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."

Comments

Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000!

[b0r1s]

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.

This will never go through

[ymgve]

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.

Re:This will never go through

[Geeyzus]

It is like asking Microsoft to ship X-Boxes with a modchip mounted on it already.

Please...

So you are saying that you could set up an XBox to run Linux, and Wine or VMWare on top of that, and an XBox emulator on top of that? And this is something to be afraid of?

There is no way that would come close to working, with the overhead of Linux, VMWare, and then an XBox emulator. Games are written to take advantage of the specific hardware they are written for, and unless you have hardware that is much more powerful than what you are emulating, the games will run much slower, if at all.

I think another poster was correct when they said that this would give MS more ammunition vs modchip sellers. The legitimate uses of them would be much reduced with the release of something like this.

However I don't think this will get released anyway. Really the question is, why would they? What percent of their userbase would buy it? WAY less than 1 percent, for sure. It is more or less a waste of their time.

Mark

Re:Question -

[batkiwi]

They make money off of the games.
They lose money on the console.

If you buy an x-box and run linux (for emulators/surfing the web/whatever), but don't buy 2-3 games, they lose money.

Now can you see why they woudln't want this?

Not likely

[Osty]

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.

Re:Not likely

[Piquan]

I think you're missing the concept of legal overtures. (IANAL.)

First, you try to get MS to sign your binary. This shows that you attempted to enlist their cooperation to achieve your goals through means that MS may approve of, working within their system. That's right, we're willing to play by their rules.

Then, if MS denies the sig, then we can start hacking the X-Box for compatibility purposes, 'cause it's no longer just an anti-privacy measure.

This is not about us getting a sig. It's about us getting a way to legitimately hack the X-Box, by having MS deny the sig.

Once more: I am not a lawyer.

Re:Not likely

[ChaosDiscord]

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.

Egad, hopefully that won't happen. Picture what would happen if there was a successful gaming system that anyone could write games for? What would that be like? Oh, yeah. Just like modern PCs. Sure, there is a lot of crap, but it is ignored and the good stuff rises to the top.(Obviously good marketing can help a good game, but ultimately crap sinks, and quality succeeds.) The PC game industry seems to have done pretty well given that it really demands at least a $600 "console" to play and only caters to people willing to purchase a $1,200 "console".

No, Microsoft's only interest in restricting who can publish is based on simple greed. Microsoft makes money from publishing their own games and from licensing fees from other companies. Microsoft isn't going to be interested in companies making games without paying them. Microsoft doesn't really care about "quality software" for the X-Box, but they are interested in controlling the market and limiting their own competition. This is an old console-monopolists trick (Nintendo regularly delayed approval on competitors games so that their in house product could be on shelves first). This is a stunning example of the dangers of a monopoly and why console manufacturers work so hard to keep monopoly control over their systems. The fear becoming the PC game market, where games have to succeed or fail on their own strengths and they have to compete fairly.

also sprach Blackley

[wfmcwalter]

Two years ago I attended a talk at Stanford University's Computer Science department (non-coincidentally the Gates Building) given by Shamus Blackley, then head-honcho of Xbox.

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:

1. in theory, yes (as it was intel/nvidia hardware)
2. they wouldn't go out of their way to stop it
3. but they did go out of their way to make the xbox hard to hack
4. and he wasn't sure there was a way that, in the light of #3, that running it would be practical

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.

Catch 22 for Microsoft

[Dynedain]

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.

Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000!

[Anonvmous Coward]

"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."

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 /. 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.

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..."

The language of the letter is rather Harsh

[malakai]

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

Why it's not going to happen

[Spy Hunter]

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.

Actually, how it works:

[kyz]

• Games hardware company release a console.
  
• Hobbyists, pirates and games companies reverse engineer the hardware details.
  
• People write their own dev-kits (as happened with the Megadrive, SNES, PSX, PS2, Dreamcast, Gameboy and GBA, to name just a few) and either build their own flashable carts or mod-chips.
  
• Many of the best games programmers in the industry (such as the Factor 5 team) grew up programming games consoles with these unsanctioned dev-kits.
  
• Sega tries to sues Acclaim for circumventing their boot code and copying their "copyrighted data" needed for Megadrive carts to boot, regardless of content. They lose, spectacularly. Precedent is set. Companies have no requirement to get "approval" from the hardware manufacturer, they can release unlicensed software should they want, provided they wrote all code themselves and got all hardware programming information by reverse-engineering rather than stealing NDA'ed documents.
  

Why It May Happen

[MBCook]

My guess is that they'll simply sign a chainloader, so that every time a new kernel comes out they won't have to sign it. Plus, they can easily say that the chainloader is only for non-commercial (or even educational) use and sue the hell out of any company using it to sell unauthorized games, etc. But why should they do this? What else could they do?

• Modchips - I've been thinking of buying a modchip so that I could run Linux on my X-Box. If they were to sign something to let me run Linux, I wouldn't buy a modchip, so I couldn't play pirated games. This will stop many people like me (who just want to tool around with Linux on the X-Box) from having to get modchips (which would allow them to do things MS really doesn't want.
• Chainloader - They could use the chainloader to disable some things (like prevent the CD/DVD drive from reading any games (or even DVDs) to make copying harder, ala Sony).
• Inventory - As pointed out in this thread, MS has some inventory on its hands. While they may lose money from people buying X-Boxes to run Linux, they'll lose MORE money from people not buying X-Boxes at all. At least if you buy it and never buy a game they get some of their money back.
• Games - This is a chance for MS to let hobbiests make games for the system, and they could then try to buy the rights to games they find interesting and get some innovative stuff on the market (which makes them money). They could even hold programming competitions (sorta like Sony did with the Yahorze, IIRC) and then they could sell discs will all the games submitted to make money. Also, if I buy a X-Box to use Linux on, and later I see a X-Box game that I want to try, I could buy it or at least rent it. They might get me into the system that way. If I don't own the system, it's going to take a VERY good game to get me to buy the system in the first place. But if people already HAVE one...
• Stop hacking - If people can run Linux on the X-Box, then a large number of very dedicated people have no reason to try to find circumvention methods that could be used to play pirated games. MS doesn't want people to find ways to get around the locks on the X-Box, and this would give them a great reason not to need to look.
• Charge for it - What if they sold a CD for $25 from their website (or allowed you to download it from XBL) that would let you boot your own code (but, as in the chainloader above, locked you out from using pressed DVDs (which would include games) in the drive untill the system was turned off)? Then people could run Linux, BSD, etc. but they could make money off this (besides the money from console sales, however small that would be from allowing this). And, as part of the EULA in the disc, they could put in things to let them come down on you HARD if you try to use it to play pirated games, unauthorized software (they'd list Linux, BSD, etc as OK). Tight controll is OK with me, as long as I can to things that I think I should be able to.
• MS Linux - They could do like above, only one better. Sell something like Sony did for the PS2 (only cheaper, maybe $50 or $75). They kernel would lock out use of pressed DVDs, etc (like the PS2 Linux Kit, for obvious reasons) and maybe include programming "HOW-TOs" and such on a disc (also like the PS2). And by keeping the signed parts of the kernel in something seperate (a module, maybe), Linux can boot and run, but they won't have to (under the GPL) disclose anything about the system. They only thing they might need is a little piece of code that would look something like:

  int getRunning() {
  // Get a file from the hard drive to prove we're legit
  // pass controll to it
  return; // Done!
  }

• Many many other good reasons too. This would benefit MS, IMHO. Let's hope they see this as the GOOD business opportunity that it is.