Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft aren't forcing Lenovo to block free operating systems

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 257 posts

Re: Microsoft aren't forcing Lenovo to block free operating systems

#41

Post by keyboardwarrior »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #17
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #11

The moral of the story is that you shouldn't trust a low-level support engineer as a source for official company policy.

Or the uncritical tech press or the rubes on reddit, etc. Its obvious to me that we're living in a time where rumors, falsehoods, and purposeful misdirection are easily monetized and that's what our tech press has degenerated into. Critical voices just get downvoted away for being "shills" or somesuch. We live in a time where likes and upvotes control what we see and informed criticism being censored away by downvote…

You just have no idea how logic works, If you dissent against people who think they are dissenting against a idea, then what you are actually doing is agreeing to whatever those people were desenting against in the first place.

Its double negation law in action. So you cannot really dissent against a dissentor without very clearly sitting in the middle and stating so.

Re: Microsoft aren't forcing Lenovo to block free operating systems

#42

Post by ars »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #35
gautamdivgi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lenovo may have set power saving standards for the laptop based on what they want to market. It's Intel that dropped the ball here. They need to submit patches for RAID to upstream Linux. Or it could just be a firmware bug.

Wait, does RAID actually save power over AHCI (single-drive RAID)? If so, how? For one thing, no benchmarks I've seen of nvme SSD has shown them to be significantly faster if the BIOS is set to RAID, but I've not heard any thing for or against the power savings benefits of it.

You misread it. RAID forces the use of the Intel driver vs the Microsoft one. The Intel provided driver enables power saving.

So it's not the RAID that saves power, it's the [use of the] driver.

Re: Microsoft aren't forcing Lenovo to block free operating systems

#43

Post by christogreeff »

huhtenberg wrote: post #30
simbalion wrote: post #16

edit: the truth has been censored because I spoke harshly of those looking to perpetuate evil.

No idea who are the dolts^H^H^H^H^H kind people who have downvoted you into light gray, but you are bloody right. Just look at their complete and utter disregard to everyone's privacy demonstrated by Windows 10. Remember all the shady shit Microsoft pulled to shovel W10 down everyone's throat, including "x", the cancel, being treated as "Yes, upgrade". How short and selective of a memory you should have to then claim…

Selective memory is disregarding all other areas where MS is actually encouring or trying to make their products work on Linux. The future of Microsoft is not Windows. I am also not disregarding the fact that I might be wrong, but as a Windows and Linux user, it seems strange to possibly alienate potential users with a Linux blocking move.

Re: Microsoft aren't forcing Lenovo to block free operating systems

#45

Post by raesene9 »

simbalion wrote: post #16

edit: the truth has been censored because I spoke harshly of those looking to perpetuate evil.

That's a view, but realistically Microsoft's Anti-Trust lawsuit days are now long ago, far further than say... Google's (http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-la...)

Realistically all corporates are out there to make money, this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

that said I don't think witch-hunts with inadequate factual backing help anyone. This would appear to be one of those cases. A single customer support rep. makes a statement and it hits the front of /r/linux and HN without anyone actually checking with the companies in question.

Not everything is a conspiracy theory....

Re: Microsoft aren't forcing Lenovo to block free operating systems

#46

Post by rbanffy »

Wasn't Lenovo the company that shipped unremovable malware with laptops? Considering the almost impossible to disable Intel management stuff is also there, I can only imagine the kind of parasite living on these machines.

Why would anyone buy their stuff?

Re: Microsoft aren't forcing Lenovo to block free operating systems

#47

Post by jsmthrowaway »

guelo wrote: post #31

Without any comment from Lenovo or Microsoft this guy is speculating the same as everybody else.

"This guy" is relatively known for hacking on Linux laptop drivers and a long relationship with Intel hardware and power management in particular, so I'll stop short of appealing to authority and just say I value his speculation even if it is that. (Which I don't think it is.)

Re: Microsoft aren't forcing Lenovo to block free operating systems

#48

Post by guelo »

raesene9 wrote: post #39
guelo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that it took a blow up in the media for Lenovo to comment justifies the tactics used by commenters in the forums.

that's a view, but did anyone actually ask Lenovo for official comment before posting the story as gospel truth? From what I've read, I saw no evidence that they had. I'd just suggesting a slightly more measured approach might have worked just as well....

Users don't have any other channel to ask Lenovo besides the forums and (apparently more effectively) leaving poor reviews on Best Buy and Amazon.

Re: Microsoft aren't forcing Lenovo to block free operating systems

#50

Post by captainmuon »

raesene9 wrote: post #4

Also worth noting Lenovo's official statment on the matter http://www.techrepublic.com/article/lenovo-denies-deliberate... confirming that they have not blocked the installation of alternate operating systems. It was a shame to see the initial posts this morning hit the top of the page without any more evidence than a single customer support rep. who was unlikely to realistically have inside knowledge of some kind of…

That's just nitpicking. They blocked the enabling of a setting which allows Linux to see the hard disk. They went out of their way to make a firmware change that has the effect that you cannot run Linux - unless you flash your BIOS or you write a driver. In my book, they effectively blocked the installation of Linux.

Now, there are two options. 1) to support this hardware correctly, you'd need to make complex changes to the driver. In this case, I cannot see how it is the Linux' developers' "fault" that this doesn't work. It would be great to have a driver, but it depends on information that Lenovo doesn't give out. Or 2), it is trivial to make a driver, e.g. you just have to look for a certain ID. In this case, I would also blame Lenovo or MS, for there would be no reason to bock AHCI to "ensure a good customer experience" etc.

Whether this situation has come from malice or not, I don't care very much. Anyway, I think it is up to Lenovo to provide a solution (a BIOS update, a Linux driver, or information neccessary to write a driver).

Now, is it a conspiracy or not? I'd say the most likely option is carelessness. Maybe this happenend: "Shall we set this to AHCI or RAID? Currently it is set to RAID and works fine." - "Do we need AHCI?" - "Nah, Windows 10 runs fine, maybe for some older OSes" - "We don't care about those, just leave it on RAID. And while you're at it, comment out the AHCI option."

Did MS give any instructions to Lenovo to block Linux installs? Maybe not specifically, but we have to remember this is a "Signature" edition laptop. (There was the accusation that this only effects the signature edition and not other editions, which would be particularly damning btw..) I wouldn't be surprized if there was an agreement like. "The partner (Lenovo) shall install any crapware on Signature edition laptops. They shall not not preinstall other OSes. And they shall not offer support on installing other OSes." -- Which would be entirely reasonable for a special "Windows Signature" edition laptop.

Post reply on HN