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.
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!
And more importantly, they'd end up losing money on the deal.
All of the console makers lose money on the consoles, and attempt to recover that money by licensing software titles.
Signing the linux code so that it can run, free, doesn't pay the bills. It also encourages people to buy machines that will never be used to run licensed software titles.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
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.
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.
Yes but if they admit that then they're admitting to running an illegal software monopoly. Their public argument for the digital signatures is as an antipiracy measure.
This is an interesting move as Microsoft has to sign xbox-linux or else is proves the point about illegally restricting competition.
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.
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
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.
Which does Microsoft make more money on? 1. Selling Xboxes to people who are going to buy games and make them profit. 2. Selling Xboxes to people who are going to run Linux off them and make no money.
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.....
Say what? The XBox is a console, not a PC. And even if it was a PC, MS is not a monopoly player in the PC hardware business.
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.
How many Linux users out there have a boner for putting Linux on an XBox? Outside of the "I'll do it because it's not supposed to be possible" crowd? A few hundred? A thousand? How much money does MS lose per XBox? $50.00, $100.00? How much money does MS have in liquid assets (cash on hand)? An estimated $40,000,000,000.00 (US). How many millions of Xboxes would have to be turned into crappy PCs running Linux before MS even felt the damage?
You have better luck draining the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.
If you want to mod your XBox because it's a challange, or you like turning everything around you into a Linux box, fine. Do it. Have a blast. If you are modding your XBox to stick it to the Man please invest in something resembling a clue.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Nope. You still have a few other hurdles to jump, like being an "established game publisher" (the letter attempts to address this, but fails). And even then, Microsoft is not in any way obligated to let you publish for their platform. Assuming you could somehow fool Microsoft into agreeing not only that Linux is a video game (hard sell) but also that you're an established game publisher (even more difficult, unless you really are) and get them to agree to sign your code so you can publish, I don't think your royalty numbers will work out. Assuming $10 per copy (that's probably very high), and that the letter is correct in saying that Mandrake Linux for the XBox has been downloaded over 83,000 times, and that each one of those people downloads the newly signed version, that's $830,000 in royalty fees (who cares that you gave it away for free -- your royalty contract was per copy, and not per sold copy), or more than 8 times that $100,000 prize. How exactly do you plan on affording that?
"Signing the linux code so that it can run, free, doesn't pay the bills. It also encourages people to buy machines that will never be used to run licensed software titles."
/. with actual practical use of it. Hate to sound like a troll here, but so far this whole "Linux on the XBOX" project smells more like a "How can we make trouble for Microsoft" project than a "ooo if only we could do that we could do something really cool!" project. As if MS would do anything to contribute to that.
I don't think that'd actually happen. Who'd buy an XBOX to run Linux on it, without wanting to play games on it? That won't happen.
a.) What app would you want to run on it that'd be worth $200 or so?
b.) What would the advantage be towards getting an XBOX vs. buying a bare bones PC, except that you'd be able to play games?
c.) What benefit is there period?
People here are all excited about the potential of running Linux on the XBOX, but nobody's exactly bombarding
If MS says no, it won't be because people are going to buy it without buying games as well. It'll be because they'll be concerned about what will eventually evolve from it. I.e. will they be opening the door to bypassing their protection with signed code? (i.e. Linux XBOX emulator)
At least with a real focus on a use for it (that also compliments playing games...) MS would have encouragement to allow it. "We want to port Linux to it so that we can play DiVX movies. That way, we can keep the XBOX in the living room instead of the kid's room..."
MS concerned with losing face? You don't remember Microsoft Bob, do you? Uncle Bill doesn't give a damn a bout losing face. He's worth tens of billions of dollars. What Bill IS concerned with is control. He's a control freak above all else. Never forget that.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
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
"Here is a $200 computer that we built for $350."
I'd like to see that happen...
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?" `":" #");}
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.
I could use it to watch DVDs, play games online, e-mail, listen to music, webcasts, PVR, all in the living room, and do all that with a controller and a remote. And I wouldn't have to build, or attempt a Linux PVR install from a discarded desktop computer either trying to get compatible hardware and compiling software from source.
It does serve, as MS intended, a good base for an entertainment center rather than just a gaming console.
And, the box will actually fit in with the rest of the room too.
That and the fact Bob was marketed by his Bride to Be Melinda French, I say he managed Face pretty well in that ocasion.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Does my bum look big in this?
please, show me the software on linux that will do this and not require a month to cobble together. really. I've looked and looked and played with everything out there. it's all pre-pre-alpha, takes forever to gather the pieces and still comes up short. if this software existed, I would cede your point.
If I could run linux on an unmodified XBox and play the games made for it, that would add enough value that I would get one. I could run Linux, and play games. And I more importantly I would buy games. So Microsoft would make money after all.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
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?
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.
please, show me the software on linux that will do this and not require a month to cobble together.
You are right, as what I pointed out also, that currently no such easy solutions exist, since most of the "Linux PVR" projects require certain hardware, modding PC boxes, software packages, compiling, going through some trouble, etc. XBox with a simple ISO on a CD or a DVD would solve most of those problems.
As far as I understand, given the popularity of XBox platform, anyone could easily create an ISO image with all the required software that installed upon loading the disc into the tray.
Now that's not to say that MS will allow this. What's in it for them?
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.
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.
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
y0 ac!
Show me a single bare bones PC under $200 with an nvidia 3d accellerator on it. Can you? Can anyone? For that matter show me one that comes with ram, hard drive and DVD drive + nvidia.
(clicks the refresh button waitin for a response)
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.
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
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 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."
MS doesn't have to operate the XBox division like a "normal" console retailer like Nintendo. MS can afford to offer a rather extravagant ammount of console hardware, at the same price as competing consoles, taking a rather hefty loss, because it can back up that loss with the 85% profit margin on Windows/Office. The game licensing fees are small potatoes to them, while they're Nintendo's lifeblood.
(Sony's a little different - with their fingers in so many pies, a loss from one division won't necessarily harm the company as a whole - but there's no single market that SOny has an absolute stranglehold on, with an 85% profit margin, either.)
MS, by virtue of being able to eat the console division's losses, is able to do some things that, were I Nintendo, would worry me, and were I Sony, would concern me greatly.
First and foremost, is the extravagance of hardware MS can offer for the same price as "normal" consoles. I don't think it can reasonably be argued that the XBox is anything but a gaming PC in console-clothing. That's *not* a bad thing in and of itself -- gaming PC hardware is seriously powerful, and it shows in the XBox games that manage to take advantage of it.
MS sells this hardware at a HUGE loss. Sony and Nintendo, while initially selling their consoles at a loss as well, have managed to either break even, or even turn a profit on the consoles themselves (through production streamlining, economy of scale, etc...). But, both Nintendo and Sony *are* selling inferior hardware, when compared to the XBox. (No, I'm not a fan of the XBox - but I do recognize it's strengths).
In order to stay competetive, both Sony and Nintendo need to match, or exceed, the hardware offered by MS. This means offering more expensive hardware, at the same price. In other words, taking just as big a loss on the hardware as MS is. Can they reasonably do this? Arguably, the giant octopus that is SOny *might* be able to prop up the console division with profits from another division - but they don't have the cash cow MS has in Windows/Office, so whatever the loss, SOny will "feel" it. Nintendo doesn't have that kind of leverage at all. They have...well...they have the Gameboy. Arguably, they have a monopoly in the portable market (especially with Bandai pulling the Wonderswan) - but I seriously doubt they're raking in 85% profit margins there - and I have my doubts as to whether they'll be able to prop up the console division with their portable division.
The other option for SOny/Nintendo is to raise developer costs through licensing, or raise their "take" on the games, in order to make some of that profit back. They most likely won't do this, however, as MS would thereby gain an edge, offering a more attractive development path, and stealing developers that way. That's something Sony/Nintendo *don't* want, as without the developers, there aren't any games, and without games, there's no reason for people to buy the system.
So, you're right about inventory not mattering -- but I think you're wrong about MS "needing" people to buy/play games in order to be successful in the console market. There's more than one measure of success, and we've seen the underselling tactic before from MS (Netscape, anyone?), although in this case they're not *giving* away the product in question, just selling it at a loss that their competition will find hard to match.
If either Sony or Nintendo falls out of the market because they can't compete with MS, it doesn't matter how much money MS "lost" on the XBox - MS wins. If Sony/Nintendo make *less* money, because they have to match MS' hardware offerings without increasing the cost to developers or customers, MS wins. Plain and simple.