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."
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.
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.
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.