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."
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?
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.
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.
given Microsoft's stance toward the GPL and Linux (one's a cancer, one's a threat)
Microsoft actually distributes GPL software (see right column).
The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.
The XBox isn't a PC? Sure, it uses PC parts, but that doesn't make it any more a PC than using a G4 processor and an ATI GPU makes a GameCube a Mac.
It is not in Microsoft's interests to go along with this.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
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 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!
1. The more they sell, the lower their per-unit cost.
B. Even among those who buy one to run Linux will be some who also buy games. And further, as they already own an XBox they'll be less likely to buy a Playstation. repeat this enough times and suddenly one day it's a whole new 90% MS, 10% Others deal.
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?
Once you have access to the CPU on an XBOX after it has done the disc copy protection check you could EASILY allow the user to pop in a (non-signed) DVD and then reset the CPU, but not do a full BIOS reset. The result? A linux-based boot disk for pirated games. You don't need to do the whole emulation business.
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.
mentin wrote:
:),
.Net home terminal, entertainment terminal, and home PC replacement. But game console was all Microsoft could get developers for.
> The console market is dominated by Sony, not Microsoft.
> Microsoft has monopoly in personal computers market.
True. But Microsoft is not just loosing a little money on XBox, they are bleeding rivers of it. The only reason they can afford to do so is that their Windows and Office monopolies give them huge profit margins on those products (85%) enough to fund everything else they do, and every other market they enter.
> Of course MS has 100% market share of XBox consoles
> but the real market is entertainment consoles,
Actually, the real market was supposed to be
> P.S. Note also that monopoly itself can't be illegal. It is
> abuse of the monopoly which is illegal.
Abuse of which Microsoft has been found guilty of on several counts. Trial or no trial, Microsoft does not appear to be changing its ways.
It is going to be interesting to see if Microsoft actually signs Linux for the XBox. While I don't personally have much use for Linux on XBox, this is a very good test to see just how open to third parties (and open source) the technology formerly called Palladium is really going to be.
"At this moment, it has control of systems all over the world.
And...we can't do a damn thing to stop it."
Miyasaka, "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
"ooo if only we could do that we could do something really cool!"
And so the list begins:
1. Nethack for Xbox
2. Run multimedia apps on my TV/sound system
(never have to search through my DVD
collection again! Why spend $300 on one
of those 300 CD jukeboxes when an Xbox
can catch the streaming data from my PC?)
3. Use the Linux kernel, sans GNU stuff, to
build arbitrary programs from
4. Use the Xbox that I've bought anyway to do
things like run a half-life server when
friends are here, possibly join in on a
Starcraft match with WINE or somesuch
Anyone else got anything?
-Amalcon
Even more importantly, you have to remember that most hardware in the console business is sold at a loss (and don't give me that ludicrous "Land of Gord" or whatever the hell that link is people like to use to "disprove" this assertion. Talk to some folks that actually work in the industry.)
Anyway, the hardware is sold at a loss - especially initially. (With time, some of the console generations have been cost-reduced so this isn't the case.) Point is, Microsoft is doing the same thing any console manufacturer would - why sell hardware that doesn't in turn sell software? MS sells titles to make up the hardware loss - they're not going to be selling Linux anytime soon.
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?