Sony took necessary steps to secure the system and protect its own interests and those of its users.
The system still plays PS3 games, which is it's designed function.
By all possible variations and interpretations of the word, yes I believe that Sony was right to remove the option of OtherOS and close the security…

I'm saying that you don't need to paraphrase my words, particularly since you keep re-interpreting them to suit your own needs. If you need another look, scroll back.

And I swear to god if I hear one more song about goddamn Ol' Billy Riley.

I swear he's like the 18th century version of Bill Brasky.

I made a statement of a very specific situation, not a sweeping generalization that can be applied in all cases with impunity. I won't be the the straw man for your argumentum ad absurdum. The system still plays PS3 games, which is it's designed function. For all but a mathematically insignificant portion of the user…

I don't know how many times I can answer the same question. What metric are you using to measure "right", that you believe I haven't responded to? My personal belief? Answered. The letter of the law? Answered. The terms and conditions agreed to by every user of the system? Answered. Sony took necessary steps to secure…

Again, if you're making this about me personally, I didn't care about Linux. I prefer a secure system rather than one that can run Linux. I could have built another PC if I wanted that.

If you're asking me personally then yes, it is absolutely acceptable. I bought the PS3 to play games, which you couldn't do with a Linux installation anyhow, so it wouldn't matter if you didn't update your firmware if that were your aim. However, requiring the firmware update to continue to access PSN closed the…

Your analogy is flawed. If Honda had a fault with its locks that caused all of their vehicles' security to be ineffective, they would be recalled. Then you would have no car at all.

Per the terms and conditions, yes.

Now that we've established that a rule of law should be respected, perhaps the fact that the OtherOS class action suit was thrown out before even making it to court should indicate that Sony was well within its rights to do so to prevent further security risk. We're not talking about being "cool". That's irrelevant.…

Functionality wasn't removed. You didn't have to update the firmware.

If you leave your door unlocked, in the eyes of the law anyone who robs you is still a criminal. If you aren't wearing a bullet-proof vest and you get shot, it doesn't make your assailant any less guilty of murder. If you are wearing a short skirt, does that mean you're asking for it?

If you updated the firmware, yes. Unfortunately, it was too late at that point.

So what I'm saying is what I'm saying, not the slanted, hyperbolic, and antagonistic interpretation you choose to impose upon it.

If you were so affected, you were certainly free not to update your PS3 firmware and maintain the feature.

I'm not missing your point, your point was irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not it was a mistake to even include the OtherOS option to begin with, it was their right and obligation to secure their system.

It wouldn't have been as secure as removing the exploit entirely.

So is using the exploit.

I believe you just confirmed the security risk I referred to.

Better than to keep a destructive feature to save face.

First of all Microsoft is telling you not to use it, so put away your tar and feathers.