Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xbox Auto-Update Blocks Linux Usage

Posted by timothy on from the how-conveeenient dept.

An anonymous reader writes "According to The Inquirer, Microsoft has used their Xbox Live Vole System to patch any Xboxes that access it....without asking their permission before installing the software. However, in this occurrence, the bug appears to be the 'dashboard bug' that allows Linux to be easily installed on an Xbox. Further, according to The Xbox Linux Project, users who do not have an Xbox Live account may find themselves being patched without permission as well. If a gamer tries to access any part of a game that uses Xbox Live, the console can 'phone home' and install the patches anyway. While patching bugs can be a nice touch to poor software, I don't know if I feel comfortable with ANYONE installing software on my hardware without asking permission first."

5 of 702 comments (clear)

  1. EULA...Legal? by Ro'que · · Score: 4, Informative
    There has been a lot of discussion on this lately, particuarlly on some e-mail lists. The bottom line is that in the EULA there is a clause that states Microsoft may alter the software at any point. Just by purchasing an Xbox, even without buying Live, you are forced to agree to let them edit the Dashboard to weed out things like the font hack buffer overflow Stefan Esser found.

    But then again, what the hell did you expect when it said "Microsoft" on the box?

  2. Huh? by powerlord · · Score: 5, Informative
    The Entire point of producing a console system is to have complete dominance over what software can run on it anyway.
    Maybe NOW it is, since Microsoft introduced the concept of loss-leading on the hardware...made up by software licensing.


    Umm ... you do realize that this was the case with CONSOLE systems since way before Microsoft got involved?

    Sony and Nintendo have consistently sold console systems as loss-leaders with the plan to recoup costs primarily from game licenses.

    Not trying to stick up for MS, but they hardly *innovated* that particular tactic.

    Try to remember that we are not talking about a general purpose computer, we are talking about a specific purpose, console system. If you don't like them, great, don't buy them. There are lots of games that are made for the PC (heck, I just broke down and bought my first console since the Atari 2600 'cause I didn't see the need).

    A console is ENTIRELY about control.

    The console manufacturer typically charged an exhorbitant fee for a dev kit.

    They also charged premium prices for distribution.

    For those charges, a game company would have access to a relatively captive audience (they already own the system, if they don't buy any games then its their loss), and a fixed set of hardware/software (so that they can specifically target the game ... when done right).

    Not saying that all development houses take advantage of everything, and recently there has been a trend toward a more open approach on the Dev kit side, but it still is preaty much about control.
    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    1. Re:Huh? by borg389 · · Score: 5, Informative
      I really hate to reply to this, as I just spent a moderator point in this topic. But I feel the need.

      Sony is *not*, and never has, lost money on the PS1 or the PS2 in order to make up the difference on the games.

      The gamecube never did before the Xbox did. They might be doing it now, but they weren't before.

      The reason people believe this happened before is due to Sony announcing the PS2 for $299 while everyone else was selling higher. Right away there were shouts of dumping. (dumping is the term for selling product at a loss to destroy your competitors.)

      But they were wrong, because at that time, the exchange rate was at a point where $299 still meant a profit.

      www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02.html

    2. Re:Huh? by shepd · · Score: 4, Informative

      >But they were wrong, because at that time, the exchange rate was at a point where $299 still meant a profit.

      As a PS2 modder, I'd put it more down to a more simplified design.

      The original PS2 was extraordinarialy poorly designed. To the point that the pair of motherboards were SOLDERED together with a heatsink sandwiched between. Imagine soldering your PCI cards into your motherboard. It's crazy.

      The new PS2s use a single motherboard design with a power supply that isn't soldered in. The material for the motherboard seems to be cheaper (thinner) too.

      Also, the various hookup cables have been reduced to a minimum and simplified where possible. Plus at least one chip was changed to a BGA package, reducing costs further.

      So I'd guess it's just older technology getting cheaper + a redesign.

      The Xbox has undergone similar, but far less drastic changes over time.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  3. Re:Even better suggestion by jerkychew · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Maybe NOW it is, since Microsoft introduced the concept of loss-leading on the hardware...made up by software licensing."

    You've got your facts a little skewed. I believe Sony was the first to sell its PS1 consoles at a loss, to gain marketshare over the mighty N back when the PS1 first came out. They made their money from the game licensees.

    At least, I think that's how it all started with the consoles. I may be fuzzy on the details, but I'm 99% sure that MS wasn't the first to use this strategy.

    -JC