Slashdot Mirror
The Hacker Behind "Hacking the Xbox"
chromatic writes "ONLamp has just published an interview with Andrew "Bunnie" Huang, author of Hacking the Xbox. Bunnie discusses the effect of the DMCA on his work and the state of Xbox hacking as he sees it."
2 weekends ago I built a Athlon XP 1800+ with 256MB RAM, 20GB hard drive, shitty onboard video (but add $75 for comporable graphics) with the case and it ran an even $257.
You can even buy a Shuttle barebones system for not much more. My XBox that I got last month ran $179.
So why did I get an XBox instead of just building a gaming computer? Because I want to play on my TV, with a nice controller, and have it work without upgrading software on my computer. I'm not a windows person. Windows pisses me off. Linux games suck (AA gets 1/2 the framerate on Linux as it does under Windows, for example.)
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Long in the tooth? Linux isn't the only reason to have an Xbox (gentoo installable in one or two mouseclicks on a modded xbox btw). I know it's karma suicide to praise Microsoft on slashdot ;) but your used machine from eBay isn't going to have half the quality TV output that the Xbox has. Xbox is one of the greatest things a shoddy company like Microsoft has ever produced. It means that the modded xbox I have sitting in my living room now plays xbox, psx, amiga, snes, megadrive and arcade games. It's hooked up to the LAN so I can listen to my mp3 collection or listen to shoutcast streams. I can stream videos from the LAN, or simply play them from the huge hard drive I now have installed. I can stick a CF memory card into my computer in the other room and we can all view the pictures taken earlier that day on a big screen TV.
All accessible from the couch via the xbox's dvd remote control.
The debate on why you should bother modding an XBox comes up quite frequently, but most people can't seem to get pass the "Q: Why Bother A: WaR3z / Linux" debate. I use my modded XBox as a media player... and it really is very very good. All my MP3s and films (all legal of course!) sit on my pc and the media is streamed down to the XBox. The XBox, in turn, is plugged into my home cinema equipment via an optical connection. Since I don't own a dedicated DVD player or one of those fancy hifi mp3 players, the XBox does the job perfectly and with the added advantage that I can play games on the thing. Sure, I could use a shuttle pc or something, but why bother? An XBox, even included the cost of a mod chip and the remote control, is going to be much less than the cost of a "proper" peecee. Besides, its really nice having the remote control for it.
a few friends of mine in the school computer club are planning on installing linux on a somewhat borked XBox. we are doing this to demonstrate the flexibility of linux and get more people interested in it.
I believe XBOX is highly under-priced and hence the best power for price bargain. Hence the whole motivation of porting OS to XBOX. Believe me, a project as huge as linux-on-xbox and the developers as dedicated as these people dont just do it for the itch of it
DO NOT PANIC
Bingo. That is the point. We geeks hack x-boxes for the same reason people climb Mt. Everest. Because it's there, because we can hack it, and because we have fun doing it. There doesn't need to be any other reason.
Stupid like a fox!
If the seller don't want people to modify their stuff, they should make the buyer sign a contract when doing the sale. It is definitely unfair for the customer (even if legal) if they use click-through EULAs or unknown-by-joe-public laws such as DMCA.
I think perhaps it is time for a sidebar; it seems relevant to this story given the position many seem to be supposing.
"The attitude appears to be that a producer does not have a right to produce and offer for sale a good or service on the terms it deems satisfactory, but instead must offer that good or service to you on terms you feel are satisfactory, or not at all."
Yes, because it is we who set the terms on which those privileged entities, corporations, may profit and prosper within our great nation.
Corporations are permitted to exist in that manner which and only for a time which pleases us and benefits us.
Do you understand perfectly what we are saying? Corporate and powerful private interests have no right or expectation to exploit the great majority that they might raise themselves up over and against their peers.
The state of things is as it is only so far and for so long as we permit it to be. These corporate and powerful private interests have nothing we have not allotted them for a time and for limited purposes, and through our rich democratic process we may just as easily take it again from them when and so far as they abuse it.
We are not pawns. We control our own destiny. Our rights will be respected.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
Why shouldn't Microsoft have the right to invest in, design, manufacture, and sell a game machine that will play only Microsoft games? Why should you have a "right" to hack such a machine and run non-MS games or Linux on it?
Here's why. First, let's say that we're all OK with Microsoft, or any other company for that matter, making any kind of product they choose, and for any specific purpose.
Instead of talking about an Xbox and hacking it to do different things, I'd like to mention a few other things to help illustrate my point.
What if I decide to use climbing carabiners for some purpose other than climbing, such as hanging a hammock in the backyard? What about using climbing line to hang my laundry? How about using a stack of telephone books (or Physics books) to prop my monitor up a little higher off of my desk? What about using cinder blocks and planks of wood to make a simple bookshelf? What if you use a grocery bag to put trash in? How about using a bedsheet to cover your furniture while you're painting the inside of you apartment/house? What about using a fishing tackle box to store nuts and bolts? What if I decide to take a nap in the back seat of my car? What do you think of using Coca Cola to clean corroded battery terminals?
I'm not trying to troll here, I really am attempting to make a point. I think a manufacturer has every right to design, build, market and sell whatever the heck they want. But when a consumer makes a purchase, I do not think it is fair for the manufacturer to have anything to do with enforcing a specific usage.
Now, obviously, there could be issues of general safety and business abuse, and a company might need to protect themselves for liability or unfair competition. But I can't see the perspective that says Microsoft has any right whatsoever to dictate whether I play games on my Xbox, try to install Linux on it, or just use it as a doorstop.
Charge enough to cover your costs. What a novel idea. If I decide to buy an XBox at walmart right now, I get the XBox, a controller and two games. What if I decide not to buy anymore games? Those are the only two I want. What if I just want to copy all my CDs on to the XBox and use it to play all my music or DVDs? Not buy any games.
There is a great difference between building a business model with the consumers possible future needs in mind and building a business model with the consumers possible future needs as the primary avenue of money making.
If they want to sell me an XBox, fine. If they want to lease on to me, tell me at the store. Don't call it buying if I'm not allowed to use it as I see fit. Show me a contact that says I won't modify it. I promise you, I won't, but if I'm given new terms of agreement after I buy it, forget it. I'm doin it my way.
Course all I want to do with it, is okayed by Microsoft, so this was all just in theory....
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
I know I am. Think about what is really happening here. This bunnie guy is having a hard time publishing a book because of commercial interests. Doesn't anyone else think that this reflects a sad state in a nation when books are being "banned" for commercial interests? Three publishers are/were interested in the book. One turned him down and the other two need to do legal research to see if it "violates" the DMCA. How much longer until the book burning? The DMCA is nasty and NEEDS to go down.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Just to get this discussion to go a little deeper, let me play advocatus diaboli: What about me? By the same argument used by dmaxwell, if I go into a store and buy a linux distribution that doesn't make me sign a license before using it, I do own the bits. So why should I not use it in a manner that it's authors didn't intend me to, and -for instance- incorporate bits of open source software into my closed source product? (The issue is, of course, not quite as clear cut as this, but I believe that this demonstrate that not having signed a license isn't the equivalent of not having to abide by one (and, if I am not mistaken, there's some language on the box stating that an owner has to abide by the inbox license))
Another equally rabble-raising scenario: I buy a gun and ammunition, remove the safety and file holes into the bulletpoints. Your reaction might be to say that now I am in clear violation of the law - but that's just what the DCMA is, too. So - is it ok to selectively choose which laws one respects?