LinuXbox Boots

ducker writes: "Finally Xbox is ready for some real fun! Linux can be booted now ... just check out http://www.xbox-scene.com - Linux boots into a network-enabled state, running a web server and telnet, which allows you to log into the box from another machine. It can be booted either from flash memory, or (more easily) from a CD inserted into the machine. (The Xbox still needs to have a modchip fitted to allow it to run unsigned code)."

Comments

How about...

[mindriot]

Now we're actually getting to a point where "a Beowulf cluster of these" might turn out to be a feasible and affordable option :)

Xbox

[MrHat]

(The Xbox still needs to have a modchip fitted to allow it to run unsigned code)

And if Microsoft's political engineering team has their way, you'll need one to run an "untrusted" OS on any machine! The joy!

Re:This is NOT a good thing.

[owke]

I honestly don't think microsoft makes alot of profit on the XBox machine itself.

And if this would be an elaborate scheme to circumvent monopolies, wouldn't they have made it alot easier to hack the thing ?

The money

[wackybrit]

So are they going to get the $200,000 (or whatever it was) that was put up a couple of months ago to the first person to get Linux running on the XBox? (The story was run here on Slashdot, but thanks to Slashdot's incredibly shitty search system, I can't find it)

It'd be nice to see if whoever it was sticks to their word.

Please enlighten a doofus

[ascii]

Though I have a hunch I'm going to regret asking this question I'm doing it anyway. Please don't see this as flamebait or as a provocation - I'd genuinely like to know:

What's the point of the effort? Yes I've seen the 'You're in control of Your box' screenshot, but how many users conceptually think of themselves as restricted in their use of an X-box - or any other gaming console for that matter - apart from the occasional Slashdot'er?

I can hardly see people moaning about not being able to use a desktop environment on what is supposed to be a gaming device. Either these people already have a desktop computer or they don't need one in the first place.

Have I missed the bleeding obvious or what?

Sorry for being a dumb*ss.

Re:Please enlighten a doofus

[__aaaaxm1522]

Not sure what they go for in the US, Linux on XBox means that for $299 Canadian, I can pick up a webserver / NWN server / mail server / whatever server.

That's a good deal. And it'll bug Microsoft, as MS is losing money on each and every XBox being sold, and instead intends to recoup their loss via software license fees.

Re:Please enlighten a doofus

[KalvinB]

From a financial standpoint MS doesn't have much to lose from this as it has next to no mass market appeal. The average Joe buys the XBox and plays the games made for it like he's done with every console since Atari. If he doesn't like the selection of games for one system he looks at other systems.

For programmers, this is potentially a great thing. If you want to get into console development you need a console that allows you to write your own software. The GameBoy (all versions) is an excellent system to code for since everything you need to get started is so readily available without hacks.

Instead of trying to use an entirely different OS (break the system), historically, writing your own games for a console was done by emulating the system as is.

Until they learn how to emulate the XBox so that Linux can run without modifications to the system itself. John Q Public won't care. But if they emulate the XBox, there really isn't a need for Linux since you could just as well write your games directly for the system without the extra layer of Linux.

Multiplatform is neat but introducing extra layers to do it is a giant waste. The whole point of consoles is so you can avoid overhead and do more with less.

Ben

Re:What a mistake

[scorp888]

"I hope that ppl will not buy MS's stuff just because it runs linux."

You mean I should give up my mouse and keyboard, as it's got MS on it?

Also consider the fact that by buying an Xbox and no games, you are probably costing MS about $200..

Re:Summary of functionality

[tshak]

First point. You claim that this allows you "freedom" with your purchased XBox. Consider that if this "freedom" was originally given to you that MS would have to sell the unit at $350 or higher. This is simple business. What you are doing should not be illigal, but at the same time you have to understand that any halfway decent businessperson would have designed the XBox in the way it is.

Second, the nice comment about "free software and ideas" is great but please move out of America or Canada if you are currently subscribing to this impossible reality. In American or Canada (and many other countries, actually) people can not rely on the community or the government to feed their children. If I'm painfully mistaken with your philosophy then please attempt to correct me.

Finally, although I do not agree with this hack job, it was a good hack job - a job well done.

Re:Summary of functionality

[ivan256]

This is simple business.

This is stupid business. Selling at a loss only makes sense if the purchaser can't use the product
without a recuring cost. Nobody is forcing people to keep buying games for the xbox, so it's s stupid business model.

any halfway decent businessperson would have designed the XBox in the way it is.

Perhaps, but not for the reasons you give. Any halfway decent business person would have made profitability a design requirement for their product. If they hadn't insisted on using PC components in their system, then they could have made some money. ex: Sony & Nintendo. It arguably could have been a good idea to sell at a loss to catch up in the market share game, and then adopt a more sensable model, but obviously that was dumb too, since there are 10 times as many PS2s sold then xboxes.

Second, the nice comment about "free software and ideas" is great but please move out of America or Canada if you are currently subscribing to this impossible reality.

That's funny. I make a good living writing open source software, and I have no need for the government to feed me. It doesn't seem that impossible to me. In many situations, Open Source just makes more sense. If you are looking to make money form a product, it is generally a good idea to let the customer USE the product. This is why operating systems, libraries and utilites should be Open Source. Of course that doesn't work if you want to make money by leaching off of 3rd party developers profits, but nobody is forcing you to adopt that business model. It is questionable how well that business model actually works without a monopoly anyway. Most companies can't get away with it, which microsoft is finding out as they bleed money throught their xbox division.

There is more then one way to make money, and change is only bad it you're the one that is left obsolete after the change. Don't buy into the propaganda of established businesses that are afraid of a changing market. If you're not part of their little group, then they're against you too; even if you spout the same crap that they do.

Misguided effort

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems like a totally misguided effort. Not that there is anything wrong with trying to run Linux on an X-Box. But there is zero sense in running Linux on an X-Box to hurt Microsoft -- which is what all the excitement seems to be about.

Think about it. How does any of this hurt Microsoft? Is there any reason to suppose that buying X-Boxes hurts Microsoft? Sure, yes, I know; X-Box is being sold at a loss. But put yourself in their position. What would you prefer? Sale or no sale? And are you sure you are never going to buy a game for your X-Box? Really sure?

But the problem runs deeper. Lets suppose for the sake of argument that Bill Gates is pulling his hair out because a few happy hackers managed to boot Linux on the X-Box. Fat chance, but let's suppose he does. Then what? What has been accomplished except for the fact that Bill Gates' world has become a little bit uglier?

What has been accomplished except that a number of puzzles have been solved (that were already solved mind you, just kept secret)? What can be done now that could not be done before?What do people gain from this on a personal level, except showing off?

I suppose subversion is a creative process. But is it really the race we want to be running?

Occassionally you hear people: "Yay, hooray, I defaced your website, I won!!!". But this competition, it exists only in the minds of the hacker. Because the people running the website care more about making a good website on time and within budget, than about making it difficult to hack. From their perspective, "losing" means that somebody else makes a better website.

The X-Box was defaced. But that does not mean that Microsoft lost anything.

Rather it means that we lost talent and effort on a misguided egotrip. Which is fine by me -- just don't pass it off as "victory"... Thanks.