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."
Microsoft spends more than that every day on sweat pads for Ballmer. I'm not holding my breath.
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.
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.
...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."
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?
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.
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.
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 ##
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
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 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.....
But the courts barely did anything to Microsoft. No breakup... They effectively won.
My guess: MS will completely ignore the request. They would never in a million years give their "rival" a boost like that, so silence or denial are the only options, and in this case, silence is the best response from the MS standpoint. No bad press for denying it. Sure, communities like this will be tear them a new one, but overall, if MS ignore it, it will, sadly, go away.
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
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?" `":" #");}
Does my bum look big in this?
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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