191–200 of 257 posts
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…
The fact that Linux got caught in it is just collateral damage.
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…
You mean UEFI. Not BIOS.
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…
> They blocked the enabling of a setting which allows Linux to see the hard disk. Or, alternatively, they removed a firmware setting that makes their hardware work less well and didn't think about Linux at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is this harder than the current procedure which requires users to sideload custom RAID drivers from USB that support the RAID at install time? It's not harder: It degrades the overall experience while using the laptop (battery, temperature, performance). > I can imagine the support calls coming from THAT. > Oh, and this is the Windows experience that is affected. True, but I'm sure they plan on make money out o…
"It's not harder: It degrades the overall experience while using the laptop (battery, temperature, performance)." Except these are baseless claims that haven't been supported by any data yet; in fact, one user that posted on the Lenovo Community forums compared the "performance" of single-drive RAID (oxymoron) vs. AHCI for NVMe SSDs, and it's more or less the same. "I mean flashing a non-supported BIOS :)" Right, so…
On the technical side you're right, we agree. On the business side things do not work like that. For the last time: This was a terrible decision, but the best course of action for Lenovo might not be as simple as it looks for a technical standpoint.
And please, keep it civil. There's no need to call me troll just because you don't understand business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I wholly disagree with Garrett's attempts to redirect (or should I say, deflect) blame to Intel instead of Lenovo in this case. I've succinctly outlined my argument in most of my other posts in this thread.
Garrett has a history of stonewalling and misdirection on these matters. It was the same with UEFI, Secure Boot and when he and Red Hat tried to casually shoehorn support for PE binaries into the Linux kernel, hoping no one would notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I wholly disagree with Garrett's attempts to redirect (or should I say, deflect) blame to Intel instead of Lenovo in this case. I've succinctly outlined my argument in most of my other posts in this thread.
Garrett has a history of stonewalling and misdirection on these matters. It was the same with UEFI, Secure Boot and when he and Red Hat tried to casually shoehorn support for PE binaries into the Linux kernel, hoping no one would notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No? There's no way to contact Lenovo corporate? No customer support? Just that forum?
If you read that forum thread you would know, that many of them already went past various ways to contact Lenovo and even got a "it's been escalated to dev team, but nothing more to say about it" reply there after a few months of complaining (that changed nothing of course).
To be fair, they've responded to my tweets, but only because I have nearly 10k followers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This guy is so knowledgable that he says > Why not offer the option to disable it? A user who does would end up with a machine that doesn't boot But the modder that flashed the custom BIOS was able to boot linux on the first attempt.
That comment was clearly referring to the common case of ordinary Windows users, who could easily render their existing systems unbootable by changing the driver mode after Windows was already installed.
If not use the tech support you pay for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because something was shittier in the past, doesn't excuse the present for still being shitty. You are right. No one's making excuses here :) > Where did I say that Lenovo should change the default setting? You didn't, I did. I was walking on Lenovo's shoes and asking myself "What's good for the business right now?". I was considering my options, so to speak. > What I think is reasonable is allowing users to c…
>Why is it reasonable? Does it bring more money to Lenovo shareholders? Dear god, am I supposed to care about the shareholders now? People don't buy products out of empathy for shareholders. I don't consider "higher support costs" to be a valid pretext for trying to obstruct me from configuring my property as I please. The idea that people may cluelessly mess around in the BIOS and render the machine unbootable is no…
No. People buy Lenovo because many reasons, but not because of empathy... or because their friendliness to Linux.
And, by the way, you still don't get it. You're not the one to decide on behalf of Lenovo what's reasonable for them to do, unless you're their CEO. You can say this or that is reasonable, but ultimately they are the ones responsible to decide what's best for the business (I.e. for the shareholders).
> I don't consider "higher support costs" to be a valid pretext for trying to obstruct me from configuring my property as I please.
Nobody cares what you consider valid, unless you share opinion with a majority. That's, unfortunately, how the world works.
And actually you can run Linux on it. You just have to write the driver, or pay someone to do it. Or use an external HD, or live boot...
Ask Intel about why there's no driver. Ask Lenovo why they've used Intel hardware (this second one might be easier to answer).
> The idea that people may cluelessly mess around in the BIOS and render the machine unbootable is not a particularly sensible basis to argue about the configurability of AHCI mode. It is always going to be possible to render a machine unbootable via changing the BIOS configuration. A BIOS setup menu cannot serve its purpose if it doesn't allow you to change settings which could render the machine unbootable. (Most directly, a boot password you immediately forget.) If machine manufacturers aren't willing to offer options that may render the machine unbootable, they may as well not offer BIOS setup menus at all.
1- The problem is not rendering your machine unbootable by messing with the BIOS settings. The potential issue is running the wrong drivers for your local storage.
2- Surely BIOS would become less and less configurable, just look at Apple's. Look at your smartphone. Can you run Linux on your iPhone? Can you run iOS or Windows on your Android? That's where we're going I'm afraid :-(
I'm here just trying to explain why this is not a black and white thing, why there are more factors than the technicals and why this is not a conspiracy but a disdain for the non-Windows market.
I'm not sure why some of you think I'm defending Lenovo and get angry at me. Do you guys get so angry at your teacher in history class? :-)