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."

30 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. Wow! They'd get $100,000! by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft spends more than that every day on sweat pads for Ballmer. I'm not holding my breath.

    1. Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! by b0r1s · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! by ryants · · Score: 5, Funny
      sweat pads for Ballmer. I'm not holding my breath.
      Well, I am, and I'm over 500 km away from Redmond, WA.
      --

      Ryan T. Sammartino
      "Ancora imparo"

    3. Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! by mentin · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes but if they admit that then they're admitting to running an illegal software monopoly.

      The console market is dominated by Sony, not Microsoft. Microsoft has monopoly in personal computers market.

      Saying that Microsoft has illegal monopoly on XBox is like saying that Dell has illegal monopoly on Dell-brand computers :) Of course MS has 100% market share of XBox consoles :), but the real market is entertainment consoles, where Microsoft has maybe quater market share, or even less.

      P.S. Note also that monopoly itself can't be illegal. It is abuse of the monopoly which is illegal.

      --
      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
    4. Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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..."

    5. Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Interesting
      And more importantly, they'd end up losing money on the deal.

      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.

  2. This will never go through by ymgve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This will never go through by Geeyzus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

    2. Re:This will never go through by MisterFancypants · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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?

      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.

  3. You Just Know... by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...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."
  4. Re:Question - by batkiwi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  5. Not likely by Osty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not likely by Piquan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Not likely by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

  6. but: by ottothecow · · Score: 4, Interesting
    does anyone know the standard procedure for a game developer to get its apps licensed? from what I know they can work on it with a development box so they can test without signitures, but what do they pay for the SDK and when they are done, what do they pay for the liceense?

    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.
    1. Re:but: by The+Vulture · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, I can't speak specifically how it works for Microsoft, but this is how it worked for Sega (and Microsoft copied some of Sega's technique for this):
      1. Developer approaches Sega with an idea. Typically they do this through a publisher, however, or Sega would at least suggest they get a publisher
      2. If Sega likes the idea (established ideas are more likely to get the okay, as in a port of an existing title), then the developer is given a contract to sign.
      3. The developer/publisher ponies up a lot of money for the SDK/development hardware.
      4. The developer must meet with Sega on a regular schedule to demonstrate their progress. If Sega isn't happy with the direction things are going, they can terminate the agreement.
      5. Once the title is finished, Sega burns it.
      6. I'm not clear how it worked here, I don't remember if Sega distributed the discs, or if the publisher did.

      Of course, there's also other aspects, like jewel case artwork, documentation, etc., that has to be approved by Sega.

      The SDK/equipment is typically done up-front, and the rights to use it can typically be revoked at any time during the contract.

      -- Joe

  7. flawed premise by sydlexic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:In other news by Avakado · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  9. also sprach Blackley by wfmcwalter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    ## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
  10. Re:Question - by RatBastard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  11. The actual letter... by malakai · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you're going to submit a story about a letter written to MS, please, LINK TO THE LETTER

    Can't hold the /. editors to fault with this, as CNet didn't link to the letter either.

    -malakai

  12. Catch 22 for Microsoft by Dynedain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.....
  13. The language of the letter is rather Harsh by malakai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  14. "Truth is Stranger Than Fiction" - a new play by WankersRevenge · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  15. Why it's not going to happen by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?" `":" #");}
    1. Re:Why it's not going to happen by erdna · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Agree.

      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.

  16. Actually, how it works: by kyz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    • 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.
    --
    Does my bum look big in this?
    1. Re:Actually, how it works: by The+Vulture · · Score: 4, Informative

      The very important item is that they use their own development kits. Many people out there released software for the Dreamcast based on the official Sega or Microsoft SDK's, and Sega legally could have sued them into oblivion.

      As for requiring approval for distributing their own 100% original software (again, using thier own SDK), that's a legal issue that I'm not 100% familar with (I have read Sega v. Accolade, but don't remember a lot of the specifics). I do know that in the case of the Dreamcast however, there is copyrighted code that MUST be present in the boot block of the disc, or the BootROM won't accept it. The legal standing of making your own bootblocks, I'm not sure about, but this was one of the things that Sega learned from the Sega v. Accolade case.

      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.

      So, while I agree with your view, please note that it can take up to several years for this to happen. By the time the Dreamcast was hacked, it was already dying, and were it not for the Mill CD backdoor in the BootROM, the Dreamcast most likely would not have been hacked (the requirement for the media being GD-ROM's, which are higher capacity than CD-R's was strictly enforced, except for when a particular signature was on the disc). Oh, and since I don't think that Sega has anymore profit coming in off Dreamcast games, I guess I can safely say that there are some titles that had checks for whether or not they were on real discs or not (and did some pretty cool stuff if they weren't) - but I won't say more than that, nor will I name titles.

      I think that the key point here is that the Linux XBox team would actually like to release Linux for the XBox sometime this year, rather than five years from now (pulling numbers out of my butt).

      Oh, and one final thought...
      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
      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.

      -- Joe

  17. A bootable, signed Linux disc is a modchip. by The+Panther! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  18. Why It May Happen by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.