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.
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.
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
But then again, what the hell did you expect when it said "Microsoft" on the box?
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.
"...Xbox Live Vole System..."
:)
Definition of 'Vole':
(1) any of numerous small rodents of the genus Microtus and related genera, mostly of Eurasia and North America and having a stocky body, short tail, and inconspicuous ears: family Cricetidae.
(2)(in some card games, such as ecarte) the taking of all the tricks in a deal, thus scoring extra points.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions
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?
...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...
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Umm
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
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.
"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
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
If 99.9% of the users wouldn't notice it because they don't run Linux, then now we have 99.9% of the users having code installed that is not necessary but for 0.1% of the users.
What are MS thinking? They're not exactly known for their bug-free bug fixes. What if something goes wrong here? Is the risk really worth it to stop such a minority of X-Box owners?
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!