Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Xbox Linux group seeks Microsoft seal (News.com)
News.com reports on an open letter to Microsoft from the Xbox Linux Project.
"'Because of Microsoft's deliberate design choices in terms of restricting the software that may run on an unmodified Xbox to 'Microsoft approved only,' coming to ask Microsoft, and presumably paying Microsoft, is currently the only way we can get our port of the GNU/Linux OS to interoperate with an unmodified box,' the letter says."
(Log in to post comments)
What exactly should Microsoft sign? Posted Feb 19, 2003 22:31 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] There is no link to the actual open letter. It's not clear what exactly Xbox Linux group wants Microsoft to sign - the bootloader, the kernel or every binary. It makes a huge difference. Microsoft may be unwilling to give Xbox Linux developers carte blanche by signing a generic bootloader.
The letter Posted Feb 19, 2003 22:34 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] I should have tracked that down before posting the article, sorry; here is the letter.
Xbox Linux group seeks Microsoft seal (News.com) Posted Feb 19, 2003 22:48 UTC (Wed) by alspnost (subscriber, #2763) [Link] Hmm, I can't imagine this working, but good luck anyway. If Microsoft actually agreed to this, it would be a very interesting sign!
Xbox Linux group seeks Microsoft seal (News.com) Posted Feb 19, 2003 23:20 UTC (Wed) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] From the letter: Unkind people might characterize this as a second deliberate monopoly created by Microsoft even as they were being found guilty of creating an illegal monopoly in Operating Systems software. "Unkind" people?!?!? I might have said "awake" people, but I'm not trying to kiss Microsoft's butt. Then again, what the XBox Linux people are saying is pretty clear. To me, all of this just says "stay away from the XBox". What's the point when you can get a more powerful "white box" machine for a similar price? And the only people who would think of running Linux on the XBox are people who won't be intimidated by getting Linux on a "white box" machine. I may be missing something here, but I guess I just fail to see the point of it all. -Rob
Feint Posted Feb 19, 2003 23:54 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] This is a clever legal maneuver, and MS is trapped.If they sign, then their loss-leader box effectively subsidizes Linux applications. If they refuse, they're using their monopoly power to create another monopoly. If they ignore it, that's worse than refusing. Seeding the market with millions of Xboxes that end up used as Linux hamster boxes would cost them well under a billion dollars. They can easily afford that, but it would also cost them face.
Feint Posted Feb 20, 2003 17:11 UTC (Thu) by ericbr (guest, #5904) [Link] So what? Nintendo has exactly the same "monopoly" on GameCube & N64, and Sony has exactly the same "monopoly" on Playstation & PlayStation 2. There is no console platform where J. Random Developer can ship a game without getting an explicit license from the platform owner (be it Sony, Nintendo, Sega, or Microsoft).
Convicted monopoly-abuser Posted Feb 20, 2003 20:46 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Hey, guess what, Sony, Nintendo, and Sega aren't convicted monopoly-abusers. In case you missed it, Microsoft is.Under the Sherman Anti-trust act, being a monopoly puts special restrictions on their behavior, particularly in attempts to use their monopoly resources to take over other markets and to exclude competition. What's OK for Sony et alia is not OK for Microsoft. Them being a court-demonstrated monopoly and a convicted monopoly-abuser, a judge can order them to stop that behavior without running a whole 'nother trial.
Convicted monopoly-abuser Posted Feb 20, 2003 22:36 UTC (Thu) by Psykechan (guest, #9746) [Link] Nintendo is a monopoly abuser. Most of the major game console makers are. They do this to ensure they get their licensing fees which is how they make money. It costs quite a bit to develop a home console and then sell it at a loss.
Feint Posted Feb 21, 2003 3:51 UTC (Fri) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] "This is a clever legal maneuver, and MS is trapped."I would say this is a clever political manoeuvre, and MS is trapped. Acceptance is a chink in their armour, refusal will bite them in the arse. I don't think we can say _how_ the refusal will bite them in the end. All I know is this open letter is setting them up.
Xbox Linux group seeks Microsoft seal (News.com) Posted Feb 20, 2003 20:31 UTC (Thu) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] > To me, all of this just says "stay away from the XBox".Perhaps they should be expending their efforts on getting a Linux port of "Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball"... ;)
Easy Posted Feb 19, 2003 23:26 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] They don't need a signature from MS. All they need is to find a security hole in any module already signed by Microsoft that allows them to insert and execute arbitrary code. Then, they're in without a modchip.Should be easy, given how many things MS will have ended up signing, and how sloppy proprietary coders are.
Easy Posted Feb 20, 2003 0:20 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] But then all XBox Linux users would have to purchase said module, and they would have to run it before the kernel on every boot. And then there is the difficulty of taking advantage of the bug on an unmodified system.Doesn't sound very useful to me. They need to find a hole in the firmware or hardware. But they could run into the DMCA even though they aren't trying to access any copyrighted code.
Easy Posted Feb 20, 2003 2:57 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Ross wrote, "But then all XBox Linux users would have to purchase said module, and they would have to run it before the kernel on every boot."Let me ask you:
Easy Posted Feb 20, 2003 19:57 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I really wouldn't expect MS to ever sign a Linux kernel. Even if they were forced to, it would still be painful because only that exact compile of that exact version would be signed. I was just objecting to the characterization of a technical solution as "Easy".
|
|
||||||||||||