windows 7. I cannot sue because I want to use XP and still play the games.

 

[Tarmon'gaidin]

Dude you can say al legal stuf you want but it doesn't matter Sony didn't break the law. They patched there hardware that's all they did. And what you're saying about false advertising is just bull because they are not advertising for it now are they? If someone adevertises in the past doesn't always reflect on the future because they always mention in warrenties of hardware that functions can be changed at will in the future.

 

[shadow skill]

So you hope that companies like Microsoft being able to disable your nic because some people steal identities over the internet becomes a legal precedent?

No, I said I fight the battles worth fighting. This is hardly one of them. Such a move by Microsoft would be a different story, and in my opinion, an entirely different situation altogether. You're speaking of disabling what, 90% of the worlds computers ability to utilize their Network Interface Card? Kind of a melodramatic and silly analogy, don't you think?
The PS3 is neither in 1st, 2nd or 3rd amongst the big 4. PC's in the lead by about 100+ million over the Wii, to say nothing of the 360, nevermind the PS2, or Mac's. Does it being smaller matter too much? Meh...with these kinds of numbers no, not really, the point is this does nothing to currently sold PS3's, and you had the option of not updating until installing, which you were prompted for 3 different times.

Not at all. I haven't applied any sort of magical law of scale here. Microsoft could be within its rights according to the EULA to simply disable nic cards to prevent identity theft. The sheer volume of installed software would be entirely irrelevant. A disabled person doesn't have the right to have access to a public building just because a thousand other disabled people happen to also be in the area.

Well, you're wrong, it was an insanely silly and melodramatic analogy. At which point, I'm stopping the conversation. Have no interest in discussing 'anything' with someone who draws a parallel between a function in Sony's games machine going, bye bye (A non-gaming, non-multimedia function, I might add), and 190+ Million computers having their Nic's disabled. Because, seriously, I have way better things to do. Enjoy.

Nice. Don't actually address the issue, just keep spouting off numbers that don't in any way change the actions involved. We don't apply such stupid logic when dealing with disabled people and access to public buildings among other things, yet we should apply a magical rule about scale when it comes to electronics/software for what amounts to no reason at all. You should take a step back and realize that if the law worked they way you think it should they would be able to ignore all kinds of cases because an overwhelming number of people were not complaining or even aware that anyone had an issue. In the case of Microsoft in my example they would only lose any litigation because the court would be compelled to rule in the plaintiffs' favor because of the sheer number of cases that would be brought rather than the wrongness and/or illegality of their actions.

 

[Danpascooch]

Very interesting, I must say.

I can't think of anything particularly intelligent or relevant to say, but I will say that I support the lawsuit against Sony. The days of laissez-faire corporate actions need to end in the gaming industry, and it will be a very useful victory should they win, as it will show that consumers still have power. Hopefully, aggressive DRM will be next.

Everybody go home, Furburt has spoken.

 

[Danpascooch]

Dude you can say al legal stuf you want but it doesn't matter Sony didn't break the law. They patched there hardware that's all they did. And what you're saying about false advertising is just bull because they are not advertising for it now are they? If someone adevertises in the past doesn't always reflect on the future because they always mention in warrenties of hardware that functions can be changed at will in the future.

it is not mentioned BEFORE you buy the console, and the advertising is only relevant at purchase time, because from that point onward, you cannot choose not to buy the console.

I suggest you take another look at "al legal stuf" I mentioned, because the funny think about "legal stuff" is that IT DETERMINES WHAT IS LEGAL.

 

[Seldon2639]

Sony did promise Linux capability, is was a feature of the machine, and it was a feature not a service because it required no support from Sony going forward, they cannot retroactively pull a service

a) Here are the advertisement examples:
http://playedstation.blogspot.com/p/sony-ps3-promotion.html
b) It was a feature not a service, services exist for definite amounts of time, Features exist for the life of the machine, for example, my comb wasn't advertised to be able to comb my hair for "any definite amount of time" but I don't expect the "hair combing service" on my comb to be discontinued. It's a FEATURE, not a SERVICE
c) The EULA is only viewable after the console is purchased, and it doesn't supersede false advertising laws anyway

A) "by installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3? system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine". Nowhere do they say that Linux systems will be allowed to play games at all. They have deigned to let you, but that doesn't create an obligation to do so. They advertised that it could game, and be used for Linux, not that it would necessarily do both.
B) You make a distinction which doesn't exist in the eyes of the law. Consider the limited lifetime of a game system to begin with. PS2 systems only play games which were made prior to the change to a different system. The same is true here. Even with "game playing" as a feature, it does end as new games become incompatible. You can still use Linux, but are limited to games and media made prior to the change. It's a distinction without a difference.
C) I already made another post about this, but the EULA was accessible online prior to purchase, to read in full. And it would be an affirmative defense that there was no false advertising, since the quasi-contractual relationship would be enumerated and clarified in the EULA. But, even so, the company never advertised the ability to use Linux concurrently with other features. No cited advertisement says that in any way, shape, or form. They are not responsible for the inferences drawn.

 

[Danpascooch]

Sony did promise Linux capability, is was a feature of the machine, and it was a feature not a service because it required no support from Sony going forward, they cannot retroactively pull a service

a) Here are the advertisement examples:
http://playedstation.blogspot.com/p/sony-ps3-promotion.html
b) It was a feature not a service, services exist for definite amounts of time, Features exist for the life of the machine, for example, my comb wasn't advertised to be able to comb my hair for "any definite amount of time" but I don't expect the "hair combing service" on my comb to be discontinued. It's a FEATURE, not a SERVICE
c) The EULA is only viewable after the console is purchased, and it doesn't supersede false advertising laws anyway

A) "by installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3? system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine". Nowhere do they say that Linux systems will be allowed to play games at all. They have deigned to let you, but that doesn't create an obligation to do so. They advertised that it could game, and be used for Linux, not that it would necessarily do both.
B) You make a distinction which doesn't exist in the eyes of the law. Consider the limited lifetime of a game system to begin with. PS2 systems only play games which were made prior to the change to a different system. The same is true here. Even with "game playing" as a feature, it does end as new games become incompatible. You can still use Linux, but are limited to games and media made prior to the change. It's a distinction without a difference.
C) I already made another post about this, but the EULA was accessible online prior to purchase, to read in full. And it would be an affirmative defense that there was no false advertising, since the quasi-contractual relationship would be enumerated and clarified in the EULA. But, even so, the company never advertised the ability to use Linux concurrently with other features. No cited advertisement says that in any way, shape, or form. They are not responsible for the inferences drawn.

A) When something is advertised to have two features, that doesn't mean it's a choice, that means it has two features. It is clearly stated "Can play games" and "can use Linux" you're splitting hairs to preserve your argument, but you're wrong, sorry.

B) It is a distinction in the eyes of the law, the difference is that PS2 didn't lose anything that was promised at purchase, Sony simple changes something moving forward, what they CANNOT do is remove something retroactively.

C) The EULA is irrelevant anyway, because if they didn't commit false advertising they don't need the EULA to back them up, and if they DID commit false advertising than that law overrides the EULA. When a company advertises a list of features for their product, it has to have all of the features listed, these PS3's no longer have all of the features listed, so it is false advertising.

When a company says "this game console has these features:" It doesn't mean "this game console has SOME of these features:" because THAT would be false advertising.

EDIT: Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., PS3 Open Platform, 2006-2010:
"In addition to playing games, watching movies, listening to music, and viewing photos, you can use the PS3? system to run the Linux operating system. By installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3? system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine? (Cell/B.E.)."

Funny, I see the words IN ADDITION not, Either/Or

 

[Danpascooch]

Sony did promise Linux capability, is was a feature of the machine, and it was a feature not a service because it required no support from Sony going forward, they cannot retroactively pull a service

a) Here are the advertisement examples:
http://playedstation.blogspot.com/p/sony-ps3-promotion.html
b) It was a feature not a service, services exist for definite amounts of time, Features exist for the life of the machine, for example, my comb wasn't advertised to be able to comb my hair for "any definite amount of time" but I don't expect the "hair combing service" on my comb to be discontinued. It's a FEATURE, not a SERVICE
c) The EULA is only viewable after the console is purchased, and it doesn't supersede false advertising laws anyway

A) "by installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3? system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine". Nowhere do they say that Linux systems will be allowed to play games at all. They have deigned to let you, but that doesn't create an obligation to do so. They advertised that it could game, and be used for Linux, not that it would necessarily do both.
B) You make a distinction which doesn't exist in the eyes of the law. Consider the limited lifetime of a game system to begin with. PS2 systems only play games which were made prior to the change to a different system. The same is true here. Even with "game playing" as a feature, it does end as new games become incompatible. You can still use Linux, but are limited to games and media made prior to the change. It's a distinction without a difference.
C) I already made another post about this, but the EULA was accessible online prior to purchase, to read in full. And it would be an affirmative defense that there was no false advertising, since the quasi-contractual relationship would be enumerated and clarified in the EULA. But, even so, the company never advertised the ability to use Linux concurrently with other features. No cited advertisement says that in any way, shape, or form. They are not responsible for the inferences drawn.

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., PS3 Open Platform, 2006-2010:
"In addition to playing games, watching movies, listening to music, and viewing photos, you can use the PS3? system to run the Linux operating system. By installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3? system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine? (Cell/B.E.)."

Funny, I see the words IN ADDITION not, Either/Or

 

[SinisterGehe]

Honestly cant you guys just live with it? You need to sue for everything that happens in your little world behind the pond?
I haven't heard ANYONE in Finland whining about this. just /shrug and live with it.

 

[Tarmon'gaidin]

Dude you can say al legal stuf you want but it doesn't matter Sony didn't break the law. They patched there hardware that's all they did. And what you're saying about false advertising is just bull because they are not advertising for it now are they? If someone adevertises in the past doesn't always reflect on the future because they always mention in warrenties of hardware that functions can be changed at will in the future.

it is not mentioned BEFORE you buy the console, and the advertising is only relevant at purchase time, because from that point onward, you cannot choose not to buy the console.

I suggest you take another look at "al legal stuf" I mentioned, because the funny think about "legal stuff" is that IT DETERMINES WHAT IS LEGAL.

Wow slow down with the caps.

What I meant was that what you wrote about the law is all really interresting but has nothing to do with this case because Sony did nothing illegal.
Oh and let me give you this example I just thought of. 6 years ago you bought a VHS/DVD combi player, at the time the add for the machine said will play anything! Now there is Blu-ray wich it cannot play. Are you going to sue the company who made the combi player for false advertising?
My point is things change, companys change there businesplan. Shit happens live with it.

Edit: Wow the poster above me ended with the same phrase as me wich makes it an order. no really it's a law

 

[Seldon2639]

A) When something is advertised to have two features, that doesn't mean it's a choice, that means it has two features. It is clearly stated "Can play games" and "can use Linux" you're splitting hairs to preserve your argument, but you're wrong, sorry.

B) It is a distinction in the eyes of the law, the difference is that PS2 didn't lose anything that was promised at purchase, Sony simple changes something moving forward, what they CANNOT do is remove something retroactively.

C) The EULA is irrelevant anyway, because if they didn't commit false advertising they don't need the EULA to back them up, and if they DID commit false advertising than that law overrides the EULA. When a company advertises a list of features for their product, it has to have all of the features listed, these PS3's no longer have all of the features listed, so it is false advertising.

When a company says "this game console has these features:" It doesn't mean "this game console has SOME of these features:" because THAT would be false advertising.

EDIT: Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., PS3 Open Platform, 2006-2010:
"In addition to playing games, watching movies, listening to music, and viewing photos, you can use the PS3? system to run the Linux operating system. By installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3? system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine? (Cell/B.E.)."

Funny, I see the words IN ADDITION not, Either/Or

A) I really wish you'd talk to a lawyer before making statements like that. In point of fact, that's exactly what it means. Sony was careful to advertise it as being able to use Linux, and being able to play games, but never once said that it could use Linux and play games at the same time. It's sophistry to claim that there's no difference there.
B) Again, it'd be nice if you didn't make categorical statements without benefit of legal backing. The fact that systems on outdated firmware or using a different OS than the new standard won't be able to play games does not retroactively remove a feature. Linux systems can play all games made during its tenure as a usable OS.
C) The PS3 does have all of the features, it has simply removed the ability to use them concurrently. That is a simple difference that renders your argument moot.

Your belief that removing support going forward for Linux OSes, and requiring an update "removes" the ability to use Linux is like saying that because all new Word programs will require Windows 7, I can no longer use Windows XP.

But, even looking at your advertisement, your inference is simply wrong. It is saying that you can use both features (and you can) but it never says that you can play games and use Linux. I'm baffled that you can't distinguish between the concepts that "if I say it can do all these things, it must be able to do them all at once" and "if I say it can do all these things, it must be able to do them in general, but limitations can exist on what the interactions between features are"

To summarize: you can still use Linux.

 

[Danpascooch]

Dude you can say al legal stuf you want but it doesn't matter Sony didn't break the law. They patched there hardware that's all they did. And what you're saying about false advertising is just bull because they are not advertising for it now are they? If someone adevertises in the past doesn't always reflect on the future because they always mention in warrenties of hardware that functions can be changed at will in the future.

it is not mentioned BEFORE you buy the console, and the advertising is only relevant at purchase time, because from that point onward, you cannot choose not to buy the console.

I suggest you take another look at "al legal stuf" I mentioned, because the funny think about "legal stuff" is that IT DETERMINES WHAT IS LEGAL.

Wow slow down with the caps.

What I meant was that what you wrote about the law is all really interresting but has nothing to do with this case because Sony did nothing illegal.
Oh and let me give you this example I just thought of. 6 years ago you bought a VHS/DVD combi player, at the time the add for the machine said will play anything! Now there is Blu-ray wich it cannot play. Are you going to sue the company who made the combi player for false advertising?
My point is things change, companys change there businesplan. Shit happens live with it.

I don't believe you, there's no way it said "play anything".

There were cassettes, music disks, records, lots of things it couldn't play.

Plus, they didn't REMOVE any feature of the device, it was something changed going into the future, not retroactively.

I have a bit of a habit of using capitalized words in place of bold font for emphasis.

 

[Danpascooch]

Honestly cant you guys just live with it? You need to sue for everything that happens in your little world behind the pond?
I haven't heard ANYONE in Finland whining about this. just /shrug and live with it.

You obviously didn't read the full OP.

It sets a dangerous precedent, it's not really about the feature itself, I don't even use the PS3

 

[Tarmon'gaidin]

Dude you can say al legal stuf you want but it doesn't matter Sony didn't break the law. They patched there hardware that's all they did. And what you're saying about false advertising is just bull because they are not advertising for it now are they? If someone adevertises in the past doesn't always reflect on the future because they always mention in warrenties of hardware that functions can be changed at will in the future.

it is not mentioned BEFORE you buy the console, and the advertising is only relevant at purchase time, because from that point onward, you cannot choose not to buy the console.

I suggest you take another look at "al legal stuf" I mentioned, because the funny think about "legal stuff" is that IT DETERMINES WHAT IS LEGAL.

Wow slow down with the caps.

What I meant was that what you wrote about the law is all really interresting but has nothing to do with this case because Sony did nothing illegal.
Oh and let me give you this example I just thought of. 6 years ago you bought a VHS/DVD combi player, at the time the add for the machine said will play anything! Now there is Blu-ray wich it cannot play. Are you going to sue the company who made the combi player for false advertising?
My point is things change, companys change there businesplan. Shit happens live with it.

I don't believe you, there's no way it said "play anything".

There were cassettes, music disks, records, lots of things it couldn't play.

Plus, they didn't REMOVE any feature of the device, it was something changed going into the future, not retroactively.

I have a bit of a habit of using capitalized words in place of bold font for emphasis.

Hmmmmmm..... well I gues your right my example sucked big time. I'm just happy to know that the rest you said is utter bollocks.

 

[Danpascooch]

A) When something is advertised to have two features, that doesn't mean it's a choice, that means it has two features. It is clearly stated "Can play games" and "can use Linux" you're splitting hairs to preserve your argument, but you're wrong, sorry.

B) It is a distinction in the eyes of the law, the difference is that PS2 didn't lose anything that was promised at purchase, Sony simple changes something moving forward, what they CANNOT do is remove something retroactively.

C) The EULA is irrelevant anyway, because if they didn't commit false advertising they don't need the EULA to back them up, and if they DID commit false advertising than that law overrides the EULA. When a company advertises a list of features for their product, it has to have all of the features listed, these PS3's no longer have all of the features listed, so it is false advertising.

When a company says "this game console has these features:" It doesn't mean "this game console has SOME of these features:" because THAT would be false advertising.

EDIT: Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., PS3 Open Platform, 2006-2010:
"In addition to playing games, watching movies, listening to music, and viewing photos, you can use the PS3? system to run the Linux operating system. By installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3? system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine? (Cell/B.E.)."

Funny, I see the words IN ADDITION not, Either/Or

A) I really wish you'd talk to a lawyer before making statements like that. In point of fact, that's exactly what it means. Sony was careful to advertise it as being able to use Linux, and being able to play games, but never once said that it could use Linux and play games at the same time. It's sophistry to claim that there's no difference there.
B) Again, it'd be nice if you didn't make categorical statements without benefit of legal backing. The fact that systems on outdated firmware or using a different OS than the new standard won't be able to play games does not retroactively remove a feature. Linux systems can play all games made during its tenure as a usable OS.
C) The PS3 does have all of the features, it has simply removed the ability to use them concurrently. That is a simple difference that renders your argument moot.

Your belief that removing support going forward for Linux OSes, and requiring an update "removes" the ability to use Linux is like saying that because all new Word programs will require Windows 7, I can no longer use Windows XP.

But, even looking at your advertisement, your inference is simply wrong. It is saying that you can use both features (and you can) but it never says that you can play games and use Linux. I'm baffled that you can't distinguish between the concepts that "if I say it can do all these things, it must be able to do them all at once" and "if I say it can do all these things, it must be able to do them in general, but limitations can exist on what the interactions between features are"

To summarize: you can still use Linux.

A) Look, I don't mean to be a jerk here, but you HAVE to be fucking kidding me. Yes it can't use them simultaneously, but it was advertised to have BOTH of the features:

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., PS3 Open Platform, 2006-2010:
"In addition to playing games, watching movies, listening to music, and viewing photos, you can use the PS3? system to run the Linux operating system. By installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3? system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine? (Cell/B.E.)."

Funny, I see the words IN ADDITION not, Either/Or

B) It had the feature to play all PS3 games, which is an advertised feature of the device, and the ability to use Linux, which is an advertised feature of the device, it does not have both of the features advertised, so it is false advertising, I understand WHY that is, but the simple fact is it doesn't have what it is advertised to have.

C) You CANNOT use both features, I again ask you to look at the excerpt under point A, A product must be able to do the things it is advertised as being able to do, not either/or.

My father is a lawyer, I have taken a number of law classes and have done independent research, I know quite a bit about the law, and it's intricacies.

Your statement that a product does not have to include all of the features that it says it includes together is as stupid as it is wrong (Yes, that is incredibly rude to say, and I apologize, but frankly it's what I mean) When something is advertised to have two features, it is required to have BOTH of them. I don't know how to counter your point here, because it is so absurd that nobody has ever bothered to prove otherwise.

I don't know what law practices you think you're referring too, but it sure as hell isn't US law.

EDIT: BTW, in the OP, I cited some legal code, take a look. I don't need a lawyer to post a thread like this, I did my research.

 

[Danpascooch]

Dude you can say al legal stuf you want but it doesn't matter Sony didn't break the law. They patched there hardware that's all they did. And what you're saying about false advertising is just bull because they are not advertising for it now are they? If someone adevertises in the past doesn't always reflect on the future because they always mention in warrenties of hardware that functions can be changed at will in the future.

it is not mentioned BEFORE you buy the console, and the advertising is only relevant at purchase time, because from that point onward, you cannot choose not to buy the console.

I suggest you take another look at "al legal stuf" I mentioned, because the funny think about "legal stuff" is that IT DETERMINES WHAT IS LEGAL.

Wow slow down with the caps.

What I meant was that what you wrote about the law is all really interresting but has nothing to do with this case because Sony did nothing illegal.
Oh and let me give you this example I just thought of. 6 years ago you bought a VHS/DVD combi player, at the time the add for the machine said will play anything! Now there is Blu-ray wich it cannot play. Are you going to sue the company who made the combi player for false advertising?
My point is things change, companys change there businesplan. Shit happens live with it.

I don't believe you, there's no way it said "play anything".

There were cassettes, music disks, records, lots of things it couldn't play.

Plus, they didn't REMOVE any feature of the device, it was something changed going into the future, not retroactively.

I have a bit of a habit of using capitalized words in place of bold font for emphasis.

Hmmmmmm..... well I gues your right my example sucked big time. I'm just happy to know that the rest you said is utter bollocks.

Care to specify which part is "bollocks" so I can shove that comment back in your face?

 

[Danpascooch]

Still, at the very worst, they could have allowed people to keep Linux but not let them on PSN, but since they need to get the new firmware to play new PS3 games from now on, anyone who decides to keep Linux will no longer be able to play ANY future PS3 game OR Bluray movies, you can't possibly think THAT part was absolutely necessary.

Uh...no, you're wrong here Dana. Prior to updating the firmware, the PS3 prompts you 3 times, telling you that this firmware will remove the OtherOS install feature, AND should you desire to install an OS at some time, to hold off on the update. They actually tell you that (I know, I made sure to read it when I updated), which means, ANYONE with pre-installed Linux or any other OS installed partitions, WILL continue to have access to them. IE, it _just_ removes the "OtherOS" Install option. It does not remove partitions or mess-up currently installed data.

So, there a bit of happy news for you.

That's not true, if you update the firmware, you can no longer use that Linux partition:

For those PS3 users who are currently using the ?Other OS? feature but choose to install the system software update, to avoid data loss they first need to back-up any data stored within the hard drive partition used by the ?Other OS,? as they will not be able to access that data following the update.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/03/28/ps3-firmware-v3-21-update/

Sorry, but you're just wrong