Slashdot Mirror
Linux Xbox Project Seeks Microsoft Signature
silvaran writes "We've had several Microsoft posts, and here's another, from CNet News. The team behind the XBox port of Linux is seeking a digital signature from Microsoft to approve the XBox Linux project. This would allow it to run on an unmodified XBox. According to the article, "Microsoft will be eligible to apply for an award under this scheme if they approve Xbox Linux as a normal Xbox program."
But an interesting, creative idea. The only way I could see MS playing with this is if they thought it would get the courts off their back a bit ("Hey, we approved Linux on our hardware platform!").
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Microsoft spends more than that every day on sweat pads for Ballmer. I'm not holding my breath.
But it seems awful naive to think they'd do such a thing.
Jesus agrees to replace Charlton Heston as president of the NRA...
seriously, given Microsoft's stance toward the GPL and Linux (one's a cancer, one's a threat), in what universe would they possibly agree to digitally sign an alternative OS for their precious XBox?
I am the very model of a modern major general!
Why *wouldn't* Microsoft want this? Think about it - if they allow linux to run on the Xbox, then the arguments about "I have a modchip because I want to run linux" is useless. It gives them more fire power in court when it comes to nailing people with mochips. Yes, it's a competing OS and they don't like it - but Microsoft is about one thing, MONEY. If they can gain one more weapon in the battle against modchips, this would be a huge one to have.
The irony. M$ claiming license fees for GPL software just for the effort of signing the bloody app! That's not simple monopoly abuse, it's plain FEUDALISM!
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
This is another team trying to get a licence to allow linux to run (in the same way a game is signed - only an OS), NOT microsoft trying to get their way into linux. I personally bet the app is turned down.
I very much doubt Microsoft would sign any Linux unless it was planning on getting control of it. If all they can gain is an award they have no real reason to look like they approve of Linux. They may even try to compete by making an Xbox version of Windows.
John Hancock
Yeah because MS wanted to prevent the XBox being hacked to allow anyone to develope software without paying for the SDK kit simply because they weren't being paid some award money for letting it happen.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
since signing Linux means that ANY other application can be run on top of Linux (Think Wine, VMWare and so on..), which nullifies ALL of the controls Microsoft has put in place to make the console 'theirs'.
It is like asking Microsoft to ship X-Boxes with a modchip mounted on it already. Hell will reach absolute zero, and Microsoft will STILL not touch this idea with a ten-mile pole.
Something like, "It'll be a cold day in hell..."
What for?
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
...that the reply letter from Microsoft is going to be ... well, let's just say you could put it in a styrofoam cooler and use it on your fishing trip.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
You are so incredibly stupid that I can't think of anything witty to say right now. You are just that dumb.
It seems Microsoft is trying to strong arm their way into linux.
And just how do you get that out of this article? Go read it before posting.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My understanding was that the signature applied to a particular binary. Thus, a signature would be good only for whatever kernel revision the XBox linux guys submitted for approval. This would rather miss the point of Linux, wouldn't it? All bugs are shallow, but none of them can be fixed without asking Microsoft for approval?
If Microsoft declines, future legal actions could point to their anti-competitive behavior in this area.
If they agree, Xbox will lose more money than it already is losing, because people will be able to buy the handle and get their razors elsewhere.
I like it. Kudos to the Xbox Linux folks for thinking of it, and asking Microsoft publically to please sign their hobbyist project so the kids don't have to install mod chips.
Brilliant!
Edith Keeler Must Die
I read this open letter a couple days ago, and not only is it unlikely (understatement?) that Microsoft would take them seriously, the authors don't even really appear to care whether or not Microsoft agrees with them. The whole letter is interspersed with a number of jabs at Microsoft, which is not something that I would really consider wise if you want Microsoft to take you seriously. As well, they obviously don't understand the console video game market ("... Microsoft's deliberate design choices in terms of restricting the software that may run on an unmodified xbox ...", "Xbox Linux gives choices back to the user which Microsoft denies them ...", "In terms of our being an 'established game publisher' [19], members of our team have written games in the past, and our Xbox Linux distribution runs such fine games as 'Tux vs Clippy' [14], 'Tux Racer' [15], and 'Frozen Bubble' [16]," and so on). In a nutshell, they don't seem to understand that Microsoft has every right to restrict what software runs on their console (see Nintendo, Sony, Sega, et al). There's no "denial of choice" -- if you want a computer, don't buy an XBox. And writing a few amateur games does not give one the title of "established game publisher". Maybe "established game developer", in which case they could try getting into Microsoft's incubator program for developers with a good idea but no publisher, but that's not going to happen for the XBox Linux project.
Microsoft is responsible for making sure that only quality software (err ... let's ignore stuff like Kabuki Warriors, eh? All consoles have to have their share of stinkers ...) is released for their console. Otherwise, we'd be right back in 1984 and the last video game crash. A major contributing factor was Atari's lack of certification for games, and the subsequent glut of pure crap. Do we want to go back to that? I know I don't.
Finally, there are definitely piracy issues here. Right now, while it's not exactly difficult to modify an XBox, it's at least a small barrier of entry to the pirate underground. As well, it makes for a fantastic way to keep cheaters off of XBox Live. How simple would it be to write a small loader for copied games or cheats when you start from an open platform like Linux? If this gets certified (fat chance), the mod chip barrier to entry is no longer there, making it trivial to pirate games or cheat online. You can say what you will about piracy (piracy sucks, imho), but I think everybody will agree that online cheaters are teh suck.
Will a signed XBox app be freely redistributable?
because I got a timeout from /.
hooray for dynamic IPs!
im curious as to, could microsoft legitimately refuse to sell the SDK to someone programming linux or could they allow the SDK (looks as if its not needed since linux runs) and then deny a license? are they allowed to do that?
What if a current developer stepped in and aided with the project and distributed it for a low price (I would prolly pay for it as long as I could download updates or something). if this company also had games, would microsoft refuse them the license and then risk losing their titles or would microsoft grant them a lisense? They could always release the source or a free downloadable version but it wouldnt just plug in and work, givin the xbox's problems with burnt media without a mod-chip.
Bottles.
There is no way that any company is going to sign a third party developed OS without testing it themselves. If they sign it, the first customer to have something go wrong will be on the phone to Microsoft. Why buy the headache?
in which scenario do they lose more money on a stock of existing consoles:
a) do not sell console
b) sell console
they've got a sunk cost and a huge inventory. considering the very small number of people willing to shell out dough to run linux on microsoft hardware, it will only defray their costs. you'd have to generate sales in the hundreds of thousands to even begin registering on their radar.
there was an article linked here recently where someone set up a cluster of xboxes and a cluster of cheap pc's and concluded that cheap walmart pc's were faster and more cost effective than the xboxes. so who's going to buy all these machines to run just linux? poorly?
no, if you buy an xbox, you're almost 100% going to play games, too.
This just in... snowball fights in Hell. News at 11.
Ok, First off I am not a troll I am actually wondering this. What is the point (really) of running linux on the X-Box? Do most people want to use their X-box for something other than X-box games? I mean sure you can run mame on it or something but graphics cards with tv-outs (not to mention tv's that are also monitors) are becoming so prominent that there seems to be no point to running linux on the x-box other than the cool "Hey look what we did to M$'s toy" factor. Now I am not saying that what the hacker's did isn't cool, because I think it was. I am just wondering why we would care if we could do it without a mod chip. It seems to me that more of less the same group of people will do it anyway. Nalanthi
I can't find my
It seems cheeky to me but good luck to them! It's a double-edged sword for MS, it might mean more X-box sales but I think the fact that they might see it as losing face will mean they will say no (despite the kudos they would get from the open source community)
once you got linux on there...can't you run any software basically? It seems like this takes away the whole motivation of having the security in the first place...
Your signatures belong to me.
This is simply wonderful. People will go out and spend a relatively significant amount of money on the MS crap box so that they can stare at the beauty of Linux? How could such a project possibly be useful to anyone with any semblance of a real life? And what self-respecting geek would wish to further support MS hegemony? Instead of futzing around with YALinux, why not code for a productive purpose? Write the next killer app instead!
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Is there any particular reason why it's a good idea to put Linux on an XBox? Aside from the kewl factor, I'd rather just go get a $300 PC and put Linux on that. Far more suitable to tinkering.
Read my keyboard review.
After his talk and demo, he was asked whether Linux would run on the Xbox (I think it was the first question asked). His answer (I'm paraphrasing) was interesting:
His talk hadn't mentioned code signing, so no-one asked him whether they'd sign a linux image. I figure he's right on that last point - it's easy to imagine a signed "aint-it-cool" general purpose linux image being quickly coopted into a wrapper that allowed copied games to be played.
So perhaps the question should be "why would Microsoft _want_ to sign an Xbox linux image?". I doubt "so they can sell more Xboxes" is going to be persuasive enough.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
Console manufacturers generally require each piece of software to meet a set of guidelines in order to be certified. Linux would definitely fail the interface portion, so Microsoft would have to make an exception in order to license it.
How about we delare Linux as a video game. Then MS will have to sign it if we are willing to pay royalty which runs at $10.00 a piece. Then instead of selling it, just distribute it for free! I guess we might lend up paying some minimum royalty, but I don't think that would be too much higher than $100,000.
There is no way MS grants this team a cert. MS wants to make money, and here's the facts:
1) They take a loss on the console in order to make profit on the games console owners would buy.
- they don't want you to buy an xBox for the purpose of running linux and doing whatever (email, server, etc) - they want you to buy xbox games!
2) Allowing another OS on the xbox creates piracy.
- MS needs to sell games to make money. If these guys get their cert. it would be used to play games. Be it TuxRacer or a pirated copy of an actual xBox game. It would happen. The cert could be used to boot, and then load a pirated copy of a game on an unmodified xBox. Bad for business.
3) This is not in the grand scheme of things. Consider the xBox the first stage in a modular sort of computer (this being the gaming module) with DRM and total MS control.
- there's no benefit to award this cert. the hardcore linux nerds of the world aren't going to stop and say "hey, mayeb MS ain't so bad. I'm going to go to the store and buy Windows, Office, etc"
With no benefits at all for MS I see no reason in the world why they would award a cert. here. The reward money is not a benefit, it is a joke to a company the size of MS.
..mork
If you're going to submit a story about a letter written to MS, please, LINK TO THE LETTER
/. editors to fault with this, as CNet didn't link to the letter either.
Can't hold the
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Why do you always have to take something and put linux on it? Is that not what you have a computer for? The XBOX is a video game console, what do you need linux on that for? I agree linux is a cool os, however, not everything in the world needs it installed on it.
If MS rejects this, modchippers in court can say, "see, this is the only way we can run our alternative OS. Even when we asked nicely, they turned us down. Modchipping is the only way we can get what we want." Either way, it seems smart to at least ask.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
If they fight so hard to keep these softwares off of non MS hardware, what makes you think they will allow it on their own boxes?
If MS does sign it...then they've legitimized their largest threat - bad for microsoft
If MS doesn't sign it....clear case of MS using its monopoly in one market to attempt to dominate another = more antitrust lawsuits
Its a no-win situation for MS.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
This is something MS just won't approve - a signed Linux binary would run arbitrary x86 code on an X-Box without mod chips, something MS have been very careful to avoid.
;-)
:-)
On the other hand, as the open letter makes pretty clear, they're just aiming for interoperability, they're not pestering Microsoft for technical information, and just like MS, they'd even prefer to avoid mod chips - so where's the problem?
In the absence of flying pigs, this just makes Microsoft look rather silly, not to mention anticompetitive (again). Yes, true, their business model for the X-Box does rely on being anti-competitive. However, I fail to see how that's the X-Box Linux project's problem.
(he who lives by the legalese, dies by the legalese
What's to stop Microsoft charging a large amount of money to sign it, just to make it unfeasible? that way, they aren't actually saying "no"...
If Microsoft were to sign the Xbox linux project's code could they distribute that signature under a for-profit license or would the GPL protect it to ensure that it could be distributed? It isn't source code. Could this be a way for Microsoft to steal GPL code for its profit? Just a thought.
I don't know why someone would donate mega-$$$ for this to be accomplished. Seems like an egotrip. The money could be put some truly worthy cause. I hear cancer hasn't been cured yet...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I'm sort of embarassed that the linux community is receiving press because of something so dumb.
Microsoft may be last in the console wars, but still, they have a few million users out there. And unline Nintendo and Sony, it cost them quite a lot to get those boxes in living rooms. Their only hope of recouping those losses - that investment - is to license games.
What game developer will pay MS a few dollars per game to write a win32/directX game on the xbox, when they can write linux/SDL for free?
Sure, I guess MS is rich enough to afford such losses, but I can't see any reason at all to go along with this. Least of all for linux, something they consider to be one of their only real competitors.
If the linux xbox folks want to reverse engineer the security key for the xbox, even though it's a technically daunting and probably hopelessly time consuming task, I wish them luck. (Though the DMCA might prove problematic if they do.) But expecing microsoft to just hand over the keys is pretty silly.
If MS signs Linux, it will no longer be necessary to obtain a mod chip to run a pirated game. It will simply require that someone writes a loader for Linux.
Dear Linux,
Drop Dead.
<< signed >>
Microsoft, Inc.
I like the Xbox...
PIII 733, 20 gig hard drive, TV out, and a proven, somewhat stable O/S and a pretty decent 3D platform.
Xbox needs to be sold as a cheap PC. I think PC makers missed the mark for a home computer years ago when they started forcing people to use a VGA monitor.
Anyone old enough to remember the 8-bit era of home computing would know that all these systems just required power. You connected it to your TV and started using it. No need to buy a special sound card, or 3d accelerator, for that matter you didn't need a special VGA monitor to use your computer. Because of this for the time, they were relatively cheap, enjoyed enormous success and still have a small, but loyal following today.
Do I really care about dot pitch when i'm reading an e-mail, or browsing the web, or watching a movie? Hmm, nah.. The only time I REALLY REALLY need a VGA monitor is when I have to read config files for hours on end, and with the multiple windows I have open I need all the resolution I can get for the multiple windows I have open.
I think MS may eventually take the home computer market with the Xbox. Why not? They're already in position to do it. Most of the NNGWX (non-nerd-gamer-with-xbox) I know think Xbox live is the most fantastic shit since sliced bread, despite having played multiplayer PC games for a few years.
I'm not trying to troll the public, I'm just trying to take a guess here at what MS's intentions are with the Xbox. I think they will go for this simply because they are trying to become the next apple, with MS balls.
Just ask - what makes MS money on XBox? Selling more XBoxes? No. Selling GAMES! Will Linux-on-XBox sell more XBox games? No.
The letter seems more like a platform to reiterate common gripes Linux users have with the MS empire. I can't see how anyone who was part of constructing that letter thought it would do any good in the way it was written. It's as if it was written by a French diplomat.
The letter alleges that an email alias at xbox.com might not be staffed due to the "dumping" of xbox's and the poor fiscal performance of the xbox "division".
Also, the letter places restrictions on MS if MS sees fit to given them a key. The mountain in this case, is told which path it should crawl on to get to Mohammad.
It's somewhat comical, and sad at the same time. Either way, useless. If MS _DID_ give them a key, it would be for a specific build/version/signature only. And that just won't make these guys happy.
I recommend the authors of this letter read up a little on basic diplomacy. My recommendations:
"Save face" concept is a way to solve conflicts and avoid embarrassing or discomforting the parties involved.
How to Win Friends and Influence People
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
X-Box Linux: Can we run linux on the x-box?
Slashdot Community:You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes...blah,blah,blah
Microsoft::Um, okay
so when the decsion comes down(one way or the other) I know who to point at and say, "I told you so"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
is Microsoft going to license linux on the xbox. I mean what real benefit does it have for them? The OSC isn't going to pony up money for Microsoft's testing process (which I think is neccessary to get certified for the logo), nor is it in Microsoft's best interest to want to support a rival o/s on one of it's hardware products. There might even be some liability if someone tries to install linux and burns their xbox. (somehow)
www.samuraidreams.com - My Blog
www.samuraifiles.com - Get Some Videos Here
Clearly they are going about this the wrong way.. What they need to do is come up with a killer game, which just happens to run on linux. Then with some sneaky controller combo it drops you into a linux shell. That way it actually stands a chance of getting past Microsoft QA/review and burnt onto cd's and widely distributed before the "easter egg" is leaked and a signed linux is out in the wild.. Think about it..
"Here is a $200 computer that we built for $350."
I'd like to see that happen...
Okay, let us say that Microsoft does sign a version of Linux that'll run on the XBox. Great. What does that get us? Not very much. One version of Linux will run on the XBox. No other version would, unless that version too was signed. That's a heck of a waste of money in my opinion, though it might be worth it for a guarantee that they'd sign all the kernels.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
There is no way MS is going to endorse running Linux on the XBox gaming platform... They lose money on every console sold, so the way they make money is to sell games...
That being said, the XBox is a pretty cheap PC, and if MS would enable the XBox to run Linux w/o modding it, they would be helping to shoot themselves in the foot...
Even disregarding the money issue (MS losing money per XBox, not gaining $100k for helping to get Linux running on XBox) MS is not going to support running an OS on XBox... It's not like you can run WinXP on your XBox either. Why? Because they want you to buy an entire PC, and pay for a windows license...
Now we can replace that expression with 'When Microsoft provides a digital signiture for the Xbox Linux project'.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't
..you put a a Ferrari motor onto a skateboard do you think that the skateboad manufacturer would say 'Hey yeah lets do it'? No, these companies have responsibilities, someone might get hurt, and they won't want any third party claims.
Whatever it is, I'd keep the damn stinking apes away from it.
Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape
Besides the obvious "because it can be done" answer, is there any reason why someone wants to port Linux to the XBox or any other video game system for that matter? Lets be real, I buy video game systems so I can veg out from the whole dealing with computers to play games - why would I want to make my video game system into a computer.
Everything does too need Linux! My comode wouldn't back up so often if it wasn't subjected to so much bloated...
Um, wait.. Wrong bloat. Sorry.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Here's why it's not going to happen: Microsoft is adamant that the XBox is NOT a PC. All of their PR so far has tried to distance the XBox as far away as possible from PCs. It runs Windows, but you never see the traditional Windows look or any reference to Windows or DirectX anywhere. Microsoft keeps their logo small and unobtrusive so people don't associate the XBox primarily with Microsoft and Windows. They even changed the shape of the USB ports on the front so that you can't plug in PC peripherals (including mice and keyboards), and they're not selling adapters. Microsoft wants everyone to think of the XBox only as a gaming device, never as a general-purpose computer. Signing Linux would run contrary to all their insisting that the XBox is not a PC. If you somehow ported Windows XP to the XBox, they wouldn't sign that either. The fact that Linux is GPL just makes that much less likely.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Now I can can play Super Contra on zsnes using a gratuitously large and complicated controller.
While this sounds like a great idea, and it can't hurt to ask, M$ will obviously shut this idea down faster than one can say "Lindows". Let's back up a step and ask ourselves, "Why must games be signed by M$ in order to run on the Xbox?" The obvious answer to that is, this practice allows them to maintain a monopoly on the software that can be marketted for the Xbox. If a competing game/(OS) developer wants to make software to run on their (M$'s) platform, they either have to pay rediculous license/SDK fees, or sell the game for a rediculously low price to one of M$'s affiliated game studios. Since the second option is obviously out of the question (one cannot sell GPL'd code) and the first is even more unlikely (the open-source community paying M$ royalties?), I can't see this ever happening, no matter how idealistic the concept.
Does my bum look big in this?
Please indulge me while I make an observation....
I understand why XBox Linux Project wants a digital signature from Microsoft.
I understand why people use hacked chips to run Linux on their XBox.
I even understand why Microsoft won't do it.
What I don't understand is why so many people are jumping on this "lets run Linux on xbox!" bandwagon. Be honest, 99% of you would not go buy the box just to run linux on it (the other 1% fall under the catagories of fools or too damn rich). You aren't gonna go sell your P2, and change to microsoft products.
There is no practical purpose to run Linux on the Xbox, but its fun if you have to either hack your way into it, or buy and install the mod chips. Granted. But if its just a matter of buying "Linux for Xbox", then what the HELL is the attraction? The walmart $200 pc is a better option if you just want a cheap linux box. If you don't feel like your screwing Bill G, its just not worth the effort. Admit it.
Once you take the "I'm sticking it to microsoft" out of it, there really is no purpose to run it, even for acedemic purposes. If they get the signature, fine, but the folks in here who are trying to explain WHY they would want it to run Linux are fooling themselves, but not me.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
If they can lock out other software like this, they will surely use this technique, probably via Palladium, to lock out other operating systems from the PC market. A future version of MS Windows will only run on specially protected hardware, and that hardware will only run software that is digitally signed by Microsoft. You will need a modchip to run Linux on your PC, and MS will use the DMCA to have the modchips declared illegal.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about this for a scenario:
A small game company releases a game for the XBox...assuming it can actually get published and signed, which is not that big of an assumption.
They could then build into the program an entry point for new code to be run...like inserting a linux cd and booting that.
The bonus for the company would be lots of people buying their game, if only to use it to boot other unsigned code.
Only problem I could forsee is if it was written somewhere in the contract with Microsoft that this sort of thing is NOT ALLOWED.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the Xbox isn't just a video game machine- it's MS's first step at having complete control over the hardware, something that they've envied about Apple for a long time. the Xbox may be just a video game console right now, but by version 3 (which seems to be when MS gets things right) my money says it'll be a complete OS where they have complete DRM and license all the software. It makes sense- video game manufacturers have had complete monopolies on hardware and software development all this time. why wouldn't MS want that? and why in hell would they hand the keys to that over to Linux?
For those of you who don't follow the XBox modchip underground, the onboard TSOP can be flashed with a modchip's bios. The reason you need a modchip is because without a modchip, the XBox refuses to run an unsigned executable. With a signed version of Linux, you have an open system and can easily flash the onboard TSOP with a version that ignores digital signatures the same way a modchip would. Hence, an MS-signed Linux on a disc is effectively a modchip. Would it ever make sense for MS to do this? Absolutely not.
And all the crying about their monopoly is silly. Hardware vendors have restricted software that can run on their hardware for eons. It's largely for quality control reasons, but Nintendo and Sony have long killed projects after seeing distasteful material. "Thrill Kill", anyone? It's the way the industry works. Anything else and you'd see a total collapse of the console industry--not merely Microsoft's interest in it.
JH
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
... does that make it a "toy" operating system?
I see how this could actualy benifit microsoft in some ways. It would certainly make them look better to the general public. But otherwise i can't think of any good reasons for them wanting to go through with this. Let's hope for the best.
The Blade Itself
Buy a PS2 or Gamecube instead.
They make no money on X-box games
Yet more X-boxes lie unsold in warehouses. They don't even make $200 on them, never mind the $400 they cost to make.
Less developers are convinced that the X-box is a success, which means less games developed for the X-box, which means less money once again.
MS are selling X-boxes below cost to _gain market share_. It is an illegal practice (at least, it is in international trade). Getting _market share_ is what they want, and is the key to how much money they make. To deny them money, deny them market share. The best way to do this is buy one of their competitor's machines, which increases the games market _at the expense of MS_.
Buying an X-box gives MS $200 of your money, regardless of what you do with it, and they use it as propoganda with developers. Don't let them win.
Does my bum look big in this?
Don't insult your audience.
Seriously, this letter is so poor that even if I was a top Microsoft VP and I wanted the XBox to run Linux, I'd be tempted to ignore these guys.
int getRunning() { // Done!
// Get a file from the hard drive to prove we're legit
// pass controll to it
return;
}
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
..would you run Linux on your X-Box? And if so, why?
I thought the snow storm only covered east coast.. Is it snowing in hell as well?
Microsoft will never approve Linux for the X-Box; here's why:
1) It would be a tremondours PR blow to actively give Linux inroads to their system
2) As everyone says, they make money on the games and lose money on the consoles
3) If they approve an open-source OS, then they will also lose money on games because developers will circumvent the licensing process and develop games in Linux
A MythTV (or other media center type app) is something I'd love to be able to use my X-Box as. A wallmart PC may be a better option for real work, but when I plan to use a TV as a monitor in the first place, I'll get much better quality out of something designed to interface to a TV than the built in graphics in a Walmart PC if it supports TV out or any decently priced video card I'd put in that Walmart PC. Or I could pay $100 or so for a scan converter, which would be another little box, which is less simple and elegant. Plus built in HDTV out support. Glaggghhhhh.... (Homer drool sound)
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Heh, I can imagine Clippy coming up while you're playing Halo saying "Look behind you!" dressed up like a soldier with facepaint and an m16. -phly
Linux is a full OS and quite capable of running anything without asking for permission once booted.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
With the ever evolving linux kernel, won't getting it signed be sorta pointless? Games usually have one release, and Microsoft signs the binaries. I don't think MS would agree to sign a new kernel every month. Say some one wanted to hack the kernel a bit, well, their new kernel wouldn't boot. This would kill development of the kernel. MS policies and GPL style development do not mix.
Cthulhu Saves.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Country/Western artist Johnny Paycheck was found dead in his Nashville home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
See, YOU pay Microsoft FIRST, THEN they give you the siggy. That's the way business is done in the console world. Hope you've got $500,000 or however much it costs.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
The Xbox sits in your living room, imagine being able to put mp3s, divx, and play dvd, and on top of that, being able to stream stuff from other pc's on your network. That's about all you could do, since the hardware is all proprietary. But I think that's enough.
On top of this, if MS does sign this, then you won't have to mod your xbox just to run media files. Once you've modded your box it gets to the point where you decide to just get pirated stuff since it's already modded.
By keeping it unmodded, you'd be able to still run games and get on xbox live. it seems to me that people would be more likely to buy non-pirated games if linux didn't require getting a mod. This should still allow people to buy legal games -- the main argument for why MS won't allow such signatures.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The $200,000 "prize" is actually an attempted bribe to induce some random Microsoft employee to smuggle out the 2048 bits of data needed to sign an arbitrary program (Linux, or bootleg games).
The issue in this case though, is that the Linux XBox team can't crack the digital signature that Microsoft uses (AFAIK), so they have to ask Microsoft, or waste time in trying to crack it.
Yes. AFAIK too, MS use the same standards of signing as PGP does, so if the Linux teams crack their signing key in any reasonable amount of time, I'd be really fucking worried for the integrity of digital signatures as a whole. If we could crack MS's private key quickly, we could crack anyone's private key quickly.
By the time the Dreamcast was hacked, it was already dying
That's true, but then the DC did have a really short lifespan compared to other consoles. I remember using an unofficial Megadrive/Genesis dev-kit, written by cracking groups, on the Amiga in 1990, and the Megadrive was still profitable until I think about 1993-1994 when trailing-off interest and the new messiah (the Sony Playstation) killed it.
were it not for the Mill CD backdoor in the BootROM, the Dreamcast most likely would not have been hacked
Well, I think we have to thank Sony for this. Prior to the Playstation, console owners were contented not to get magazine demos like the computer owners. However, once Sony moved to CD-based media, console owners now expect game demos on magazines. While Sega made it difficult to easily pirate GD-ROMs because of the custom pressing hardware, it also made demo CDs financially unviable. So they added the CD backdoor to allow for coverdisc and trade-show demos. This is why Sony and Microsoft use media that can be duplicated with conventional CD/DVD mastering facilities, although obviously not with consumer CD-R/DVD-R drives.
some titles that had checks for whether or not they were on real discs or not
Most discs do, for virtually all games platforms. They just get cracked. If the DC games used more than the capacity of a regular CD-R, the crackers added disc-changing code. The same happened with Amiga games that used more sectors than normal copyable disks, and their game data was already fully compressed -- they were split onto two normal disks by crackers.
Actually, my favourite anti-piracy code is a tie between the anti-Action Replay code (the Amiga has a Time-Of-Day counter which continually ticks away and can't be set by software to anything other than zero -- just run normal timer interrupts and check the TOD has elapsed by the amount you expect it to, then your software can't be successfully "unfrozen" from an Action Replay "backup" (memory and register dump)) and the Rob Northen Copylock (self-decrypting-reencrypting trace mode code that depended on both register contents and the status register for correct decryption, and it read a protected track which had sectors that were fractionally longer than the sectors the Amiga/Atari could write by itself -- timing tolerance margins in the disk-reading hardware allowed for them, but they physically took longer to read, and that could be measured with the high-resolution timers).
Sure, but only if they're not bankrupted in court by a company with bigger pockets than them tying things up (i.e. Microsoft) while trying to prove it.
Yes. Thanks for the precedent, Sony.
Does my bum look big in this?
I have a crisp ten dollar bill that says the reply letter contains the words "and the horse you rode in on," verbatim.
My
Limekiller
In addition, Linux is not exactly a mainstream solution. Geeks who know how to use it will likely buy a lot of games or at the very least promote the hardware at no charge to MS.
You can think of an esoteric case of someone running a beowulf cluster of Xboxes and costing Microsoft $$$. But this threat is not likely to materialize because it would still cost money and companies with money to burn will not run their enterprise servers on a home entertainment system.
All considered, supporting Linux will promote sales of both hardware and games. MS can even charge money for a boot disk with signature without violating GPL on Linux itself.
"Its irony on a base level, but I like it"
Well, first this would allow XBox to run all sorts of "unsigned" software through linux, and remove all sorts of incentive for people to buy more games, as they could run a lot of linux games, or even use WineX and run games for the windows platform on their XBox, which could open Piracy to their platform in a unhacked state.
This would also, obviously, legitimize Linux and I think they would be far more likely to get a run from CD version of 98 or XP Home before this happened, but doing so would make it a PC, and people would no longer have to go to MS for games, thus they couldn't recoop from their loss on the console. So in a nutshell, it ain't happenin'.
All you have to do is write a game, have Microsoft approve it, and sign it. Then watch your sales shoot through the roof as people discover that your "game" can be used as a "bootloader" when you hold down the A, B, X, and Up buttons on your controller.
How many bits are we talking about here? Any chance that you could create a signature in a reasonable time by exhausting the signature space?
Dog is my co-pilot.
What would stop someone from making a legitamate game that contained hidden bootstrap code that would load Linux up from the disk drive?
You could make some game like Tux Racer for the X box and get the game signed by microsoft and then via some hidden and obfiscated bootstrap mechanisum load up linux from the drive.
Hi!
I'm new to Slashdot. It looks like a really great place for conversation and discussion. I have a few questions to ask about Slashdot that weren't covered in the FAQ. I hope someone is kind enough to answer:
1) I haven't had a girlfriend in a looong... well, okay. I've never had a girlfriend. Where can I get one?
2) I've noticed a peculiar aroma emanating from my body at times, especially around the under arms area. Why is this?
3) One night I ran out of Mountain Dew and I collapsed on top of my keyboard. When I woke a few days later, ants were crawling all over me and eating the Doritos crumbs from my crotch. They are still there. What do I do?
4) My "Got Root?" shirt is turning yellow. It's a nice color, but where can I get nice, white one?
Thanks everyone in advance for answering!! I look forward to hearing from you!!!
Peter
Maybe Microsoft would agree to sign a TCPA version of Linux. Then the Linux kernel could be designed so that it couldn't re-flash the ROMs or whatever it is that Microsoft is worried about.
Between the Gamecube and GameBoys Nintendo has pretty much full reign of the entire market. Microsoft has a very, very small slice. And yes, the Gameboy market is considered a console to NPD and other market share reporting industry companies.
You read correct, for every Microsoft training seminar from various outlets that run over $600 for a few days training, they are throwing in free X-Boxs. Microsoft has been artificially inflating their market shares by doing all these underhanded techniques. It's really going to a new level. Developers will be the ones complaining soon enough when they find out that no one is buying their games because that market share that Microsoft is claiming are mostly people who never wanted an X-Box to begin with.
If it were only about selling Xboxes, they would do it for sure.
But, do they really want a -cheap- machine that can run Linux and not Windows ?
So, if they do allow it, Windows for Xbox will have to be next. And...then... What about the PC market?
?
Presumably linux has lower system overheads.
Its an oggmux player.
It's cheaper than m$'s DVD playback enabler.
It enables hobby game developers to release stuff that works to normal systems (ps2 linux does not acomplish this).There is no hardware guesswork with installing linux consoles. The reason not to sign linux is purely financial. Commercial developers might be able to release linux games. (They won't (unfortunatly) because that would brake backwards compatability with current xbox titles. (insert joke about transgaming and warez)
If they sign it they take a lot of pressure of their keys...
There is absolutely no way that M$ can endorse Linux on their own hardware platform. It would be equivalent to having protests that actually accomplished something. Look at it this way: if protests worked, it would encourage more protests, right? ...because they would then become a useful tool. By endorsing Linux in away way/shape/form, M$ acknowledges Linux as an alternative to whatever is running on the Xbox, and Microsoft cannot do that and still save face.
The ideal scenario is with some free demo disc that connects over the network to what it thinks is a game server. Your handy substitute server smashes the stack with its bootloader, and then you're off and running.
You could get that Indrema you always wanted.
word.
Microsoft makes money licensing the right to produce games for the X-Box. Effectively when you pay Microsoft to let you release a game you're only paying for them to sign your game. They X-Box itself loses money. If Linux is available for free, some game developers will write X-Box games that target the freely available Linux, depriving Microsoft of licensing revenue. This is a losing option for Microsoft.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
"Schea, riiight, and monkeys might fly out of Madonnas butt"
It's a waste of a post, but what the hell, far fetched idea. That's like asking Moscow if they will house a US army base in the middle of the cold war.
Jesus.
YLFI
Obviously, the XBOX will be the place you have Microsoft's Media Center! It's as clear as daylight... Kick out HP as well while they're at it.
Yes, he also did the song Fishheads.
A comment earlier implied that opening up the s/w architecture for this box (by unlocking the signature mechanism) would ultimately end the console model for gaming systems.
I remember (vaguely) many years ago, a game console (Colecovision?) that also had an expansion unit (keyboard, cassette tape perhaps, printer capability), so you were (if I remember right - someone feel free to add detail) buying a game system that expanded to be a basic computing system. Yes, we are talking in the pre-Windows days...
MS Seems to be doing almost the opposite. They are selling a PC as a game, but restricting its operation as a freely working PC.
A number of people questioned why anyone would actually want to use one of these boxes, especially in comparison to the Walmart PCs. I actually like the form-factor (especially to use in home entertainment centers, along with TVs and stereo gear), and am seriously considering purchasing one or more X-boxes specifically for running Linux. I think its a neat little box, and if I don't really want the walmart box, this is a nice alternative.
Also, there are people who will already have an Xbox (especially kids), who may not have the money to spend on a PC immediately, who might like to load up Linux. I read about the X-box linux project on a number of sites, and the most recent 2600 magazine edition had an article on it. One article that I saw also indicated that with some care, you can Install Linux, and still play X-box games. What's more, if you are constrained for space, you have a small-platform PC, and can still use your TV. No need for a more costly (small-footprint) PC, plus a monitor ($$), plus the space lost for the new monitor.
Now, if you get a new xbox for $200, and the mod-chip for maybe $50, you are paying a 25% toll to defeat that signature scheme. Plus the extra few steps required (cutting and soldering cable wires for the mouse and keyboard), for example, are pretty basic, but just enough to deter many who might otherwise use this project.
I am curious about how far memory or disk storage can be expanced.
I think that X-box linux is a very nice hack, and I would like to see it seen not just as a novelty, but as a means towards PC appliances, and towards low-cost computing).
Sam Nitzberg
http://www.iamsam.com
The anti-trust issues are most telling. Whenever a distribution monopoly uses technical means to prohibit competitors from supplying products to the market on a descrimitory basis, we have a clear Sherman act case. I am curious if this is being pushed as a poison pill act, simply to see if they will fail to act in good faith for a private suit.
This open letter is nothing but a troll. A publicity stunt. If it were sincere, they would not take every opportunity to demean and insult Microsoft.
As you know, the Xbox is a normal PC that has been deliberately designed by yourselves so that as sold, it can only execute programs which Microsoft has approved.
a second deliberate monopoly created by Microsoft even as they were being found guilty of creating an illegal monopoly in Operating Systems software
Xbox Linux gives choices back to the user which Microsoft denies them
you are making a big loss in this division [18] and so perhaps cannot afford to staff this email address properly
Then they have the nerve to reject portions of the NDA, snub the offered documentation and libaries and request a lower fee for the signature.
XBox Linux may be a worthwhile project and it would be great to have it signed, but this stunt is just pathetic.
No, I did not read the f***ing article!
The "why run linux on an xbox" question constantly comes up in every ./ xbox story. Beige box computers are cheap. Why futz around with an xbox to run linux, then?
Here are my reasons:
1. Wife probably wouldn't mind an xbox, whereas she'd mind another computer.
2. Xbox has a nice form factor for my living room, where I would like to set up a media PC anyway.
3. Linux on the xbox will allow me to hook into my home LAN to pull MP3s from my Netfinity server and run same MP3s through a player on a tv-based interface. My tv audio runs through the stereo, so this would essentially allow me to reach all of my music without having to touch another CD. The CD storage cabinet can go in the attic.
4. I can run a web browser on my tv (at decent resolution once the HDTV thing settles in).
5. PVR.
6. MAME.
7. I can hack on websites and scripts in the family room with my wife and kid instead of doing so in office. These are "fun" items, not work, so concentration isn't too big a thing -- plus the kid might learn something.
8. I can finally play Obi Wan and Jedi Knight 2.
9. I'll have another DVD player.
10. It'll just be fun to be able to do it.
Is the xbox an ideal platform for all of these things in a perfect world? No, but it is cheap and reasonably adaptable to all of the above-listed tasks. I could buy a micro atx mobo and case and assemble something, but the xbox would be cheaper and probably better looking and more solid than anything I could muster.
I have no real religious zealotry about MS. I don't care for expensive bloatware and I like to have a little more control over my stuff than MS usually permits. I understand that some people like MS stuff and I understand (and laugh at them myself) all the MS jokes you want to send my way.
The xbox could simply be a nifty little gadget. Like MS or not, the applications I can think of for this gadget intrigue me enough to overcome my marginally anti-ms personal bias. A tool is a tool. Besides, and xbox running linux would be greatly satisfying to me from a spriritual perspective.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
that's why it was invalid.
Microsoft is a company #1, not some organization out to make the world a better place. Putting their seal of approval on a hacked Xbox would not help their business out at all, seeing as it supports an operating system that is not their own.
Also, seeing as the Xbox is not making them lots of money, making it popular for use other than profit-generating games is kind of pointless. Unless of course they are out to improve society. Ha!
Rillopy
There is not a chance M$ will sign it, even if they didn't have a problem with Linux. Assuming the signature just checks the kernel or bootloader or even the init application, this would allow anyone to simply write their games to run under bootloader/Linux/init and bypass having to pay M$ to sign their game. If the signature was required for the entire CD/DVD, then the XBox Linux would be obsolete so fast it wouldn't be worth them asking M$ to sign it.
Luke-Jr
Notice how everything computer related these days has the "Designed for Microsoft Windows" on it. What if one of those logos accidentally made its way on to the box?
MSFT doesn't give it to them, then MSFT is trying to maintain its monopoly in OS software.
MSFT does give it to them, then MSFT is dumping PCs, arguably to maintain their OS monopoly and/or to attempt to shut out Dell, Gateway, etc. and become a PC hardware monopolist too.
The "almost" part is that if I'm MSFT, I process the request and keep it hung up in "channels" until the question is moot. The console lifecycle is short enough so that this should be no problem for them.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Microsoft Linux.NET X-Box edition.
Honestly does Microsoft really have to test an application before the sign it? I wouldn't mind this being part of their future court problems. Allow Linux for X-Box to be sold and allow the proceeds to be given to the FSF or EFF. Do any of you remember Sony's big to-do about the PS/2 is a computer not a game system so they could get around some tarrifs? How can microsoft say that it is not a computer?
Although Microsoft wouldn't do this for a number of reasons, the best one is that by signing this code, you can flash the BIOS on the Xbox without a modchip, and without ever needing a modchip. All you have to do is solder two points that are right next to each other together, or put a wire between them, and you can run the software to flash the BIOS. People have been trying to crash games to run code like this for months, you think Microsoft is just going to openly sign the code that will enable flashing of the BIOS? It's about as likely as releasing the key to sign it with!
I'm pretty sure you could make a PC quieter than the Xbox.
I often play DVDs on the Xbox (since the PS2's DVD player has issues), and I sometimes find myself slightly annoyed because I can hear the whining of the fan from the Xbox.
Quite frankly, this is why companies really wanted the DMCA - to prevent reverse engineering when that was the only way to break a monopoly.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
If people had a signed XBOX linux, or any alternative OS then people could develop games based on that OS, completly eliminating the need for Microsoft's signatures.
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
Some believe that Microsoft's products may exhibit somewhat unreliable performance from time to time. (Hey, it's only their opinion.)
Help us serve you better. Rate this post by answering the following poll question:
This post was:
O helpful
O interesting
O sucked
Print and mail your response to the RIAA, and remember to include the post tracking number: 2985-18482834-3348-289342895-98663-1825235-0544035 -32842348234-8483-B.
Oh, well. Time for yet another Negra Modelo. This will be my fifth beer in the last half hour, and I fully intend to get more drunker than usual tonight.
Sincerely,
The Negra Modelo Troll
Agreed. Anyone reading the grandparent has been made a small ammount more stupid because of it.
Have you seen that Bruce Lee game?!
I'm sure many of you have probably heard of SYSLINUX? All we need is a very, very tiny Linux distro, signed by Microsoft, to boot up the X-Box. After that, we could have an 'Insert Disc' screen. Any software that could run using the Linux Kernel could then be run, as the security has been bypassed.
Now, why would Microsoft want to sign a piece of software that would allow WINE, ZSNES, or even ePSXe to run?
You guys simply don't advertise Microsoft's products enough.
It will come with a fancy cable to hook up to rgb or something and a mouse or something stupid and it will come with a disc with this software on it. If it ever happens microsoft will just own it, but I really don't see this happening unless it was supercrippled to make linux seem like a toy to newbies.
Because, sometimes they just have to touch the stove.
-YY1
I'd love it if Microsoft allowed someone to print copies of Linux that would run on the xbox(unmodded). I'd use it.
I don't think Microsoft would even release WinCE for the XBOX, much less Linux. They want every user to have a great experience with the product. If the user can run arbitrary code on an os on the xbox just by downloading it(which is possible with Linux running on the box), the user might download code that corrupts his save games or messes up the hard drive.
As it stands, Microsoft has a ton of control over the experience the user has with XBOX software (they QA every release), but that would not be possible with Linux and downloadable apps.
(by the way, wouldn't someone have to print Linux on a dual layer dvd once the xbe was signed?)
They won't do it because the digital signature would undoubtadely be applied to the bootloader. A bootloader could in theory load an appropriate second stage loader to boot anything you wanted - windows, linux, copied game off of the hard drive, whatever.
... you're stuck with one kernel.
I suppose they could have the signature verify both the bootloader and the kernel, but then
~GoRK
The XBox normal operating system is a very much stripped down version of Windows NT, running in supervisor mode. There is no user mode, applications are running in supervisor mode as well. Any binary running on an XBOX can modify the running system and can overwrite anything on disk.
The XBOX kernel executes only XBE files. These are XBOX binary files, they are self-contained. They cannot load DLLs or other extensions. Also, the XBOX kernel does not provide even I/O subroutines for controllers or other gaming hardware, the XBE has to bring even these itself in order to play.
In order to run, XBE files must be signed. Microsoft is the holder of the private key for the XBOX, so in order for your XBE to run, Microsoft must sign the binaries. As of now, they require the source of your application, compile it and sign the resulting binary. So it is not as easy as giving an arbitrary binary to Microsoft and have them sign it in order to subvert the XBOX.
If you choose not to ask Microsoft up front for signing a chain loader to load a Linux kernel, you'll have to have a genuine game, and have Microsoft sign this. This game must be buggy, and there must be some kind of circumstance where this game turns into something different that can load arbitrary code and execute it.
The most simple way to have this is to modify the USB controller routines for a game that provides custom controllers such as a steering wheel or something similar. The USB drivers for such a game must have a bug where they accept arbitrarily long USB blocks from the bus, and by accident jump to the head or end of that buffer. Thus, you can build custom USB devices that send about 1 K long USB blocks containing a chain loader and then execute this.
Your code would not be part of the code Microsoft signs, the flaw would be very innocent in your code, and the actual chain loader would not be signed and it thus changeable.
Currently, there is no key recovation scheme for code that I know of. Thus, MS cannot easily revoke the signature for that buggy game. Also, the maker of the game cannot be directly blamed for making some kind of circumvention device, as there is no actual circumvention in that code, just a flaw.
MS would most likely build the next generation of XBOXes to contain an updateable list of revoked keys, though, and probably use XBOX online gaming to distribute key revocation lists.
If MS is illegally restricting competition, then so have all post-1985 video game companies. the entire industry is predicated on these sorts of limitations. One could then also argue that Apple has an illegal monopoly on Macs, since they all have Mac OS on them (not that it would matter since they're only %10 of the market). Not only that but this practice has been in place since Nintendo laid down the ground work for modern video game development. If this did somehow translate into an admission of a software monopoly, then Sony and Nintendo would also have to allow for 3rd party guts (which would never happen, especially with uberconservative Nintendo). As for the "award" money, you'd be better off buying more Xboxes and modding them yourself.
I don't even see why people care that much about cracking an Xbox so it runs linux. big deal, i just want to play Splinter Cell.
I personally don't believe MS will sign it, as there may be potential to boot unsigned games from linux. IANAXLD (xbox linux developer), but this may be possible, wether it's LEGAL or not is a different question, but it may make booting games without voiding one's warranty a lot easier. Microsoft won't be happy about this, because then they will not only lose money from the console sales, but won't sell games either.
... and then there were none
I don't think the point of asking is to get a certificate - MS would never allow it.
I think the point of asking is to get the 'refusal' so they can point to that.
It would be Microsoft refusing to allow competing software to run on one of its platforms.
The Linux guys could then point to Palladium, same mechanism (certs), same controller (Microsoft), same product (Linux), and point out that if Microsoft gets this in place the same thing will happen on PCs.
At the moment we're in the fuzzy denial stage, "Palladium can be turned, off", "Microsoft not that evil", "IBM Cavalry will save us",...
But thats not true, you can't turn it off because your computer has to operate with other computers that will insist on it being turned on, Microsoft *is* evil , and IBM couldn't save themselves.
This gives the Linux guys something clear they can point to, namely:
"Microsoft refused to give Linux a license to their platform on non-discriminatory terms."
Yes it _IS_ a PC
It's not (only) about the processor and the GPU. It's about the architecture.
I mean, it has the XT/AT architecture and all the rest (PCI, USB, VGA, IDE, etc) totally compatible with a PC. The only non-pc thing is the handling of a couple of buttons and the tv-encoder that goes through an i2c bus.
What's missing is a PC BIOS, right, but thoses days OSes don't use it except for their loader.
At the moment I suspect most mod chips are sold so people can use copied games. A few are used to run linux and similar apps but not many. But while there is a legitimate reason for owning a mod chip it makes it much harder for microsoft to put pressure on people to stop selling them. If the license linux to run on unmodifed hardware then owners will probably still buy games, but the mod chip market will reduce a lot which is what microsoft *really* need to happen.
Sig is taking a break!
1. XBox is not a good Linux PC
Almost no-one will buy one JUST for Linux
2. The n1 console (Sony PS2) DOES have linux capability
OK, so it costs quite a bit and is pretty 'static'
3. When given the choice, the target audience WILL go for the added value
ie game console + 'living room PC' over just game console
NOT having Linux available on XBox is (for ME) a definite disadvantage. If I were to have to choose today, I'd go PS2. If, without messing with mod-chips, I could have linux on the XBox, I'd go XBox. (Of course if PS3 has a 'real' Linux capability, I'd wait for that depending on ETA) Main reason for wanting a Linux Game Console/DVD player is that a)my PC is in the den and b) PCs are to noisy, ugly and expensive to have another in the living room. Linux XBox would do nicely. I'm sure there are other people like me
The nice bit about running linux (unsigned) on a Xbox ,besides running a cheap mysql server, is to show how broken this early implementation of the crime called palladium is.
I feel that letting the kernel be signed by m$ (even if they would) would be a bad thing for the GPL that should be joined to the kernel as a air tight cover. Introducing propetiary binary code into the kernel is EVIL. do not do it!.
And how could one compile a new kernel for the Xbox when you desire to ? you couldn't.
Just break the damb system and let a REAL GPL kernel boot the stupid machine.
retep.
huh?
I googled, and found this and this, both of which rate Sony as the biggest, one of which specifically includes GameBoy. They're both admittedly a little out of date.
The only reward Bill wants is big bucks and world domination.
This'll never fly.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
First, a big part of console-based licensing is driven by the console manufacturer agreeing that the software in question furthers the console maker's needs, whether it be a simple question of content (remember Nintendo disallowing violent games?), or a question of reasonably standardized interfaces (I read an article about the Dance Dance Revolution guys having a hell of a time since their software required new hardware), or similar considerations. Clearly, Linux doesn't come anywhere close to being interesting to Microsoft from this perspective.
Second, an even bigger part of console-based licensing is royalty payments. Everything that gets licensed involves a kickback to the console maker for each unit sold. Since this XBOX Linux thing isn't intended to be sold for any sort of profit, it is safe to assume that the people behind this stunt are in no position to pay royalties.
Third, although I haven't seen them, it seems very likely that Microsoft's existing licensing rules explicitly prohibits things of this nature. Microsoft is king in both the operating system and language tools market. This would be such an obvious point for their lawyers to cover from day one that it doesn't even bear further discussion. After all, non-game uses for consoles isn't a new concept, and the Linux-on-XBOX speculation dates back to about three hours after Microsoft admitted the XBOX project even existed. Not to mention the fact that they've certainly studied the efforts to port Linux to other consoles. So, I feel certain that base was covered a long, long time ago.
Those three points pretty firmly put the whole question to rest, and the response wouldn't be any different if we were talking about Sony or Nintendo, because as I said, this is SOP in the console world, and precedents exist long before the XBOX was even a rumor.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Tell them straight up that the public wants to buy a key for the xbox, and they are willing to pay $100,000. Also tell them that they will probably sell that many more units.
The sad truth is that microsoft doesn't make any money selling units of xboxes, so even selling 100,000 more units as a result of giving linux a key wouldn't make them much money. After they clear their profit margins on production they are probably just breaking even. Price out the components on an xbox (accouting for their huge volume of purchasing). Still makes it hard to come up to $200 for a similar pc doesn't it? They know that their money is in games, licensing, and possibly derivitive technology.
Also, (maybe I am ignorant) what is to keep someone else from using the public opensource linux key to make a program that allows piracy of xbox games?
AIUI, the X-Box is hard-wired to reboot when you open the CD tray. How are you going to load that software? Online? Do enough of the target audience have broadband to justify the investment in that distro channel?
So if some signed XBox game could be exploited to run arbitrary code, it would be possible to crack the XBox without a modchip? There must be some game out there that is insecure, either over its internet connection or through some buggy in-game scripting environment...
The Sony Playstation 2 has had Linux available for it for almost a year now. Click here
Sure you can just go an install any Linux distro on it; however, it not x86 based and noone makes a full alternative distro for it.]
If you really wanted you could do a minimal install and then upgrade everything you want to run by recompiling from source.
As for the GameCube, the lack of a hard drive will limit the use of Linux on it. Sure the Dreamcast didn't have a hard drive and it ran Linux; however, I see writeable media as a neccesity. And don't give me those 2-8MB memory cards are all you'd ever need.
First off what are they trying to get signed... I hope not the kernel... because then how am I gonna recompile it. Basicly we need a boot disk that we can pass paramaters to.
M$ gets a per copy royalty don't they. So this couldn't be a free "download an iso and go" thing it would have to be a disk we would buy, is that going to cause GNU/GPL problems?
As for the prize... Microsoft shouldn't get it, whom ever pays to get this thing signed should get it since they payed for it.
Just some food for thought.
-Some ones license plate on a VW Beetle: "FEATURE"
Wouldnt it be better if we only got GRUB signed instead of linux? nah, they'll never do it...
-- search the web
Ok, supposed Microsoft do sign the current linux distro binary for the XBOX - is this going to be any use in the long term. I mean, if you want to change the kernel, or even the motd, you're going to need a whole new signiture. What they want is permanent, continuing support from microsoft for XBOX linux, and thats never going to happen because 1 months linux development would probably mean more signiture issues than everything released on the XBox to date.
...pot smokers in shop class.
check out this telephone! I'm going to make a bong out of it! =D
So are you planning a sequel to the goatse series?
So it's OK for overweight out of touch geeks
to call overweight out of touch C?O's names?
Size, what?
Mini-ITX case with a basically heatless integrated 800Mhz processor: $90-$110. 17cmx17cm Footprint.
Integrated TV-Out, Sound, Video, NIC, USB1, one PCI slot which will take a GeForce4 ($50-$60). Pop down an extra $20 and you get Firewire and USB2, plus an extra 200Mhz. Two PC133 slots (1GB SDRAM $60-$80). Non-slim DVD player ($40). Power Supply ($35). Look ma, I bought a whole computer for less than it costs MS to make an XBOX. And mine is smaller, generates less heat, and pumps out more MIPS. Total Cost: $255. $225 if you don't want a GB of RAM. Counting shipping.
Pop in some spare laptop parts and mod a laptop power plant (the VIAs draw little enough power this SHOULD be possible) and you not only have something that A> Has upgradable peripherals, but B> Is about the same price and doesn't have DRM. Oh and let's not forget C> Portable. Also those VIA 800MhZ chips draw nothing for power and supposedly run pretty damn well. That's a bigger sunk cost than an XBOX but less than an XBOX + TV.
If you own an XBox for games, then well maybe, but if you run linux AND own an Xbox, then shame on you anyway.
Me, I'll take a Mini-ITX or Micro-ATX comp over an XBox any day. Work on emulating it with identical hardware on the PC.
No.
Love, Bill
I think that the outcome of this request might give us a window into the future of how "trusted computing" will treat Free Software.
My Prediction: It will be similar to how a baby treats a diaper.
But we'll see...
Many XBox games use the network. Suppose there was an XBox game that had a remote exploit. You could use that game to install Linux on the XBox, right?
So all you need to use 10,000 XBoxen for your computational chemistry cluster is 10,000 XBoxen, 10,000 copies of the exploitable game, and 1 unconventional boot server that scans the network and converts the XBox into a chemistry server whenever it sees the game come up.