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

81–90 of 257 posts

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

#81

Post by raesene9 »

npiazza83 wrote: post #76
raesene9 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should Lenovo provide a driver. Let's be honest, that's a commercial decision and entirely up to them if they want to support Linux installs on this hardware. Why should a commercial company be forced to provide support for a platform? If they advertise the hardware as supporting Linux then sure they absolutely should be required to support it. If they don't, then why should they have to support it?

I don't think anyone is saying they HAVE to support linux. Think of it like freedom of speech. Lenovo is free to put themselves out of business however they want and their consumers are free to call it a big ass mistake and call them idiots and not buy their blackbox crap.

Abosutely people are totally free not to buy their stuff.

But that does not make it a conspiracy by MS or Lenovo.

it is a commercial decision. companies get to make those

consumers then get to choose whether to buy their stuff

but it's not a conspiracy.

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

#82

Post by sndean »

savagej wrote: post #65

Why would anyone ever buy Lenovo? It's malware, spyware, and harmful to users. I buy HP or Samsung laptops to run Fedora. Just accept that Lenovo is not IBM hardware, and that it is lost to us.

> I buy HP or Samsung laptops to run Fedora.

Recently, which models? (I was thinking of getting a new Thinkpad... but maybe I should look at HP or Samsung)

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

#83

Post by plandis »

christogreeff wrote: post #6
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…

It was fascinating how quickly people condemned Microsoft without applying any critical thinking to the issue. I tend to not read commments on articles anymore, where Microsoft is blamed for something. Reminds me of Slahdot.

Microsofts track record for open solutions over the past 20 years naturally makes a lot of people distrustful.

I'm actually surprised when I see people give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt despite years of building mistrust.

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

#84

Post by raesene9 »

captainmuon wrote: post #62
raesene9 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the idea that a random customer service rep. would have information about something that was not a public position of either Lenovo or Microsoft, to me, seemed unlikely.

What if Lenovo and MS have an agreement what to preinstall on those Laptops - which is very common. Furthermore, Lenovo agreed not to offer ways to install specific other software - no bundled Antivirus CD, no downloadable Lenovo Picks app - and maybe or maybe not - don't prepare customer support to answer "how to install Linux". The customer rep gets a cryptic sticker on his desk: "Models 1234S, 3333S: Signature Win…

customer support person made stuff up 'cause he wanted to seem to know the answer, so he could close the call and get on with his job?

Or Lenovo and MS have a vast conspiracy to use disk drivers to block linux install..

which is more likely.... you decide.

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

#85

Post by michaelmrose »

raesene9 wrote: post #36
__jal wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when a Lenovo rep says: "This system has a Signature Edition of Windows 10 Home installed. It is locked per our agreement with Microsoft," it doesn't exactly require a bomb-throwing partisan to reach the conclusion.

But the idea that a random customer service rep. would have information about something that was not a public position of either Lenovo or Microsoft, to me, seemed unlikely.

Ive frequently as a complete peon been privileged to know non public info about the inner workings and policies that was not only non public but that I was forbidden to share with the world as a matter of course. Far from being unusual this is the norm.

We aren't talking about deep dark secrets we are talking about normal privileged company information.

The strange thing in fact is not the employee knowing things not shared with the world its the employee actually disclosing it.

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

#86

Post by captainmuon »

raesene9 wrote: post #60
captainmuon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Should Lenovo provide a driver. Let's be honest, that's a commercial decision and entirely up to them if they want to support Linux installs on this hardware. Why should a commercial company be forced to provide support for a platform? If they advertise the hardware as supporting Linux then sure they absolutely should be required to support it. If they don't, then why should they have to support it?

It's the old distinction between "should do legally" and just "should do". Of course I don't believe they should be forced to do anything.

But then I reserve the right to be indignant about this. And I also think it is a bit stupid:

Lenovo had a reputation for having serious business Laptops. They cared about power-user customers who wanted to configure everything, and they had good Linux support.

Either they messed up technically - they did not know the effect this small change would have on Linux support. No problem, can happen, but is still a bit stupid. Or they messed up business-wise, by knowing this change would disable Linux, but not considering that important. I believe this is a much stupider screw-up.

It's like you buy one of these modern crossover trucks, and then find out you can't use it off-road in the desert. Of course, 99% of customers will use them in urban and light rural traffic, and only rarely will they be used off-road. But part of the allure of such a vehicle is that you could.

I don't believe that moustache-twirling executives are staging a conspiracy to kill Linux. But I do think Lenovo has lost their attention to detail that made them so special, and I can no longer recommend Lenovo products without hesitation, like I used to, which is a bit sad.

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

#87

Post by Hydraulix989 »

zanny wrote: post #59
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #37

Their spin that it is "our super advanced Intel RAID chipset" really plays in their favor, given that their BIOS uses a single goto statement to intentionally block access to the ability to set this chipset into the AHCI compatible mode that the hardware so readily supports, as evidenced by the REing work and the fact that other OSes detect the drive after the AHCI fix using the custom-flashed BIOS. So, why are they…

Its actually no problem not to be backwards compatible with your "crazy new super advanced hardware". Except when that CNSAH is holistically proprietary and black box, with no documentation, no announcement of it, no schematics or free drivers or anything. "We made this black box that you aren't allowed to know how it works but you aren't supporting it so you are in the wrong".

I'm confused. Lenovo is claiming that the problem is Linux's fault because Linux isn't "forwards compatible"with the CNSAH -- except the CNSAH is actually backwards compatible with Linux, except Intel's usually enabled/unrestricted backwards compatible functionality is intentionally blocked by Lenovo by two lines of code in their BIOS.

The fact that Intel's hardware is "CNSAH" (or even black box/proprietary/etc) is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I'm not saying that it is Lenovo's onus to ensure that Linux is forwards compatible at CNSAH at all -- it's actually their responsibility to make sure they don't break existing backwards compatible functionality; you're misrepresenting my actual argument.

I'm also _liberally_ and very generously using "backwards compatible" to describe AHCI, when I should be calling it "modus operandi."

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

#88

Post by Hydraulix989 »

ars wrote: post #42
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, then make the default setting RAID in the BIOS, don't proactively prevent (or should I say, restrict) that setting from being changed at all.

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

#89

Post by raesene9 »

captainmuon wrote: post #86
raesene9 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should Lenovo provide a driver. Let's be honest, that's a commercial decision and entirely up to them if they want to support Linux installs on this hardware. Why should a commercial company be forced to provide support for a platform? If they advertise the hardware as supporting Linux then sure they absolutely should be required to support it. If they don't, then why should they have to support it?

It's the old distinction between "should do legally" and just "should do". Of course I don't believe they should be forced to do anything. But then I reserve the right to be indignant about this. And I also think it is a bit stupid: Lenovo had a reputation for having serious business Laptops. They cared about power-user customers who wanted to configure everything, and they had good Linux support. Either they messed…

oh I agree with you I absolutely think they should support Linux, personally it's my OS of choice for technical work and their lack of support here makes me less likely to buy their stuff in the future (my next laptop will likely be a Dell XPS 13 Developer edition, precisely because of their linux support)

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

#90

Post by richardwhiuk »

intopieces wrote: post #54

FTA: "For a consumer device, why would you want to? The number of people buying these laptops to run anything other than Windows is miniscule." This is a really poor argument, and slightly disingenuous. Sometimes, people change their use for a device. Maybe they want to explore linux in the future, maybe they want to sell the laptop to someone who wants to use it for linux... That the blame is being possibly misdirec…

I think you are missing that the 'you' in that argument is Lenovo, not the consumer.

Lenovo doesn't have an interest in how people's use of a device changes, unless it changes they up front purchasing decision. They do have a very strong interest in making sure that reviews and writeups don't say that the battery life is rubbish because the laptop has been switched to AHCI mode. As such, they have a strong incentive to prevent this happening.

Given that the operating which 99.9% of their install base will use supports this, it's almost certainly a net win. They don't support running Linux on it - that's at the customers risk. Why would they devote any resource to this?

Post reply on HN