Microsoft aren't forcing Lenovo to block free operating systems

Post by dang » Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 10:49 PM UTC

colemickens wrote: post #246

farcical_tinpot wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Literally nothing about this sentence is correct. Sorry, but literally everything about it is correct. What a great adjective. > Support reps know nothing, and nameless support reps that throw out statements like that with no explanation Errrrr, no. Support reps do not throw out incredible specific, crystal clear and precise statements like that unless they're true. This doesn't come out of nowhere. >I can't believ…

> "Support reps do not throw out incredible specific, crystal clear and precise statements like that unless they're true." What alternative reality do you live in? A short unsubstantiated single sentence-fragment from an unnamed, untitled support employee on a random fucking forum is not a "precise statement". > "An extremely clear statements has been made that is not open to misinterpretation." So let me get this st…

Post by pdkl95 » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 1:13 AM UTC

youdontknowtho wrote: post #243

pdkl95 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The disturbing level of contempt is almost the sole property of the "Linux == Freedom" crowd. That's patently incorrect and you know it. FYI: You're showing that kind of contempt right now. My point isn't even related strongly to Free Software; it was an observation that a lot of people don't like early warning systems, which is bad for security . Shooting the messenger when they bring a warning of a possible threa…

Some of us believe its a bad idea to sacrifice your principles... You don't know me friend. That's not the kind of thing that I would ever say to someone lightly. Your last line reads like some manifesto from the 90's. it's naïve in the extreme. The future will be controlled with force. Just like the past. How do you think the materials that make the computers are mined, extracted, and turned into the parts that make…

Post by youdontknowtho » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 11:12 AM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #253

youdontknowtho wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us believe its a bad idea to sacrifice your principles... You don't know me friend. That's not the kind of thing that I would ever say to someone lightly. Your last line reads like some manifesto from the 90's. it's naïve in the extreme. The future will be controlled with force. Just like the past. How do you think the materials that make the computers are mined, extracted, and turned into the parts that make…

> That's not the kind of thing that I would ever say to someone lightly That's your claim, not mine. > Jesus Christ, that's so pathetic that I'm having a hard time thinking that you aren't trolling. Ok, I'm done with you. You're either trolling or simply a naive apologist. Either way, I have better uses for my time.

Post by seba_dos1 » Sat, Sep 24, 2016, 11:07 AM UTC

rlpb wrote: post #224

seba_dos1 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no real reason to write code that goes out of its way to prevent you from switching into AHCI mode even if you know what you're doing (like in EFI shell). Hiding the option from BIOS menu is absolutely enough to "ensure Intel specific drivers are used for power management purposes". It would be annoying, but workaroundable. There is no real reason for anything more, aside of being able to get months of compl…

> Hiding the option from BIOS menu is absolutely enough to "ensure Intel specific drivers are used for power management purposes". It absolutely is not enough, because I can come up with a single contrary case. If this change was made in a BIOS update, simply hiding the option would leave some users stuck in the "wrong" setting forever. So one might write some code to flip it back at the same time. This is the simple…