+- Kodi Community Forum (https://forum.kodi.tv)
+-- Forum: Discussions (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=222)
+--- Forum: Hardware (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Thread: Hacking the Boxee Box to run XBMC? (/showthread.php?tid=64578)
- darkscout - 2011-01-06
ritalin Wrote:How did Apple TV development get started then? Every update breaks the launcher. I know you guys dont work on that part of the ATV, but I would assume the same will end up being true with the Boxee Box with another team always breaking the lockout.
Also this doesn't really address the fact that the original firmware shipped with boxee, at least at present, is very easy to root. I could really careless if Boxee was wiped off the box just to get XBMC on there, I would be willing to bet others share this feeling as well.
Please don't misunderstand my post, I am not telling you how to do the wonderful work you do. I am just trying to understand what has changed with regard to XBMC development from when it was ported to ATV to now.
AppleTV is just OS X 10.4. You don't need to 'root' anything to get Linux on there.
- davilla - 2011-01-06
ritalin Wrote:How did Apple TV development get started then? Every update breaks the launcher. I know you guys dont work on that part of the ATV, but I would assume the same will end up being true with the Boxee Box with another team always breaking the lockout.
As the creator of atv-bootloader and atvusb-creator, I can answer this. EFI firmware cert checks boot.efi which then loads mach_kernel with out any additional cert checking. Apple never extended cert checking so the original exploit (a fake mach kernel that loads linux running in a ram disk) always worked. That gets access into the atv filesystem where there is no cert checking like on ios devices. Since atv os is similar to 10.4.7, it's easy to build and run other code.
Launcher breakage happens when Apple changes the private API that is used for Frontrow/Backrow. This is always the risk when using private API calls, they are free to change them at will as they are 'private'
- bobfish66 - 2011-01-07
The point is that CE4100 is much better suited to run application like XBMC than any other platform out their. Boxee and Google choose this device gave the prove that this is a functionally and cost effective solution.
Compare to ATV, there will be no more ATV on the market. But there will be more CE4100 based product out there.
Also, although the Boxee box and Google TV have different shapes, the guts are the same. Just like anything put out by Intel, they are all the same design. So I am not sure why some people said that the platform can be locked or unusable.
By the way, if anything that is going to go away is VDPAU. Intel has but GPU on all the Atom processors going forward. Even the Sand Bridge. So there is no low cost NVIDIA GPU anymore. They will be forced to focus on high end GPU. However, we are talking about low cost HTPC here. It does not make sense to put a GF400 into a HTPC which requires low cost and fanless operation.
So as a survive strategy, we need to serious look at CE4100 and all the other Intel Atom based processors.
- Robotica - 2011-01-07
bobfish66 Wrote:By the way, if anything that is going to go away is VDPAU. Intel has but GPU on all the Atom processors going forward. Even the Sand Bridge. So there is no low cost NVIDIA GPU anymore. They will be forced to focus on high end GPU. However, we are talking about low cost HTPC here. It does not make sense to put a GF400 into a HTPC which requires low cost and fanless operation.
So true. yesterday, I said something similar in the AMD Fusion topic.
bobfish66 Wrote:So as a survive strategy, we need to serious look at CE4100 and all the other Intel Atom based processors.
Don't forget VAAPI for i3 (and the like) and for AMD. Right now, I see AMD e-350 as the best HTPC platform on the market. Even better than ION (incl. CE4100). But both SoC's will dominate the market in 2011.
The problem is that all devs around here have ION's so development for i.e. VAAPI is very low priority. Luckily, Boxee donated some Boxee boxes to the some XBMC devs..
- topfs2 - 2011-01-07
Robotica Wrote:So true. yesterday, I said something similar in the AMD Fusion topic.
Don't forget VAAPI for i3 (and the like) and for AMD.
And to you both VDPAU is a framework for hw decoding, its as saying VAAPI will go away....
- topfs2 - 2011-01-07
bobfish66 Wrote:So as a survive strategy, we need to serious look at CE4100 and all the other Intel Atom based processors.
Developers obviously are eager to look and work on Intel CE4100 we have never said anything else, fact of the matter is that there is _no_ unlocked device to play with...
- Robotica - 2011-01-07
topfs2 Wrote:And to you both VDPAU is a framework for hw decoding, its as saying VAAPI will go away....
Point is that Nvidia has no CPU (up until project Denver is finished) and thus no SoC solution like Intel & AMD. So dedicated chips for video decoding (like broadcom or nvidia) lack a market once those SoC are fully supported by software like XBMC. So saying VDPAU is going away is overdone, but between now and project Denver it will loose it's power to SoC's.
On the other hand, getting XBMC to run on CE4100, opens up lots' of coming consumer electronics and thus enforce those video decode chips usage.
- Robotica - 2011-01-07
topfs2 Wrote:Developers obviously are eager to look and work on Intel CE4100 we have never said anything else, fact of the matter is that there is _no_ unlocked device to play with...
Too bad Davilla didn't win one of those boxee boxes
- jmarshall - 2011-01-07
The XBMC team won't be involved in hacking a device just so it can run something: That is other peoples jobs.
Once folk have other apps running on the boxee box then XBMC could be ported across. After all, if you can build boxee to run on it then XBMC is buildable using pretty much the same code. Some members of the XBMC team may assist with this last step, but that's the easy bit.
However, even with this done, distributing the pre-built XBMC might be difficult. The Intel SDK stuff may not be legal to distribute.
So to sum up:
1. The XBMC team won't do anything to "hack" the boxee box - that's someone else's job.
2. Assuming someone else does "hack" it, then we're happy to help answer questions about getting XBMC built on it.
3. The resulting binary may not be distributable.
Cheers,
Jonathan
- topfs2 - 2011-01-07
Robotica Wrote:Point is that Nvidia has no CPU (up until project Denver is finished) and thus no SoC solution like Intel & AMD. So dedicated chips for video decoding (like broadcom or nvidia) lack a market once those SoC are fully supported by software like XBMC. So saying VDPAU is going away is overdone, but between now and project Denver it will loose it's power to SoC's.
On the other hand, getting XBMC to run on CE4100, opens up lots' of coming consumer electronics and thus enforce those video decode chips usage.
I don't even understand how thats a response to me...
Edit: just for the sake of it..
- Robotica - 2011-01-07
@topfs2: You're right. It was more in reaction to bobfish66 and myself. Wrong quote.
I noticed you have edited your answer. Too bad we can't see that like with normal users ("Last edited.....").
- flammon - 2011-01-07
Something fishy is going on here. All of a sudden the top devs and project leaders come out and express how they don't want anything to do with "hacking" the D-Link Box and posts that could imply such work are suddenly removed. Hey, if you guys are in a contract with Sigma or anyone else that is causing a conflict of interest, please let us know and we can simply end this thread.
- nikiiv - 2011-01-07
flammon Wrote:Something fishy is going on here. All of a sudden the top devs and project leaders come out and express how they don't want anything to do with "hacking" the D-Link Box and posts that could imply such work are suddenly removed. Hey, if you guys are in a contract with Sigma or anyone else that is causing a conflict of interest, please let us know and we can simply end this thread.
Barbie.. writing video software like XBMC requires completely different skills compared to what is required to 'hack' aka circumvent boxee box security system. That's why... No conspiracy.. capish?
- pike - 2011-01-07
@flammon.
Reason I deleted a post is because it could be interpreted incorrectly.
I don't want to give FALSE HOPE.
It's so easy to misinterpret certain things, especially if you wish for something.
- topfs2 - 2011-01-07
Robotica Wrote:@topfs2: You're right. It was more in reaction to bobfish66 and myself. Wrong quote.
I noticed you have edited your answer. Too bad we can't see that like with normal users ("Last edited.....").
Its if I edit really fast, if you check my last post I edited it again to show you there is no special handling, we get last edited also...
Please everyone stop thinking there is some master plot behind everything and that we are overlords looking to take over the world and screw you guys over... We wouldn't be doing open source software if that where the case and frankly I am offended by the insinuation..
The deletion of the post was because it could be interpreted wrong and what was said was basically what jmarshall said at any rate, but with my non-native English which is easily misunderstood.