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."
Does this fix help the casual , hardcore, l33t,or noob players?
I wouldn't be suprised if Microsoft decides to start putting these patches on the game discs themselves. The first time you load the game, it patches your system. Of course, me writing this could very well give them that idea.
Yes it is, asshole. I paid for it, I'll do what I want with it. The clickthrough license will not hold up in court, as it was not reached with fair negotiation. Take it or leave it isn't valid.
It's Mine. I'll do with it what I want.
Hell all _I_ wanted to do with the Linux exploit is move my Knights of the Old Republic save from my old flaky Xbox to the new one. I'll be pursuing action against Microsoft for the defective Xbox now.
It's one of the first-run Hungarian run boxes with bad digital out (no dolby) and DVD read problems. I would have let it slide if I could have copied my save. Now they will have to pay. One way or another.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
But every once in a while, a great game such as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic will come along, and be available only for Xbox...and I begin to reconsider.
Sigh...
Wrong. Running Linux, at least temporarily, is the only way to transfer some game saves (Knights of the Old Republic, for one) from one Xbox to another. I'm not going to start over because Microsoft sold me a defective piece of hardware to start off with.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Sorry for the reply to my own post but I wanted to point out an example of what I mean:
Many years ago I purchased one of those APEX 600-A DVD players with the loophole menu. About a month after I got it, it wouldn't power on. I took it back to get repairs under warantee. When I got it back, I found that the firmware had been upgraded to a newer one that removed the loophole menu. I complained to Circuit City but they told me there was nothing I could do.
Ultimately, I disputed the charge on my credit card arguing they had not given me the product I paid for. The credit card company agreed with me and gave me a refund that I used to buy a second APEX player.
So, on that line...what if you are one of the unluckies that has his XBox self-patch? If you paid with a credit card, why not dispute it?
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
But how will I play Halo?
Obviously, the next step is for Microsoft to start throwing the patches on the game disks -- watch for an 'update firmware' message the first time you boot the game.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Here's an idea.
Go stand at Toys R. Us, or Best Buy. Wait until someone seems to be about to buy an x-box.
Then tell them what you have just told us, that after you buy the x-box, it won't be your hardware, it will still belong to Microsoft. If they seem incredulous, explain to them exactly how and why this is the case.
See how many of them actually buy the x-box after that. I'd be curious.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Remember when you bought the Xbox, how you agreed to that contract? You know, the contract that you couldn't read because by buying it and/or opening the box you agreed to it's terms, but it was in the manual that was inside the box? Well, that gives them the right to screw with your Xbox as much as they want.
I hope someone under 18 who bought an Xbox sues.
I am a filthy pirate.
...EULAs of this Xbox sort are illegal. Maybe we'll be seeing some court action in the coming weeks? It's my understanding that companies can't write these kind of intrusive clauses into their EULAs and then expect to get away with them in the EU. And with EU recently pounding Microsoft's ass, I wonder if this will be another thing to add onto their list...
Unless the other party engages in good-faith negotiations regarding the "contract" I am free to disregard it. In all cases where these "contracts" exist, acceptance is not a condition of purchase. If they (Microsoft, in this case) wish to engage in contractualy obligating their customers, then they may employ attorneys in every venue in which they sell their product to explain their demands to consumers, and pay Notary Publics to ratify each bill of sale. Barring that, they have no rights after the sale of the product.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
The original poster claimed it was fine if the manufacturer updated the machine automatically in order to fix flaws. There are several problems with this, most notably that the manufacturer has more power over the computer than you have. If I want a machine where someone else administrates, then I can login to a variety of networks where I am not the administrator. However, on my own machine(s), I like (no, need) the feeling of power. I can choose to patch or modify my system in whatever way I wish, and nobody can stop me. Quite simply, nobody should buy anything, hardware or software, that has an auto-update feature that cannot be turned off and still claim that they are competent enough to use a computer without supervision.
I know they're invalid in most part here in Quebec. Essentially unenforcable.
You see, there's this point of contract law that's important here: that a contract is only valid if it can be read and signed by the party before at the time of sale. Any subsequent conditions, clauses, or contract modifications are null unless agreed by both parties. Once I've paid for Windows, it's mine. I can do what I can with it. Once I buy my Xbox it's mine (supposition here, I don't own an xbox and am not interested in buying one). I never signed any contract at the register allowing Microsoft to modify it without my permission, nor was there a mention of that on the box.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Most would still buy it (and I bet lots of them would think you were nuts)... normal people don't give a damn.
Quite seriously, if I bought an X-Box, I think it'd be rather neat if it self-patched. Normal customers buy it to play games on, and it's a perfectly good platform for that. 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.
Does anyone know the address it uses to download from the internet? If your system is behind a firewall, couldn't you block access to that site or domain?
I realize this would be temporary once they start making game loaders install patches for them. They could include something like this in an updated game developer SDK.
Expect trying to connect to Xbox Live with a modified machine to GET YOUR MACHINE BANNED FROM XBOX LIVE FOREVER.
1. Get a mod chip that generates all possible sequences of machine IDs.
2. In protest of this policy connect with such a mod chip, get all x-boxes banned.
3. Profit?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Yet nobody complains that it updates without authorization.
Okay how about this then, once you have bought the machine you can do whatever the hell you want with it. It is your property, not MS's not the store you bought it from, not your next door neighbours.
The idea that MS can claim ownership on the machines ONCE THEY ARE SOLD is dangerous in the extreme.
Oh and by the way, any company that tries to install software without asking permission is installing spyware as far as I am concerned, that goes for Gator, MS and any other pos company that tries it.
I don't have any experience with this, but I would assume that if you were running linux on an xbox, a net connection throught the ethernet port would be just as useful as it is for a pc running linux...
is made to be used for the purpose of the person who bought it. A bike is meant to take your places, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to take off the wheel and hook it up to a generator (or whatever other creative modification cames up).
Just because other people are more creative than you doesn't give you a right to bash them. Whether or not the end result of this patch was to block linux, it still stands that applying this patch without the owner's permissions is a violation.
How about if somebody covertly "patched" your DSL/cable modem, and suddenly it prevented your from doing slashdot, or something that depending on it it operating in a certain way.
OK, so what about the person that has EvoX or whatnot on their Xbox or uses XBMP. Basically, someone who has done the soft mod that has the Xbox plugged into their network. This network almost guaranteably has a connection to the internet. So I the Xbox CAN get to the internet. Then I play one of these new Xbox games-THAT ACCESS LIVE EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A LIVE SUBSCRIPTION!!!!! and it auto-updates the Xbox. I never asked my xbox to go onto MS's network. It did it when I played a game. Oh well, this is why I preffer hardware mods.
Cant you like sue MS for illegally breaching a computer system that you own? kinda reminds me of the terrorist act or whatever it was... oh PATRIOT act! yeah, now THAT would be funny, M$ getting sued for terrorist activites.... breaking into privatley owned boxenz at someones residence & "installing unauthorized" software :D
- You're not paranoid, they really are after you.
Build a time machine and go back to murder whoever initiated the deal to purchase bungee, then buy it for the PC the way it was originally planned.
Bungie was one of the few Mac only game houses that produced good games for the mac all the way back to my first first person shooter, Marathon. Most people don't realize, but Halo was announced for the Mac. If you look here you can find links to the video of the premere of Halo for the mac at Macworld '99 New York. I was at that keynote when Steve Jobs introduced the 2 minute movie for Halo rendered using the game engine in real time, not pre recorded. I almost creamed my pants. I remember thinking to my self that this was the game that was finaly going to bring the Mac into the gaming arena. Even my PC using Mac bashing friend who I dragged with me was drooling over it. Alas, before it's Macintosh release, Microsoft bought out bungie and made them the "X-Box Development Team". That was a sad day for us Apple people all over. Bungie was known in the mac community as a top noch developer of mac games including one of our first first-person shooters, Marathon. At least you can still pick up the Bungie Mac Action Sack and try some of the awsome games this company once made for the macintosh.
-= Who are The Headlocks? =-
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.
Perhaps Microsoft should put in patches the way that the rest of the game consoles do it - you put the updated libraries onto the individial game discs that need them.
Using the hard drive to hold patches just brings us back to Windows DLL Hell. This is considered acceptable on a desktop, but on a game console, it can be the death of the machine. People tolerate crashes on their PC's, they don't tolerate them on game machines.
Microsoft should not be patching the XBox's without notifying the user if they use the hard drive in such a way. If my favorite game was no longer playable because of an update, I'd be super pissed.
This was one major issue that we support engineers discussed around Sega. We concurred that using the hard drive for holding the operating system would be problematic, as would automatic patching.
-- Joe
Ah that explains everything.
It was in the EULA I signed when I purchased it.
Oh, no EULA to sign when I purchase it? Well, it must be clearly printed on the side of the box where I can see it when I purchase it.
Oh, no EULA there either? Well, how about when I open the box the XBox itself has a big EULA taped over the power button that I have to read.
Nope, not one there either. Well, when I first turn it on, I have to agree, right?
Nope, guess not.
So where exactly is this magical EULA I've agreed to "even without buying Live?"
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Also, the french verb 'voler' means 'to steal'.
There was an interview with a few of the top dogs for Nintendo USA in the latest GMR or Game Informer magazine one. They made it very obvious that Nintendo DOES make a profit on every Gamecube sold, and that this has been their strategy for every console. (Thus the slower innovation I suppose.) Basically Nintendo's conservative as can be and refuses to do anything unless they can make a profit on it. Not too surprising I guess, considering Nintendo has traditionally relied on in-house titles more than 3rd-Party ones.
Just one example, Nintendo won't bother with online yet, they feel there's no way to make money on it, and that it's a bad idea to lose money on it now in case it gets big. Of course this could backfire on them and leave them struggling to play catch-up to Sony and Microsoft if Online gaming really takes off on the consoles.
Nintendo's still trying to live down the fact they practically handed the console market to Sony. Sony had been working with Nintendo to make a CD-ROM add-on for the SNES. When Nintendo stopped their work (not entirely sure what happened there, only that Nintendo didn't let Sony go ahead with the idea in some way), Sony decided to take their work and make their own console, and thus the Playstation was born. As if that wasn't bad enough, then Nintendo insisted on sticking with cartridges for the N64, and many developers were sick of the high cost and low storage, so they flocked to Sony's CD-ROM based gaming platform.
I do hope Nintendo is taking Sony's PSP announcement seriously though, would hate to see them go under or anything. I like several of their games, although not enough to buy a Gamecube so far. I have heard they'll be dropping to $99 US, so I may pick one up then, if only just to play Zelda. :)
What MS are doing is quite probably against the law. If an XBox is considered to be a computer, then they are in clear violation of Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which states [emphasis mine] that:
3.-(1)A person is guilty of an offence if-
(a)he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and
(b)at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing-
(a)to impair the operation of any computer;
(b)to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
(c)to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.
(3)The intent need not be directed at-
(a)any particular computer;
(b)any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c)any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.
(5)It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.
(6)For the purposes of the [1971 c.48.] Criminal Damage Act 1971 a modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition.
(7)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable-
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both.
So, according to section 3 subsection 4, If you did not give Microsoft explicit permission to modify your XBox, but they deliberately changed some software or data on it to stop you doing something, then they have quite probably broken the law. You may not have automatically authorised the modification merely by opening the box, see Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 for my reasoning {note that certain sections would not be valid in respect of a software licence}, but I am no lawyer.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Been there, done that, don't play games on my PC anymore. It's too expensive and too much effort trying to keep up with the hardware requirements. I have dual CPU BX motherboard with P3-850's and a 3.5 year old graphics card that I will replace with one 80% cheaper, much more powerful, passively cooled but still not up to the latest requirements. This machine is no good for games, but will go for years more doing it's normal desktop duties. Why would I waste money keeping a games machine up to date when my XBox will be coping for years more? Besides, my computer isn't in my living, and nor do I want it there.
Exactly.
I remember a really nifty piece of software called DigiGuide, which would automatically retrieve TV listings for you and sort and display them however you wanted. It was really useful, and free, and I thought it was great. Then one day, version 2 decided to upgrade itself to version 3, without warning me, without waiting for approval, and without giving me a chance to say no. Sure enough, version 3 was unusable; it was clunky, unstable, and half the time it took my pc down with it. I stopped using DigiGuide immediately, and I'll never use it again. Any computer I own is mine, and I alone say what software will run on it.
Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
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.)
Umm who is this everyone you refer to? The Dreamcast was the only other console on the market when the PS2 hit for $299, and the DC was $199 on launch.
The XBox launched at $299, as well, much later (~1 year), and the PS2 was still at the same price.
The shouts about dumping came when Microsoft announced they would sell the XBox at a loss, but it has often been believed that everyone was doing this anyway, and the practice is legal if the business model supports it (ie if it makes sense that selling something cheap will enable you to sell something else to make up that loss), and the product is still sold above or at cost. In other words, even though Microsoft is losing money on each XBox, it's not because of the cost of building an XBox, it's because of the huge initial (and continued) investments into R&D and advertising (among other things), just as the PS2 could only have sold at a loss initially if it's production cost was close to the sale price, even with their multi-million advertising campaign (which, iirc, Microsoft immediately doubled for their own advertising budget). Also, Sony had the added cost of their chip manufacturing plant, built specifically for the PS2 chips, something which MS didn't have to deal with directly (instead just getting chips from nVidia).
Nintendo supposedly has never taken a loss on their consoles, but that may be because they limit their advertising budget based on wanting to make money (wow, there's a concept) right away, instead of depending on huge hardware sales and massive numbers of third party titles to prop up the cost of the system.
-PainKilleR-[CE]