Linux Xbox Project Seeks Microsoft Signature 500
silvaran writes "We've had several Microsoft posts, and here's another, from CNet News. The team behind the XBox port of Linux is seeking a digital signature from Microsoft to approve the XBox Linux project. This would allow it to run on an unmodified XBox. According to the article, "Microsoft will be eligible to apply for an award under this scheme if they approve Xbox Linux as a normal Xbox program."
Not going to happen (Score:2, Insightful)
-Erwos
Re:Not going to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess: MS will completely ignore the request. They would never in a million years give their "rival" a boost like that, so silence or denial are the only options, and in this case, silence is the best response from the MS standpoint. No bad press for denying it. Sure, communities like this will be tear them a new one, but overall, if MS ignore it, it will, sadly, go away.
Why it's not going to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why it's not going to happen (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why it's not going to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Even more importantly, you have to remember that most hardware in the console business is sold at a loss (and don't give me that ludicrous "Land of Gord" or whatever the hell that link is people like to use to "disprove" this assertion. Talk to some folks that actually work in the industry.)
Anyway, the hardware is sold at a loss - especially initially. (With time, some of the console generations have been cost-reduced so this isn't the case.) Point is, Microsoft is doing the same thing any console manufacturer would - why sell hardware that doesn't in turn sell software? MS sells titles to make up the hardware loss - they're not going to be selling Linux anytime soon.
Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:5, Insightful)
All of the console makers lose money on the consoles, and attempt to recover that money by licensing software titles.
Signing the linux code so that it can run, free, doesn't pay the bills. It also encourages people to buy machines that will never be used to run licensed software titles.
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:2, Interesting)
Everyone says that, but from everything I've seen MS is the only one losing money on their consoles. Nintendo and Sony both make money on theirs.
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an interesting move as Microsoft has to sign xbox-linux or else is proves the point about illegally restricting competition.
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:5, Informative)
The console market is dominated by Sony, not Microsoft. Microsoft has monopoly in personal computers market.
Saying that Microsoft has illegal monopoly on XBox is like saying that Dell has illegal monopoly on Dell-brand computers :) Of course MS has 100% market share of XBox consoles :), but the real market is entertainment consoles, where Microsoft has maybe quater market share, or even less.
P.S. Note also that monopoly itself can't be illegal. It is abuse of the monopoly which is illegal.
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:4, Interesting)
> The console market is dominated by Sony, not Microsoft.
> Microsoft has monopoly in personal computers market.
True. But Microsoft is not just loosing a little money on XBox, they are bleeding rivers of it. The only reason they can afford to do so is that their Windows and Office monopolies give them huge profit margins on those products (85%) enough to fund everything else they do, and every other market they enter.
> Of course MS has 100% market share of XBox consoles
> but the real market is entertainment consoles,
Actually, the real market was supposed to be
> P.S. Note also that monopoly itself can't be illegal. It is
> abuse of the monopoly which is illegal.
Abuse of which Microsoft has been found guilty of on several counts. Trial or no trial, Microsoft does not appear to be changing its ways.
It is going to be interesting to see if Microsoft actually signs Linux for the XBox. While I don't personally have much use for Linux on XBox, this is a very good test to see just how open to third parties (and open source) the technology formerly called Palladium is really going to be.
"At this moment, it has control of systems all over the world.
And...we can't do a damn thing to stop it."
Miyasaka, "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:3, Informative)
The parent poster said "software monopoly". They were referring to Microsoft's control over who does and doesn't publish titles for the Xbox. This has happened before; Atari sued Nintendo over claims that their "anti-piracy chip" was in reality a way for Nintendo to restrict licensing to approved developers.
There's a brief writeup here:
And the court's decision here:
The courts ruled in Nintendo's favour but for a non-obvious reason: Atari was found guilty of copyright infringement! The antitrust violations claimed by Atari were mostly ignored.
Anyway, my point is that you could reasonably argue that Microsoft is engaging in antitrust violations iff they refuse to license Linux for the Xbox.
Actually, Nintendo has 48% of the console market. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:3, Informative)
flawed premise (Score:5, Interesting)
a) do not sell console
b) sell console
they've got a sunk cost and a huge inventory. considering the very small number of people willing to shell out dough to run linux on microsoft hardware, it will only defray their costs. you'd have to generate sales in the hundreds of thousands to even begin registering on their radar.
there was an article linked here recently where someone set up a cluster of xboxes and a cluster of cheap pc's and concluded that cheap walmart pc's were faster and more cost effective than the xboxes. so who's going to buy all these machines to run just linux? poorly?
no, if you buy an xbox, you're almost 100% going to play games, too.
Re:flawed premise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:flawed premise (Score:4, Insightful)
no, if you buy an xbox, you're almost 100% going to play games, too.
I could use it to watch DVDs, play games online, e-mail, listen to music, webcasts, PVR, all in the living room, and do all that with a controller and a remote. And I wouldn't have to build, or attempt a Linux PVR install from a discarded desktop computer either trying to get compatible hardware and compiling software from source.
It does serve, as MS intended, a good base for an entertainment center rather than just a gaming console.
And, the box will actually fit in with the rest of the room too.
Re:flawed premise (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:flawed premise (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right, as what I pointed out also, that currently no such easy solutions exist, since most of the "Linux PVR" projects require certain hardware, modding PC boxes, software packages, compiling, going through some trouble, etc. XBox with a simple ISO on a CD or a DVD would solve most of those problems.
As far as I understand, given the popularity of XBox platform, anyone could easily create an ISO image with all the required software that installed upon loading the disc into the tray.
Now that's not to say that MS will allow this. What's in it for them?
Re:flawed premise (Score:3, Insightful)
(Sony's a little different - with their fingers in so many pies, a loss from one division won't necessarily harm the company as a whole - but there's no single market that SOny has an absolute stranglehold on, with an 85% profit margin, either.)
MS, by virtue of being able to eat the console division's losses, is able to do some things that, were I Nintendo, would worry me, and were I Sony, would concern me greatly.
First and foremost, is the extravagance of hardware MS can offer for the same price as "normal" consoles. I don't think it can reasonably be argued that the XBox is anything but a gaming PC in console-clothing. That's *not* a bad thing in and of itself -- gaming PC hardware is seriously powerful, and it shows in the XBox games that manage to take advantage of it.
MS sells this hardware at a HUGE loss. Sony and Nintendo, while initially selling their consoles at a loss as well, have managed to either break even, or even turn a profit on the consoles themselves (through production streamlining, economy of scale, etc...). But, both Nintendo and Sony *are* selling inferior hardware, when compared to the XBox. (No, I'm not a fan of the XBox - but I do recognize it's strengths).
In order to stay competetive, both Sony and Nintendo need to match, or exceed, the hardware offered by MS. This means offering more expensive hardware, at the same price. In other words, taking just as big a loss on the hardware as MS is. Can they reasonably do this? Arguably, the giant octopus that is SOny *might* be able to prop up the console division with profits from another division - but they don't have the cash cow MS has in Windows/Office, so whatever the loss, SOny will "feel" it. Nintendo doesn't have that kind of leverage at all. They have...well...they have the Gameboy. Arguably, they have a monopoly in the portable market (especially with Bandai pulling the Wonderswan) - but I seriously doubt they're raking in 85% profit margins there - and I have my doubts as to whether they'll be able to prop up the console division with their portable division.
The other option for SOny/Nintendo is to raise developer costs through licensing, or raise their "take" on the games, in order to make some of that profit back. They most likely won't do this, however, as MS would thereby gain an edge, offering a more attractive development path, and stealing developers that way. That's something Sony/Nintendo *don't* want, as without the developers, there aren't any games, and without games, there's no reason for people to buy the system.
So, you're right about inventory not mattering -- but I think you're wrong about MS "needing" people to buy/play games in order to be successful in the console market. There's more than one measure of success, and we've seen the underselling tactic before from MS (Netscape, anyone?), although in this case they're not *giving* away the product in question, just selling it at a loss that their competition will find hard to match.
If either Sony or Nintendo falls out of the market because they can't compete with MS, it doesn't matter how much money MS "lost" on the XBox - MS wins. If Sony/Nintendo make *less* money, because they have to match MS' hardware offerings without increasing the cost to developers or customers, MS wins. Plain and simple.
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that'd actually happen. Who'd buy an XBOX to run Linux on it, without wanting to play games on it? That won't happen.
a.) What app would you want to run on it that'd be worth $200 or so?
b.) What would the advantage be towards getting an XBOX vs. buying a bare bones PC, except that you'd be able to play games?
c.) What benefit is there period?
People here are all excited about the potential of running Linux on the XBOX, but nobody's exactly bombarding
If MS says no, it won't be because people are going to buy it without buying games as well. It'll be because they'll be concerned about what will eventually evolve from it. I.e. will they be opening the door to bypassing their protection with signed code? (i.e. Linux XBOX emulator)
At least with a real focus on a use for it (that also compliments playing games...) MS would have encouragement to allow it. "We want to port Linux to it so that we can play DiVX movies. That way, we can keep the XBOX in the living room instead of the kid's room..."
Why we want Linux on Xbox (Score:4, Insightful)
The Xbox sits in your living room, imagine being able to put mp3s, divx, and play dvd, and on top of that, being able to stream stuff from other pc's on your network. That's about all you could do, since the hardware is all proprietary. But I think that's enough.
On top of this, if MS does sign this, then you won't have to mod your xbox just to run media files. Once you've modded your box it gets to the point where you decide to just get pirated stuff since it's already modded.
By keeping it unmodded, you'd be able to still run games and get on xbox live. it seems to me that people would be more likely to buy non-pirated games if linux didn't require getting a mod. This should still allow people to buy legal games -- the main argument for why MS won't allow such signatures.
Re:Why we want Linux on Xbox (Score:3, Insightful)
and of course there is one more good reason to sign Linux for X-box.
by and large the sort of people that run linux are the target demographic of the x-box. and they play games. Once you have an X-box in your house it is much easier to give into temptation and just buy the nifty new game you see at Best Buy...
anything that makes the x-box more desireable to the target market than say a playstation is IMHO probably a win
ob disclaimer...
yes I work for Microsoft
no I don't work for that part of Microsoft
and of course the opinions and views expressed by me are my own and in no way reflect those of my employer, my cat, or any other carbon based form of life. I'm just some chick that likes to hack and play games
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:3, Interesting)
And so the list begins:
1. Nethack for Xbox
2. Run multimedia apps on my TV/sound system
(never have to search through my DVD
collection again! Why spend $300 on one
of those 300 CD jukeboxes when an Xbox
can catch the streaming data from my PC?)
3. Use the Linux kernel, sans GNU stuff, to
build arbitrary programs from
4. Use the Xbox that I've bought anyway to do
things like run a half-life server when
friends are here, possibly join in on a
Starcraft match with WINE or somesuch
Anyone else got anything?
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:3, Insightful)
Show me a single bare bones PC under $200 with an nvidia 3d accellerator on it. Can you? Can anyone? For that matter show me one that comes with ram, hard drive and DVD drive + nvidia.
(clicks the refresh button waitin for a response)
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:3, Interesting)
"UT2003 Linux?" -- Commercial
"Uhhm, anything else using the Nvidia X server?" -- What does the NVidiaX server do that it requires a card as powerful as the XBOX's? (Serious question, I honestly have no knowledge of that area.)
"Did I mention Neverwinter Nights Linux?" -- Commercial.
"RTCW linux?" -- Commercial.
You might be wondering why I'm labelling them as commercial. These are not good reasons for Microsoft to sign the Linux code. They work against that effort because MS won't get licensing fees for it. (Shitty, eh?)
Secondly, the XBOX would be an inferior machine to play these games (and future games) on because the companies porting these games are doing because they're popular. What will happen when you try to run Doom III on the XBOX? You'll have a really shitty graphics, not to mention you'll have an inferior controller to play them on.
You did not list any Open Source/Free Games in development. If there were that type of thing going on, then I'd totally understand this view. But there aren't, at least not that are incredibly visible. (well maybe Tux Racer, yay.) Certainly none that are going to take reasonable advantage of this hardware.
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:3, Informative)
1. There is a huge chance that the NVIDIA-drivers won't work on an XBox.
2. The XBox only has 64MB ram. That is not nearly enough to run newer games well on top of an OS (and X) that is already taking up some memory.
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The more they sell, the lower their per-unit cost.
B. Even among those who buy one to run Linux will be some who also buy games. And further, as they already own an XBox they'll be less likely to buy a Playstation. repeat this enough times and suddenly one day it's a whole new 90% MS, 10% Others deal.
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:3, Informative)
WRONG WRONG WRONG. The only people who have lost money selling consoles has been microsoft and sega. the PS2 sells above cost. That's probably why the graphics, CPU, and sound systems are all below XBox's level. Not to mention the fact that it's 2 years old, almost going on 3.
The SNES sold for quite a bit at launch for the same reason. The Razor/blade analogy isn't there with most gaming consoles.
Microsoft DOES lose money per xbox sold. however, they are the exception, not the rule in the gaming biz.
Re:Wow! They'd get $100,000! (Score:5, Funny)
but: (Score:4, Interesting)
im curious as to, could microsoft legitimately refuse to sell the SDK to someone programming linux or could they allow the SDK (looks as if its not needed since linux runs) and then deny a license? are they allowed to do that?
What if a current developer stepped in and aided with the project and distributed it for a low price (I would prolly pay for it as long as I could download updates or something). if this company also had games, would microsoft refuse them the license and then risk losing their titles or would microsoft grant them a lisense? They could always release the source or a free downloadable version but it wouldnt just plug in and work, givin the xbox's problems with burnt media without a mod-chip.
Re:but: (Score:5, Informative)
1. Developer approaches Sega with an idea. Typically they do this through a publisher, however, or Sega would at least suggest they get a publisher
2. If Sega likes the idea (established ideas are more likely to get the okay, as in a port of an existing title), then the developer is given a contract to sign.
3. The developer/publisher ponies up a lot of money for the SDK/development hardware.
4. The developer must meet with Sega on a regular schedule to demonstrate their progress. If Sega isn't happy with the direction things are going, they can terminate the agreement.
5. Once the title is finished, Sega burns it.
6. I'm not clear how it worked here, I don't remember if Sega distributed the discs, or if the publisher did.
Of course, there's also other aspects, like jewel case artwork, documentation, etc., that has to be approved by Sega.
The SDK/equipment is typically done up-front, and the rights to use it can typically be revoked at any time during the contract.
-- Joe
Actually, how it works: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually, how it works: (Score:5, Informative)
The very important item is that they use their own development kits. Many people out there released software for the Dreamcast based on the official Sega or Microsoft SDK's, and Sega legally could have sued them into oblivion.
As for requiring approval for distributing their own 100% original software (again, using thier own SDK), that's a legal issue that I'm not 100% familar with (I have read Sega v. Accolade, but don't remember a lot of the specifics). I do know that in the case of the Dreamcast however, there is copyrighted code that MUST be present in the boot block of the disc, or the BootROM won't accept it. The legal standing of making your own bootblocks, I'm not sure about, but this was one of the things that Sega learned from the Sega v. Accolade case.
The issue in this case though, is that the Linux XBox team can't crack the digital signature that Microsoft uses (AFAIK), so they have to ask Microsoft, or waste time in trying to crack it.
So, while I agree with your view, please note that it can take up to several years for this to happen. By the time the Dreamcast was hacked, it was already dying, and were it not for the Mill CD backdoor in the BootROM, the Dreamcast most likely would not have been hacked (the requirement for the media being GD-ROM's, which are higher capacity than CD-R's was strictly enforced, except for when a particular signature was on the disc). Oh, and since I don't think that Sega has anymore profit coming in off Dreamcast games, I guess I can safely say that there are some titles that had checks for whether or not they were on real discs or not (and did some pretty cool stuff if they weren't) - but I won't say more than that, nor will I name titles.
I think that the key point here is that the Linux XBox team would actually like to release Linux for the XBox sometime this year, rather than five years from now (pulling numbers out of my butt).
Oh, and one final thought...
they can release unlicensed software should they want, provided they wrote all code themselves and got all hardware programming information by reverse-engineering rather than stealing NDA'ed documents
Sure, but only if they're not bankrupted in court by a company with bigger pockets than them tying things up (i.e. Microsoft) while trying to prove it.
-- Joe
Unique media (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. AFAIK too, MS use the same standards of signing as PGP does, so if the Linux teams crack their signing key in any reasonable amount of time, I'd be really fucking worried for the integrity of digital signatures as a whole. If we could crack MS's private key quickly, we could crack anyone's private key quickly.
By the time the Dreamcast was hacked, it was already dying
That's true, but then the DC did have a really short lifespan compared to other consoles. I remember using an unofficial Megadrive/Genesis dev-kit, written by cracking groups, on the Amiga in 1990, and the Megadrive was still profitable until I think about 1993-1994 when trailing-off interest and the new messiah (the Sony Playstation) killed it.
were it not for the Mill CD backdoor in the BootROM, the Dreamcast most likely would not have been hacked
Well, I think we have to thank Sony for this. Prior to the Playstation, console owners were contented not to get magazine demos like the computer owners. However, once Sony moved to CD-based media, console owners now expect game demos on magazines. While Sega made it difficult to easily pirate GD-ROMs because of the custom pressing hardware, it also made demo CDs financially unviable. So they added the CD backdoor to allow for coverdisc and trade-show demos. This is why Sony and Microsoft use media that can be duplicated with conventional CD/DVD mastering facilities, although obviously not with consumer CD-R/DVD-R drives.
some titles that had checks for whether or not they were on real discs or not
Most discs do, for virtually all games platforms. They just get cracked. If the DC games used more than the capacity of a regular CD-R, the crackers added disc-changing code. The same happened with Amiga games that used more sectors than normal copyable disks, and their game data was already fully compressed -- they were split onto two normal disks by crackers.
Actually, my favourite anti-piracy code is a tie between the anti-Action Replay code (the Amiga has a Time-Of-Day counter which continually ticks away and can't be set by software to anything other than zero -- just run normal timer interrupts and check the TOD has elapsed by the amount you expect it to, then your software can't be successfully "unfrozen" from an Action Replay "backup" (memory and register dump)) and the Rob Northen Copylock (self-decrypting-reencrypting trace mode code that depended on both register contents and the status register for correct decryption, and it read a protected track which had sectors that were fractionally longer than the sectors the Amiga/Atari could write by itself -- timing tolerance margins in the disk-reading hardware allowed for them, but they physically took longer to read, and that could be measured with the high-resolution timers).
Sure, but only if they're not bankrupted in court by a company with bigger pockets than them tying things up (i.e. Microsoft) while trying to prove it.
Yes. Thanks for the precedent, Sony.
In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
seriously, given Microsoft's stance toward the GPL and Linux (one's a cancer, one's a threat), in what universe would they possibly agree to digitally sign an alternative OS for their precious XBox?
Re:In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
given Microsoft's stance toward the GPL and Linux (one's a cancer, one's a threat)
Microsoft actually distributes GPL software [microsoft.com] (see right column).
Re:In other news (Score:2)
would they really? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it really is done on an un-modified box though, there should be no reason why Microsoft don't sign the code, otherwise wouldn't it be discrimination?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Question - (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question - (Score:3, Insightful)
That leaves another option. Microsoft signing XBox Linux ISOs in binary form? That'll be the day : )
Re:Question - (Score:5, Insightful)
They lose money on the console.
If you buy an x-box and run linux (for emulators/surfing the web/whatever), but don't buy 2-3 games, they lose money.
Now can you see why they woudln't want this?
Re:Question - (Score:3, Insightful)
This would be a marketing blunder (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, Linux is not exactly a mainstream solution. Geeks who know how to use it will likely buy a lot of games or at the very least promote the hardware at no charge to MS.
You can think of an esoteric case of someone running a beowulf cluster of Xboxes and costing Microsoft $$$. But this threat is not likely to materialize because it would still cost money and companies with money to burn will not run their enterprise servers on a home entertainment system.
All considered, supporting Linux will promote sales of both hardware and games. MS can even charge money for a boot disk with signature without violating GPL on Linux itself.
Re:Question - (Score:3, Informative)
At the launch date, the retail price of the box was $300, meaning that the wholesale price was probably $250-$275. Then they dropped the retail price to $200, with a wholesale at $175. So, barring a drop in production costs, they should be losing $100 more per console than they were at launch.
Hardware prices have dropped spectacularly since then - I'd be surprised if they're still losing money on the Xbox.
Using off-the-shelf hardware from other vendors means that MS can't reduce production costs as aggressively. And they can't just go to Pricewatch and buy out-of-production CPUs, so their prices don't fall as precipitously as those of an arbitrary PC clone.
MS still has to absorb shipping and (two-year) warranty costs in that $175, as well. They're definitely still losing money on the console, if not on the X-box division as a whole. In fact, the latest quarterly reports confirm that they're still losing money on the division as a whole, too.
Didn't know about the attach rate - nifty.
I didn't either. Maybe it's all MS interns getting those games for $10-$20 apiece. My attach rate was 7, because I got those 7 games for a total of $70. *grin*
Re:Question - (Score:2)
Because Microsoft would then be heavily subsidizing hardware that runs a competing OS ?
Re:Question - (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not in Microsoft's interests to go along with this.
Not stupid asking, either (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Question - (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they make their money on the games.
Even ignoring the issue of whether they take a loss on console sales, they still make most of their money on game publishing rights. If MS were to sign a Linux kernel or boot-loader, people could write Linux games for the XBox and publish them without going through MS.
Not only does that deprive them of publishing revenues, but it takes away their ability to control the kinds of games available for the XBox, something that gives marketers palpitations.
Notice how Sony handled this: they released a Linux kit for the PS 2 which costs as much as the console itself but provides the ability to develop for it. The kit is very carefully designed (and licenced) so that the software you develop with it will only work on consoles with the Linux kit. This encourages the hobbyists (i.e. potential future developers) while maintaining Sony's control over the platform. After all, who's going to fork over an extra three hundred bucks just to play Manholes of Venus.
If I were in MS's position, I'd do a similar thing--sell an extended BIOS chip or similar add-on that has an extra key--priced to cover the loss on the console. Then, I'd sign any open-source project that wasn't just a scheme to run W4R3Z3D games (plus whatever Windows-based OS I wanted to get the hobbyists interested in).
Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
1) It would be a tremondours PR blow to actively give Linux inroads to their system
2) As everyone says, they make money on the games and lose money on the consoles
3) If they approve an open-source OS, then they will also lose money on games because developers will circumvent the licensing process and develop games in Linux
Re:Question - (Score:3, Informative)
The law is pretty explicit about this, and the refusal to license is at the heart of Sharman Networks/Kaaza legal battle with the RIAA. In the Sharman case, if they can show that the RIAA colluded to block competition in distribution through use of copyright, they (the RIAA) could lose all government protection of that copyright (and of course, Sharman wins).
Copyright is a "temporary" monopoly on what you have created. If it's mis-used to block competition, i.e. leveraging one monopoly (your works) into another area (like distribution), you may loose your copyright protection. This would have been an even better angle than breaking MS into smaller companies, strip them of copyright on Windows....but that's another story.....
This is a really great legal cudgel to force MS's hand.....If they refuse, their refusal could be used against them in the future as a defense for those who attempt at breaking the key on X-box (think no DMCA on X-box because no copyright)....If they do go along with the approval, they can keep their copyright on X-box and loose money on every unit sold. If they admit that they are loosing money on the console and profit from the games, which they alone can cert., and use that feature to keep others away, they undermine their own legal position and demonstrate mis-use of copyright
I love watching MS between the two horns of a dilema...
M$ handing out certs? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:M$ handing out certs? (Score:2)
You generally can decide who you sell something too, however you have no right to dictate what they do with it after they buy it.
Notice to *certain* readers (Score:3, Informative)
I doubt it (Score:2, Interesting)
Reward for MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Ben
This will never go through (Score:5, Insightful)
It is like asking Microsoft to ship X-Boxes with a modchip mounted on it already. Hell will reach absolute zero, and Microsoft will STILL not touch this idea with a ten-mile pole.
Re:This will never go through (Score:5, Insightful)
Please...
So you are saying that you could set up an XBox to run Linux, and Wine or VMWare on top of that, and an XBox emulator on top of that? And this is something to be afraid of?
There is no way that would come close to working, with the overhead of Linux, VMWare, and then an XBox emulator. Games are written to take advantage of the specific hardware they are written for, and unless you have hardware that is much more powerful than what you are emulating, the games will run much slower, if at all.
I think another poster was correct when they said that this would give MS more ammunition vs modchip sellers. The legitimate uses of them would be much reduced with the release of something like this.
However I don't think this will get released anyway. Really the question is, why would they? What percent of their userbase would buy it? WAY less than 1 percent, for sure. It is more or less a waste of their time.
Mark
Re:This will never go through (Score:5, Interesting)
So you are saying that you could set up an XBox to run Linux, and Wine or VMWare on top of that, and an XBox emulator on top of that? And this is something to be afraid of?
Once you have access to the CPU on an XBOX after it has done the disc copy protection check you could EASILY allow the user to pop in a (non-signed) DVD and then reset the CPU, but not do a full BIOS reset. The result? A linux-based boot disk for pirated games. You don't need to do the whole emulation business.
You Just Know... (Score:5, Funny)
...that the reply letter from Microsoft is going to be ... well, let's just say you could put it in a styrofoam cooler and use it on your fishing trip.
Re:You Just Know... (Score:2)
Green envy and spam - Business Case for Microsoft (Score:3, Funny)
With apologies to Dr "Suse", to the tune of "Green Eggs and Ham".
Linux can. Linux can .Use Linux
That Linux can! That Linux can! I do not like that Linux can!
Do you like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can. I do not like the open sourcing plan.
Would you like to free source share?
I would not like to free source share. I would not like it anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you like it very stable? Would you like it to enable?
I do not like it very stable. I do not like it to enable. I do not like to free source share. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like the open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you use it in a X-Box? Would you use it if it ROCKS?
Not on X-box. Not if it rocks. Not if very stable. Not to enable. I would not let them free source share. I would not let them anywhere. I would not allow open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you? Could you? In your biz? Use it! Use it! Here it is.
I would not, could not, in our biz.
You may like it. You will see. You may like it if it's free!
I would not, could not if it's free. Not in our biz! It should never be!
I do not like it on the X-box. I do not like it that it rocks. I do not like it amongst our biz. I do not like it that it is. I do not like they free source share. I do not like that anywhere. I do not like that Linux can. I do not like you Linux man!
service! service! service! service! Could you, would you, as a service?
Not as a service! Not if it's free! Not in my biz! Man! Let not it be! I would not, could not, on a X-box. I could not, would not, if it rocks. I will not use it if its stable. I will not use it even to enable. I will not let them free source share. I will not let them anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Say! if in copyleft? always free copyleft! Would you, could you, copyleft?
I would not, could not, in copyleft.
Would you, could you, why so nervous?
I would not, could not, I'm NOT nervous. Not as copyleft. Not as a service. Not in my biz. Not if it's free. I do not like that it can, you see. Not if it's stable. Not on X-box. Not to enable. Not if it rocks. I will not let them free source share. I do not like it anywhere!
You do not like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can.
Could you, would you use what we wrote?
I would not, could not, use what you wrote!
Would you, could you, to avoid your bloat?
I could not, would not, avoid bloat. I will not, will not, use what you wrote. I will not compete with them as a service. I will not because it makes us nervous. Not in our biz! Not if it's free! Not if it is! You let me be! I do not like it on the X-Box. I do not like it that it Rocks. I will not use it if it's stable. I do not like that it does enable. I do not like they free source share. I do not like it ANYWHERE I do not like open sourcing plan!I do not like that, Linux can.
You do not like it. So you say. Try it! Try it! And you may. Try it and you may, I say.
Man! If you will let me be, I will try it. You will see.
Say! I like open sourcing plan! I do! I like that, Linux can! And I would use it because it's stable. And I could use it to enable...
And I could charge for providing a service. And I could copyleft without being nervous. And in my biz. And still source free. For you can still charge for a service fee!
So I will use it on the networked X-box. And I will promote it because it ROCKS. And I will use it because it's stable. And I will use it to enable.
And I will use it here and there. Say! I can use it ANYWHERE!
I do so like open sourcing plan! Thank you! Thank you, Linux man!
By The Cat with the RedHat
New Contest (Score:2, Funny)
Signature flexibility? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Signature flexibility? (Score:2)
Re:Signature flexibility? (Score:3, Interesting)
Catch-22 (Score:2)
If they agree, Xbox will lose more money than it already is losing, because people will be able to buy the handle and get their razors elsewhere.
I like it. Kudos to the Xbox Linux folks for thinking of it, and asking Microsoft publically to please sign their hobbyist project so the kids don't have to install mod chips.
Brilliant!
Re:Catch-22 (Score:3, Insightful)
Say what? The XBox is a console, not a PC. And even if it was a PC, MS is not a monopoly player in the PC hardware business.
If they agree, Xbox will lose more money than it already is losing, because people will be able to buy the handle and get their razors elsewhere.
How many Linux users out there have a boner for putting Linux on an XBox? Outside of the "I'll do it because it's not supposed to be possible" crowd? A few hundred? A thousand? How much money does MS lose per XBox? $50.00, $100.00? How much money does MS have in liquid assets (cash on hand)? An estimated $40,000,000,000.00 (US). How many millions of Xboxes would have to be turned into crappy PCs running Linux before MS even felt the damage?
You have better luck draining the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.
If you want to mod your XBox because it's a challange, or you like turning everything around you into a Linux box, fine. Do it. Have a blast. If you are modding your XBox to stick it to the Man please invest in something resembling a clue.
Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
I read this open letter a couple days ago, and not only is it unlikely (understatement?) that Microsoft would take them seriously, the authors don't even really appear to care whether or not Microsoft agrees with them. The whole letter is interspersed with a number of jabs at Microsoft, which is not something that I would really consider wise if you want Microsoft to take you seriously. As well, they obviously don't understand the console video game market ("... Microsoft's deliberate design choices in terms of restricting the software that may run on an unmodified xbox ...", "Xbox Linux gives choices back to the user which Microsoft denies them ...", "In terms of our being an 'established game publisher' [19], members of our team have written games in the past, and our Xbox Linux distribution runs such fine games as 'Tux vs Clippy' [14], 'Tux Racer' [15], and 'Frozen Bubble' [16]," and so on). In a nutshell, they don't seem to understand that Microsoft has every right to restrict what software runs on their console (see Nintendo, Sony, Sega, et al). There's no "denial of choice" -- if you want a computer, don't buy an XBox. And writing a few amateur games does not give one the title of "established game publisher". Maybe "established game developer", in which case they could try getting into Microsoft's incubator program for developers with a good idea but no publisher, but that's not going to happen for the XBox Linux project.
Microsoft is responsible for making sure that only quality software (err ... let's ignore stuff like Kabuki Warriors, eh? All consoles have to have their share of stinkers ...) is released for their console. Otherwise, we'd be right back in 1984 and the last video game crash. A major contributing factor was Atari's lack of certification for games, and the subsequent glut of pure crap. Do we want to go back to that? I know I don't.
Finally, there are definitely piracy issues here. Right now, while it's not exactly difficult to modify an XBox, it's at least a small barrier of entry to the pirate underground. As well, it makes for a fantastic way to keep cheaters off of XBox Live. How simple would it be to write a small loader for copied games or cheats when you start from an open platform like Linux? If this gets certified (fat chance), the mod chip barrier to entry is no longer there, making it trivial to pirate games or cheat online. You can say what you will about piracy (piracy sucks, imho), but I think everybody will agree that online cheaters are teh suck.
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're missing the concept of legal overtures. (IANAL.)
First, you try to get MS to sign your binary. This shows that you attempted to enlist their cooperation to achieve your goals through means that MS may approve of, working within their system. That's right, we're willing to play by their rules.
Then, if MS denies the sig, then we can start hacking the X-Box for compatibility purposes, 'cause it's no longer just an anti-privacy measure.
This is not about us getting a sig. It's about us getting a way to legitimately hack the X-Box, by having MS deny the sig.
Once more: I am not a lawyer.
Re:Not likely (Score:4, Insightful)
If a microwave is designed to cook food, but you want to hack it to play movies, are you hacking for "compatibility purposes"?
I don't think that this is a valid analogy. The microwave is not a general-purpose device that is only marketed for one purpose.
Re:Not likely (Score:4, Insightful)
[The XBox is] a game machine, and not designed to be anything more.
True, it's not designed to be anything more. But it is implemented in such a way as to have other possible applications. Why should its design goals and marketing preclude alternate usages? When was the last time you used duct tape to repair a duct? I thought that ET using a saw blade as part of his transmitter was inventive. Do you think he should have gone down to the Rat Shack and picked up a stepper motor and 555, because the saw blade wasn't designed as a gear?
Certain PDP emulators were written (according to lore) to keep an old, sourceless Zork binary running. I use these emulators for historical research. Are you saying that just because they were written for games, I shouldn't use them for anything else?
Shouldn't we be trying to put OS X or LinuxPPC on [the GameCube]?
Personally, I'd prefer to see NetBSD instead. I'm not going to bother writing it, though, even though I own a GameCube and would be interested in seeing other OSs on it. But if somebody wants to port OSs badly enough to do the work, they should.
Somebody wanted to play games on the HP-19C calculators, too. Just because that wasn't the calculators' original intent, does that mean that Lunar Lander never should have existed?
Now, if the Linux/XBox guys find out that there's a technical limitation that keeps it from running well, or at all, then nobody should fault MS; as you say, it was never meant to be a general-purpose device. I don't gripe when the web server on my TiVo is sluggish. But we're not talking about a design limitation; we're talking about essentially a permissions issue.
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Egad, hopefully that won't happen. Picture what would happen if there was a successful gaming system that anyone could write games for? What would that be like? Oh, yeah. Just like modern PCs. Sure, there is a lot of crap, but it is ignored and the good stuff rises to the top.(Obviously good marketing can help a good game, but ultimately crap sinks [planetdaikatana.com], and quality succeeds [cyan.com].) The PC game industry seems to have done pretty well given that it really demands at least a $600 "console" to play and only caters to people willing to purchase a $1,200 "console".
No, Microsoft's only interest in restricting who can publish is based on simple greed. Microsoft makes money from publishing their own games and from licensing fees from other companies. Microsoft isn't going to be interested in companies making games without paying them. Microsoft doesn't really care about "quality software" for the X-Box, but they are interested in controlling the market and limiting their own competition. This is an old console-monopolists trick (Nintendo regularly delayed approval on competitors games so that their in house product could be on shelves first). This is a stunning example of the dangers of a monopoly and why console manufacturers work so hard to keep monopoly control over their systems. The fear becoming the PC game market, where games have to succeed or fail on their own strengths and they have to compete fairly.
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
also sprach Blackley (Score:5, Insightful)
After his talk and demo, he was asked whether Linux would run on the Xbox (I think it was the first question asked). His answer (I'm paraphrasing) was interesting:
His talk hadn't mentioned code signing, so no-one asked him whether they'd sign a linux image. I figure he's right on that last point - it's easy to imagine a signed "aint-it-cool" general purpose linux image being quickly coopted into a wrapper that allowed copied games to be played.
So perhaps the question should be "why would Microsoft _want_ to sign an Xbox linux image?". I doubt "so they can sell more Xboxes" is going to be persuasive enough.
Re:also sprach Blackley (Score:3, Interesting)
to implement a game for publication which
incorporates a code to switch to a linux console,
then get them to sign the binary of the game.
It seems quite do-able, but it doesn't allow
for future updates to the binary image. Of course
that doesn't really matter if you just use it to
book the harddrive.
beating MS at their own game... (Score:2)
guaranteed rejection. (Score:3, Interesting)
1) They take a loss on the console in order to make profit on the games console owners would buy.
- they don't want you to buy an xBox for the purpose of running linux and doing whatever (email, server, etc) - they want you to buy xbox games!
2) Allowing another OS on the xbox creates piracy.
- MS needs to sell games to make money. If these guys get their cert. it would be used to play games. Be it TuxRacer or a pirated copy of an actual xBox game. It would happen. The cert could be used to boot, and then load a pirated copy of a game on an unmodified xBox. Bad for business.
3) This is not in the grand scheme of things. Consider the xBox the first stage in a modular sort of computer (this being the gaming module) with DRM and total MS control.
- there's no benefit to award this cert. the hardcore linux nerds of the world aren't going to stop and say "hey, mayeb MS ain't so bad. I'm going to go to the store and buy Windows, Office, etc"
With no benefits at all for MS I see no reason in the world why they would award a cert. here. The reward money is not a benefit, it is a joke to a company the size of MS.
The actual letter... (Score:5, Informative)
Can't hold the
-malakai
Catch 22 for Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
If MS doesn't sign it....clear case of MS using its monopoly in one market to attempt to dominate another = more antitrust lawsuits
Its a no-win situation for MS.
The language of the letter is rather Harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
The letter alleges that an email alias at xbox.com might not be staffed due to the "dumping" of xbox's and the poor fiscal performance of the xbox "division".
Also, the letter places restrictions on MS if MS sees fit to given them a key. The mountain in this case, is told which path it should crawl on to get to Mohammad.
It's somewhat comical, and sad at the same time. Either way, useless. If MS _DID_ give them a key, it would be for a specific build/version/signature only. And that just won't make these guys happy.
I recommend the authors of this letter read up a little on basic diplomacy. My recommendations:
"Save face" concept is a way to solve conflicts and avoid embarrassing or discomforting the parties involved. [traderscity.com]
How to Win Friends and Influence People [amazon.com]
"Truth is Stranger Than Fiction" - a new play (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot Community:You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes...blah,blah,blah
Microsoft::Um, okay
wtf are you thinking (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand why XBox Linux Project wants a digital signature from Microsoft.
I understand why people use hacked chips to run Linux on their XBox.
I even understand why Microsoft won't do it.
What I don't understand is why so many people are jumping on this "lets run Linux on xbox!" bandwagon. Be honest, 99% of you would not go buy the box just to run linux on it (the other 1% fall under the catagories of fools or too damn rich). You aren't gonna go sell your P2, and change to microsoft products.
There is no practical purpose to run Linux on the Xbox, but its fun if you have to either hack your way into it, or buy and install the mod chips. Granted. But if its just a matter of buying "Linux for Xbox", then what the HELL is the attraction? The walmart $200 pc is a better option if you just want a cheap linux box. If you don't feel like your screwing Bill G, its just not worth the effort. Admit it.
Once you take the "I'm sticking it to microsoft" out of it, there really is no purpose to run it, even for acedemic purposes. If they get the signature, fine, but the folks in here who are trying to explain WHY they would want it to run Linux are fooling themselves, but not me.
Re:wtf are you thinking - I've got a reason (Score:3, Insightful)
A MythTV (or other media center type app) is something I'd love to be able to use my X-Box as. A wallmart PC may be a better option for real work, but when I plan to use a TV as a monitor in the first place, I'll get much better quality out of something designed to interface to a TV than the built in graphics in a Walmart PC if it supports TV out or any decently priced video card I'd put in that Walmart PC. Or I could pay $100 or so for a scan converter, which would be another little box, which is less simple and elegant. Plus built in HDTV out support. Glaggghhhhh.... (Homer drool sound)
A bootable, signed Linux disc is a modchip. (Score:5, Interesting)
And all the crying about their monopoly is silly. Hardware vendors have restricted software that can run on their hardware for eons. It's largely for quality control reasons, but Nintendo and Sony have long killed projects after seeing distasteful material. "Thrill Kill", anyone? It's the way the industry works. Anything else and you'd see a total collapse of the console industry--not merely Microsoft's interest in it.
JH
Why It May Happen (Score:5, Insightful)
int getRunning() { // Done!
// Get a file from the hard drive to prove we're legit
// pass controll to it
return;
}
What MS Wants the Linux Xbox to Have... (Score:3, Funny)
Heh, I can imagine Clippy coming up while you're playing Halo saying "Look behind you!" dressed up like a soldier with facepaint and an m16. -phly
Reply Wager (Score:3, Funny)
Tail-wagging-the-dog model ? (Score:3, Informative)
I remember (vaguely) many years ago, a game console (Colecovision?) that also had an expansion unit (keyboard, cassette tape perhaps, printer capability), so you were (if I remember right - someone feel free to add detail) buying a game system that expanded to be a basic computing system. Yes, we are talking in the pre-Windows days...
MS Seems to be doing almost the opposite. They are selling a PC as a game, but restricting its operation as a freely working PC.
A number of people questioned why anyone would actually want to use one of these boxes, especially in comparison to the Walmart PCs. I actually like the form-factor (especially to use in home entertainment centers, along with TVs and stereo gear), and am seriously considering purchasing one or more X-boxes specifically for running Linux. I think its a neat little box, and if I don't really want the walmart box, this is a nice alternative.
Also, there are people who will already have an Xbox (especially kids), who may not have the money to spend on a PC immediately, who might like to load up Linux. I read about the X-box linux project on a number of sites, and the most recent 2600 magazine edition had an article on it. One article that I saw also indicated that with some care, you can Install Linux, and still play X-box games. What's more, if you are constrained for space, you have a small-platform PC, and can still use your TV. No need for a more costly (small-footprint) PC, plus a monitor ($$), plus the space lost for the new monitor.
Now, if you get a new xbox for $200, and the mod-chip for maybe $50, you are paying a 25% toll to defeat that signature scheme. Plus the extra few steps required (cutting and soldering cable wires for the mouse and keyboard), for example, are pretty basic, but just enough to deter many who might otherwise use this project.
I am curious about how far memory or disk storage can be expanced.
I think that X-box linux is a very nice hack, and I would like to see it seen not just as a novelty, but as a means towards PC appliances, and towards low-cost computing).
Sam Nitzberg
http://www.iamsam.com
Why linux on an Xbox - my reasons (Score:3, Insightful)
Here are my reasons:
1. Wife probably wouldn't mind an xbox, whereas she'd mind another computer.
2. Xbox has a nice form factor for my living room, where I would like to set up a media PC anyway.
3. Linux on the xbox will allow me to hook into my home LAN to pull MP3s from my Netfinity server and run same MP3s through a player on a tv-based interface. My tv audio runs through the stereo, so this would essentially allow me to reach all of my music without having to touch another CD. The CD storage cabinet can go in the attic.
4. I can run a web browser on my tv (at decent resolution once the HDTV thing settles in).
5. PVR.
6. MAME.
7. I can hack on websites and scripts in the family room with my wife and kid instead of doing so in office. These are "fun" items, not work, so concentration isn't too big a thing -- plus the kid might learn something.
8. I can finally play Obi Wan and Jedi Knight 2.
9. I'll have another DVD player.
10. It'll just be fun to be able to do it.
Is the xbox an ideal platform for all of these things in a perfect world? No, but it is cheap and reasonably adaptable to all of the above-listed tasks. I could buy a micro atx mobo and case and assemble something, but the xbox would be cheaper and probably better looking and more solid than anything I could muster.
I have no real religious zealotry about MS. I don't care for expensive bloatware and I like to have a little more control over my stuff than MS usually permits. I understand that some people like MS stuff and I understand (and laugh at them myself) all the MS jokes you want to send my way.
The xbox could simply be a nifty little gadget. Like MS or not, the applications I can think of for this gadget intrigue me enough to overcome my marginally anti-ms personal bias. A tool is a tool. Besides, and xbox running linux would be greatly satisfying to me from a spriritual perspective.
GF.
Microsoft's products. (Score:3, Funny)
Some believe that Microsoft's products may exhibit somewhat unreliable performance from time to time. (Hey, it's only their opinion.)
Help us serve you better. Rate this post by answering the following poll question:
This post was:
O helpful
O interesting
O sucked
Print and mail your response to the RIAA, and remember to include the post tracking number: 2985-18482834-3348-289342895-98663-1825235-0544035 -32842348234-8483-B.
Oh, well. Time for yet another Negra Modelo. This will be my fifth beer in the last half hour, and I fully intend to get more drunker than usual tonight.
Sincerely,
The Negra Modelo Troll
How it works without approval (Score:3, Informative)
The XBOX kernel executes only XBE files. These are XBOX binary files, they are self-contained. They cannot load DLLs or other extensions. Also, the XBOX kernel does not provide even I/O subroutines for controllers or other gaming hardware, the XBE has to bring even these itself in order to play.
In order to run, XBE files must be signed. Microsoft is the holder of the private key for the XBOX, so in order for your XBE to run, Microsoft must sign the binaries. As of now, they require the source of your application, compile it and sign the resulting binary. So it is not as easy as giving an arbitrary binary to Microsoft and have them sign it in order to subvert the XBOX.
If you choose not to ask Microsoft up front for signing a chain loader to load a Linux kernel, you'll have to have a genuine game, and have Microsoft sign this. This game must be buggy, and there must be some kind of circumstance where this game turns into something different that can load arbitrary code and execute it.
The most simple way to have this is to modify the USB controller routines for a game that provides custom controllers such as a steering wheel or something similar. The USB drivers for such a game must have a bug where they accept arbitrarily long USB blocks from the bus, and by accident jump to the head or end of that buffer. Thus, you can build custom USB devices that send about 1 K long USB blocks containing a chain loader and then execute this.
Your code would not be part of the code Microsoft signs, the flaw would be very innocent in your code, and the actual chain loader would not be signed and it thus changeable.
Currently, there is no key recovation scheme for code that I know of. Thus, MS cannot easily revoke the signature for that buggy game. Also, the maker of the game cannot be directly blamed for making some kind of circumvention device, as there is no actual circumvention in that code, just a flaw.
MS would most likely build the next generation of XBOXes to contain an updateable list of revoked keys, though, and probably use XBOX online gaming to distribute key revocation lists.
Palladium PR (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point of asking is to get the 'refusal' so they can point to that.
It would be Microsoft refusing to allow competing software to run on one of its platforms.
The Linux guys could then point to Palladium, same mechanism (certs), same controller (Microsoft), same product (Linux), and point out that if Microsoft gets this in place the same thing will happen on PCs.
At the moment we're in the fuzzy denial stage, "Palladium can be turned, off", "Microsoft not that evil", "IBM Cavalry will save us",...
But thats not true, you can't turn it off because your computer has to operate with other computers that will insist on it being turned on, Microsoft *is* evil , and IBM couldn't save themselves.
This gives the Linux guys something clear they can point to, namely:
"Microsoft refused to give Linux a license to their platform on non-discriminatory terms."
Re:The countdown begins... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cheeky (Score:3, Insightful)
That and the fact Bob was marketed by his Bride to Be Melinda French, I say he managed Face pretty well in that ocasion.
-malakai
Re:The real point? Why use Linux on the Xbox? (Score:3)
Re:Uh... why would MS want this? (Score:3, Informative)
~Berj