Slashdot Mirror
Xbox Auto-Update Blocks Linux Usage
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."
Don't buy an X-BOX!
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
If you bought an Xbox to run Linux, you'd have no reason to install Xbox-Live. If you bought an Xbox to run games, it's unlikely that you'd want to run Linux on it. After all, you can find better X86 hardware cheaper at Fry's Electronics, or your local bargain store.
I know there's a camp that uses it for both, and it's rather large. However, you should probably consider just buying another computer for that sort of thing.
Overall, I would say that such a willing loss of control, freedom, and some can even argue morals, is good for the home desktop/console market at large (though it is alarming to realize that software console could be so badly written that it would demand security updates). For the corporate setting, such a sacrifice is unacceptable and even hazardous - as the article mentions.
The underlying sentiment of the article, the editors here, and a large population of Slashdot is that "Microsoft is behaving badly - Linux is good". I agree with this sentiment and philosophy, but only to a certain degree. Microsoft Windows is an extremely well established desktop operating system with very mature gaming technologies. For this reason, I feel that it should remain the home desktop choice. As a server operating system or workstation operating system, I feel that it costs companies too much, is too closed, is too insecure, is not flexible enough, and most importantly, is not powerful enough. The entire business ethic and development model of Microsoft is so painfully harmful to large businesses that it's laughable.
Bottom line: If you willingly use a Microsoft product, don't be suprised when they bend you over: they have been doing to everyone for years. Linux should prevail on your servers and workstations, Windows should prevail at home, for basic common sense reason and moral justifications.
Anyone, or Microsoft? If it was Linux Live, would you mind as much?
Totally serious question...does the XBox come with any kind of EULA? Like a seal over the power button saying you agree or an included pamphlet?
If not...then wouldn't this be unauthorized access to a computing device, which was made a federal crime I thought in the last round of Justice Department power grabbing?
We all know about the quasi-legal nature of software granting itself the right to phone home or take action against your system, but that relies on the arguement the user accepted the EULA to use the software. What about hardware?
The last console I owned was a Super Nintendo so I just don't know, do modern consoles have EULAs?
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Since Microsoft owns the hardware, they can also install a patch that makes it completely unusable, right? Hell, when you bought it, they didn't make a guarantee that they wouldn't INTENTIONALLY prevent it from functioning a month later.
The console itself is purchased, not the right to *use* the console under a predetermined licensing agreement.
Now the software is entirely a different issue - some games may indeed try to force an EULA on you upon purchase to allow such activities (which would become a sticky situation when renting), or enrollment into the XBOX Live system, but the hardware itself is yours to keep and do whatever you want to.
Any spoon would be too big.
Hosing a customer that blatently is a good way to force yourself to travel by bullet proof limo forever after.
Take away the customer's legal recourse, and they'll find another way to justice.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Yeah, the hardware is his. He can do whatever he want with fans, box or cables - I hope this update does no damage to these?
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
Get a real computer! Seriously.. X-Box is a game machine and you accepted an agreement to update the software in it by just using it.
I really wish that I could mod this down to a -1 Troll. It IS his hardware. He paid for it. He owns it. He didn't design it. However, it is his. You did not design the car you drive. But, onece paid for, it IS yours. Ford doesn't come to your house in the middle of the night and rotate your tires for you do they? Better yet, if there is a major flaw with your car they don't come out and fix it in the middle of the night like a bunch of friendly little elves. They send you a notice and then you have to give them permission to fix it by actually responding to the notice (by brining your car in).
...it's like a truck. I can put 70" tires on it and turn it into a monster truck without anyone stopping me. But when I put it on the government's network (the highway), they can enforce their laws on my truck (i.e. you can't drive around in something that can crush every car on the road)...
If you mod your x-box...fine. If some MS goons break into your house and restore your x-box to the factory default, you have something to complain about. If you expect to play on MS's network with your modded x-box without any consequences, you're a fucking moron.
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.
If someone didn't have an XBOX Live account, why the HELL would they have an ethernet cable jacked into their box with a connection to the outside world?
99.9% of the customers don't attempt to run Linux, would not notice any change and would not consider this a problem even if they knew it. And that 0.1% who would like to run Linux ... are they really customers?
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
For doing the same with there Windows OS.
Microsoft Knows no matter how many times they say patch or else. Millions of people wait for the or else to happen, and it makes them look bad.
This is just the same has forced childhood immunization for better public heath. You don't have to immunize every machine, just enough so the probability of the next machine in the series being vulnerable is near zero.
Very soon we are going to need an actual lawsuit to reassert out rights as the public to use devices we purchase in any manner we deem fit.
Maybe NOW it is, since Microsoft introduced the concept of loss-leading on the hardware...made up by software licensing.
Originally, it was to have specialized hardware to do one thing--and to do it well. I still believe very much in this philosophy. I rarely buy combination devices (such as radar detector/GPS/compass/etc, swiss army knives) because they do a lot, but not always well, and to upgrade one part, you need to re-buy the whole thing.
I use my computer as a TOOL. I get my work done on it. I communicate with my friends and family with it. It is the closest I come to a "do-all" device. But games I leave to something else. It's a personal choice--so I won't claim that everyone should do the same.
However, the idea that consoles exist solely as a means of "control" is ludicrous. I love my GameCube--because it is simple, and it works. And it has the best controller ever. YMMV....
When you play on Live, it's more than just you. You have to ensure that people are playing on a level playing field. Sure, you pay for Xbox Live service too, but when you join a health club, that doesn't mean you can go in and destroy their equipment.
So what if you don't play online? Just dont install Live. Make sure you never click through to Xbox Live on your console.
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
A modded xbox could just as easily be modded in order to facilitate cheating on their network...
MS has every right to protect their networks from cheating gamers.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
I've been reading the replies to this comment & I have to say that you guys know the stuff isn't yours. The hardware is yes but the software isn't. It hasn't been your software ever. You may own the CD it's on but the bits burned on to it are owned by the creator of the content. Every piece of NON GPL software has been this way since I can remember. The EULA states it isn't yours. That's why you can't just do whatever with it you want. You never have been free to hack it. The BIOS in the XBOX is yours too, but the software they put on it to boot-probably thiers. That's stretching it a bit but I'm sure some M$ lawyer could make it sound good.
Now before the flames begin, I believe that what I buy should be mine to do whatever with. But due to whatever rules that govern software it just doesn't happen. For instance, if I mod my Nokia phone with some new software I can probably bet that Verizon isn't gonna let me access their network. Yeah the phone is mine, but they don't have to let it on thier network if it's been modded. Lemme change some settings in my RCA modem to get better DL speeds on Comcast cable internet. Yep, Comcast will shut it off. Go mod your car's CPU and bet that Ford will say nope you voided the warranty, not our problem. Not all car mods are legal.
Software has never been anyone's it's been sold to. Why does anyone think M$ will change just because it's a video game system?
Couldn't you just put the saved game onto a memory card, then load it onto your other Xbox?
Not to be a devil's advocate but...
In the present capitalist trend, everything you buy is actually not yours, after you've bought it. You pay money to effectively receive the right to use something, in some limited fashion that precludes you from doing anything to detract from the licensor's business model.
In the socialist system, when you get a good, you can do anything with it that you want. Property may be redistributed, but, at least if you do wind up with property, you actually have something. Under capitalism, you have nothing at all but what the manufacturer tells you that you have, at their whim.
This is my sig.
Um. Every console ever shipped to this date was a loss leader. That's the way that the economics of game consoles works - you sell the console as a loss leader and make up the profits on the games.
This is true for EVERY existing console game out there.
"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. 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.... I don't know if I feel comfortable with ANYONE installing software on my hardware without asking permission first."
Oh come the FUCK on.
Did you just miss the entire function of a console? It's called plug n' play you whining freaks, designed specifically to make downloads, patching and other OS maintence/updates as transparent as possible while allowing the user to concentrate on gaming , or did you forget that MINOR point in the process of modding the XBox for a function if was never intended to fullfill? Like saaaaay... TURNING IT INTO A PC AND ADDING LINUX TO IT?????
And golly gee whiz, those same Linux Activists are now finding that their console, designed to primarily be a hands off OS device, is downloading patches WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION!?!?! THE HORROR! Will you people get some perspective, not to mention a freakin' CLUE!??! Of course it's downloading and patching shit without your permission since that was how it was designed in the first place-- A seemless gaming experience, which means not asking you all the annoying details on OS upkeep. IMAGINE THAT.
And for cryin out loud, it's not what you're doing that pisses me off so much, it's the innocent, self-righteous "we've been wronged!" attitude that you take doing it. Give it a rest already. You're modding a device beyond it original purpose and beyond the intentions/plans of the designers. Suck it up already.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Quite seriously, if I bought an X-Box, I think it'd be rather neat if it self-patched.
I have an XBox, and I patched it on XBox Live without having a Live account. You connect, and it updates Dashboard and all is well. This is what I expect with a console that has a hard drive.
Normal customers buy it to play games on, and it's a perfectly good platform for that.
I don't want Linux on my XBox. I want my XBox to play games. People are getting their panties in a bundle because Microsoft is fixing bugs in their software and auto-patching. How else are they going to try to keep this stuff patched? Otherwise they end up with a hundred-and-one different XBox software versions out there. It's easier to bitch about rights instead of thinking that this is actually a good thing and just a few people are being inconvenienced by it.
I certainly wouldn't buy it for something else, so really, I don't particularly care. I can see the angle some people are coming from, and I understand it... but this isn't really an issue where you can get the normal customer outraged, because it doesn't affect what they actually bought the product to do.
It does exactly what I expected it to do. All the way, and I enjoy it. It does affect what I bought the product to do though, it makes it better.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Yes, but Google is one of the good guys. Microsoft is one of the bad guys.
Here in Australia (and the UK I think) a good has to be "fit for purpose" which basically means being fit for the purpose for which they are generally sold, and also being fit for any specific or particular purpose made known at the time of purchase agreement.
I think that most reasonable people would accept that the purpose for which an XBox is generally sold is for the running of XBox games. Unless an update interferes with that and therefore renders the XBox unfit for purpose I doubt we'd get much help from consumer protection law.
The concept of a "reasonable person" is also used. I doubt you could argue successfully that a "reasonable person" would expect something that is unadvertised by the manufacturer and publically discussed as a "bug" is a "feature" that has subsequently been removed.
So I think in terms of consumer protection law you'd be out of luck in declaring that the product has been rendered defective or unfit for purpose by the update.
There might be other legal avenues, but I think that one is closed.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I'm sure it's rather easy to argue that any bug that allows you to execute arbitrary code is a possible vector for cheating.
Sony was trying to get a tax break, so they really pushed to have the PlayStation 2 classified as a computer rather than a video game console. To that end, they released Linux and the development kit add-on for it.
Microsoft has been very adamant. According to the Xbox Terminology Guide, you are only allowed to call it the "Xbox Video Game System."
The classification does tend to support a certain viewpoint, however. Microsoft isn't auto-updating your computer unless you consent. They're upgrading your video game console...although you do consent when you sign up for Live, if you actually read the Terms of Service.
RomSteady - I came, I saw, I tested. GamerTag: RomSteady / http://www.romsteady.net
For months as the Xbox approached you preached that it was an evil that M$ wanted to take over the gaming industry.
Then you decided they were geeky enough if you could install Linux (the Arch Competitor of Microsoft).
You bought hardware and claim it as your own, with Microsoft saying if you are going to use their services, you aree going to have to maintain their security.
Then you all act surprised like you can't believe Microsoft would actually fight to have their software remain intact.
You play with fire and you get burned.
Razzious Domini
I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left.
I bought my Xbox because the GameCube's games seem like they're mostly for 14 year olds [BBC speculation]. Now, I'm going to go upstairs and intentionally install the update because I don't give a damn. I have my linux server right next to me, that's what I bought it for. That's not why I bought my Xbox.
[...] their console, designed to primarily be a hands off OS device, is downloading patches WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION!?!?! THE HORROR!
And that's the crux of the problem. It does no one harm to add a message that says "Your XBox will now be updated. If you do not update you will not be able to play online." before the actual update happens. I might note that this is exactly what Square does with its PS2 PlayOnline system: it won't let you play without the newest version, for obvious reasons, but it gives you a chance to cancel before it starts the download. "Hands-off" or not, that's the way it should be done. (And not just because of this particular case; the user might have simply connected to check messages and not have time to download a large update, for example. This has happened to me before on PlayOnline, but since I was able to cancel the update it did not turn into a bigger problem.)
I admit I wouldn't be quite as upset if it was, say, General Electric instead of Microsoft. However, it's not because it's Microsoft, per se (trying to use a hacked box on an online service is just stupid); it's that Microsoft has already announced their intention, or at least desire, to implement a similar auto-update system in future versions of Windows, which I'm very concerned about.
Only valid Point M$ has is making sure legitimate systems connect to Live for online play. So for someone to succesfully connect to a live server to be subjected to a system check/update etc.. is not in question. For a live customer who signed an agrement which would indicate automatic updates when attaching to live servers is legit.
HOWEVER patching systems not signed up for the live service without the owners consent is not right. Thats like taking you car to the dealership for a tune up and they replace your aftermarket rims and replace them with stock because they were not 'standard' without asking your permission. It is an unauthorized alteration of your system. That is not M$'s box it is property of whoever purchased it. M$ has the right to not allow unconforming boxes to access its system, it does not have the right to alter your system so that it is conforming without your consent.
EULA for the equipment cannot determin the use of the equipment. You can't state a phone can only be used for a phone and not a paper weight. You can't say this system is not allowed to be used for something we don't want it to be used for. And for those contending this is a console and thus not a PC all I can say is you don't understand this at a technical enough level. This is like ford selling you a car that will only drive on certain roads or use gas dispensed at a specific gas station chain. For any who contend X-box is not a PC you simply don't get it. a PS II or Game cube are not PC's.. they have a differnt base architeture which physically keep them from running PC software. An XBOX is a PC. It uses X-86 PC compatabile hardware architecture. Its ability to use any PC compatible software is artificially limited by the hardware control software. M$ has everyright to sell a limited system, it does not have the right to alter your removal of that limitation without first obtaining your consent, and obtaining your consent means you have to have a reasonable chance to deny the request. Patching a system not signed up for the live service without the owners consent is criminal.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
http://xbox.com/assets/en-us/HardwareManuals/Memor y_Unit.pdf
Seems that the dash does allow you to copy to-from your hard drive and a memory card (as it should).
You're completely right.
.20 um to .13 um? All of a sudden, you get twice the number of chips from the same die, effectively cutting the component price in half.
Also have you considered what happens when manufactoring techniques goes from
This trick requires that you plan for beeing able to move to a new technology without having to redesign the chip, which in fact Sony did on the PS2.
While this is true, I had a scary thought. What if MS did this for another "bug" and they screwed the patch up (as some Windows patches have been in the past), and all of a sudden, your Xbox will only give you a BSOD (or the Xbox equivalent). Unfortunately, your warranty has expired on it, and now you have a large paperweight because of this.
I suspect in this case it'd be bloody hard to get anything done about it. MS would most likely try to deny the patch caused any trouble, much less BSODing many Xboxes out there. With it out of warranty, returning it to the store would be totally out of the question.
So for all of you saying MS is perfectly within their rights to do this secret auto-updating, perhaps thinking about the above will change your mind. I dislike it solely because of the possibility above, nevermind the fact that I also wouldn't care for MS mucking with my console once I'd paid for it.
Microsoft is hostile to supporting Linux on their own platform as it undermines the business model of the X-Box and obviously Linux is the closest competitor to their own flagship operating system (XP or Server .NET 2003).
I find Microsoft breathtakingly arrogant and their products extremely inefficient and bloaty but you cannot be surprised when they want to patch their own product to reduce the likelyhood of hackers messing about with the X-Box Live network!
No, the most worrying aspect about all of this is the support that it lends (to average users) to the 'Palladium' initiative and to trusted computing in general - i.e. to turn all computers into turnkey systems that cannot be modified by the end user.
My suggestion? Support other vendors that actively encourage Open Source such as Sony and their PS/2
Playstation 2 Linux Kit
Playstation 2 Linux Home Page
and withdraw any support for products (such as the X-Box) that encourage 'trusted computing' and Palladium.
BTW I use both M$ XP at work/home and various flavours of Linux.
In europe we do things differently. You see cars are tested for compliance. If it doesn't comply you get a reason handed to you why not and the car is handed back without them modifing a single thing. Damn lazy bastards why can't they just fix and tune it like they do in the states :(
You see noone is allowed to mess with your car. An exception is perhaps the police. See your car needs a license to take part in regular traffic as well. If they find something wrong they will sometimes give you permission to remove it on the spot or they will remove it on the spot. They will certainly not FIX the car. But even if they did the police is goverment controlled and any cop doing anything to a car will be required to fill in an awfull lot legal papers wich he has to explain in a court of law if I want.
So yes you gave a nice analogy. You got a point but you are missing out on the fact the MS messes with YOUR possesions WITHOUT telling you. Noone except the police is allowed to do this in the real world and even they got a lot of restrictions placed upon them. Why should computerhardware be any different?
Would you accept it if Intel came to your house and replaced the defective P3's (you know the ones with the processor ID disabled) with working ones, you know with proper processor ID enabled?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Anyway, i think everyone should carefully read the EULAs before buying or using MS products. It's not that I support MS, but since you buy a product whose EULA specifically states that the product still belongs to MS and that you do not have the right to alter it, then the MS can do what it wants with it, whether it is right or not.
The same holds for the MS services as well... take as an example the Hotmail EULA...
The solution to the MS problem is rather simple... read the EULA carefully and don't buy the product if you feel the license violates your rights (which should be the case for almost every MS product)
How to Destroy Angels II
Xbox Live is the best thing that could happen to the Xbox. It provides a firm point of control for Microsoft.
You can still hack the console all you want - you'll just have to operate in the knowledge that you'll be cutting yourself off from the highly attractive added-value foo that is Xbox Live.
MS has the right to update your console by right of agreement, same as your digital cable company does your cable box. You are RESTRICTED by agreement from modifying the console! Be glad MS isn't subpoenaing you like the RIAA and that your only annoyance is with Xbox Live (which from the start was intended to be as much a security device against bugs and piracy and hacking as it was connectivityware). Count your lucky stars, 12 year old Xbox owners.
Every time I decide to investigate this, everything I can come up with indicates that only Microsoft takes this approach.
All the major console makers have done this a some point, the playstation 1 was sold at a loss when it was first released even though at the time it cost in the region of 300 pounds here in the uk, but sony have gained a lot more experience in making console hardware since then, the PS2 was never sold at a loss, it always either broke even or made a profit.
What makes Microsoft different is that they don't expect to ever make money on the hardware during the current generation of consoles. This is unusual, most consoles that are loss leaders at the start of their lifetime tend to become small profit makers by the end of it.
What this article never touches on (because it's Slashdot, and Slashdot hates Microsoft) is that the update adds serious functionality to the Live client. The changes are good. They updated the main dashboard as well, and that dashboard will ship with all new games.
They fixed the bugs because they were... get this... bugs. What allowed Linux to run on an unmodded xbox was a buffer overflow exploit. Why would you knowingly leave those in a code revision?
You want to run linux on a xbox? mod it. or just go buy a cheap Dell.
Sony is *not*, and never has, lost money on the PS1 or the PS2 in order to make up the difference on the games.
Everyone cites this fact as if it's the divine truth, when in reality it's just an accounting issue. Sony chose to develop its console in house, spending about 2 Billion ($US) roughly on chip R&D. This year alone, they intend on spending $4.5 billion on chip research (Console rsrch and other chips).
They didn't do that so that they could sell the consoles roughly at the cost of manufacturing. They obviously expect to make up the R&D cost via game licensing revenues. To make a quick numerical point, $2B divided by 200 million units is $100 per unit. If you go around announcing that PS2 is selling for $199 and actually costs $179 to manufacture, therefore Sony is making money on every box, you're missing a significant part of the picture.
Imagine two situations: Sony drops $2B on chip research but has lower manufacturing costs. MS spends no money on research and has higher manufacturing costs. If both companies sold a small number of units, MS would have made the right decision. If both companies sold enough units, Sony would would have made the right decision. This is not the black and white issue that folks make it out to be!
Nonetheless, i happen to think Sony chose the right strategy. The console industry is about being the dominating winner, and you design a manufacturing strategy that plays to that point.
A little disclaimer: My numbers might be a bit off b/c I'm pulling them from memory. The basic principle is still there, though: Sony would not break even without significant game licensing fees. Neither would MS. They are in the same boat!
Sony is *not*, and never has, lost money on the PS1 or the PS2 in order to make up the difference on the games.
Really now?
Sony seems to differ with you on that opinion...
Sony loses AU$100 per unit
Sony Computer Entertainment Australia MD, Michael Ephraim:
No. Generally the manufacturer takes the losses on the cuts. If you look at a lot of reports, manufacturers of console games machines lose money. It's the razors and blades game. If a person buys the razors, they keep buying the blades. The company that owns the format is the one that has to ensure that it's a viable business model long term, when you consider the sales of software.
Merrill Lynch has reported that our competitor was losing AU$100 per machine prior to their price cut, about the same as we were losing per machine when we launched PlayStation 2.
Coming soon - pyrogyra