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."

16 of 702 comments (clear)

  1. Any serious Linux users... by mpeg4codec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Why the suprise? by mao+che+minh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Listen, when you choose to use a Microsoft product you are doing so under the assumption that you are giving away a great deal of your rights, that you are contributing to a monopoly and any parties that have the ability to gain from that, and that you are about to lose a lot of control over your own system/property. This well-written-in-EULA-but-hardly-mentioned-aloud-ag reement is no secret. In some cases, in certain interpretations, this can be a good thing: like automatic patches for security vulnerabilities. However, there are many reasons why such intrusive behavior - regardless of motive - is bad.

    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.

    1. Re:Why the suprise? by someguy456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In some cases, in certain interpretations, this can be a good thing: like automatic patches for security vulnerabilities. However, there are many reasons why such intrusive behavior - regardless of motive - is bad.


      Not trying to defend M$ or anything, but when you put it that way I guess they really are just trying to secure the xbox. After all, it _is_ being hacked.
    2. Re:Why the suprise? by AlexMax2742 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Weird. Thing is, I didn't buy my Xbox to run Linux. You can install Linux on it if you want, but if Microsoft doesn't want you to use their Xbox Live service without having a legitimate Xbox that they know hasn't been modified (for better or for worse), it's their decision. And another challenge for you. Perhaps you can figure out a way to circumvent that too and be able to use both.

      People figured out how to make the Xbox do something it wasn't designed to do. Microsoft has taken the stance that it doesn't want that happening on their systems, especially when you consider the fact that with Xbox Live factored into the equation, and that this might open the door for cheaters to ruin online game, hell Just look at SOCOM. Don't you usually patch your games for better online play? If you play online, you need to patch the structure to make sure nothing sneaky has comprimised the games. If you dont want to, you just choose not to install Live! It's that simple. Xbox Live! and Xbox itself are intertwined. They both need updating or else the weak link breaks the system.

      Microsoft has made its move. Now its your turn. Either circumvent it or give up. But jesus chrsit quit whining about how evil Microsofts intentions are.

      --
      I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
    3. Re:Why the suprise? by cranos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. Patches on the game! by devinoni · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Do you have to sign an EULA to use an XBox? by JoeShmoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:what? by Keighvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Vole? by R33MSpec · · Score: 5, Funny

    "...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 :)

  7. If you mod it, stay off of their network... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

  8. MS is just testing the waters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Agreed! by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. Re:What am I missing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    f 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?

    Because like most linux users they are using it to host child pornography and hacking software, run an open relay for spammers, and allow al-qaeda operatives to coordinate their terrorist attacks. Can't do any of that without a network connection.

  11. 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

  12. Re:Groundbreaking suggestion by DansnBear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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? =-