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

In Defense of Free Software: My Case Against Lenovo in Mexico

globalvoices.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: In Defense of Free Software: My Case Against Lenovo in Mexico

#11

Post by jseliger »

Const-me wrote: post #10

I’m not defending Lenovo, I think they broke the law here and should fix their UEFI firmware. However, when you throw away your OEM windows, you’re essentially throwing away money. There’re good laptops that come with Linux or FreeDos preinstalled. They mostly targeted towards enterprise market (who get their Windows through volume licensing). But I find it’s a good thing: besides OS choice I usually get upgradabilit…

There’re good laptops that come with Linux or FreeDos preinstalled.

This is an excellent and underrated point: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/the-xps-13-de-dell-co....

Re: In Defense of Free Software: My Case Against Lenovo in Mexico

#12

Post by xorblurb »

iancarroll wrote: post #9
pdkl95 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> loads GRUB As your link mentions, that loader only loads signed kernels (with signed modules). edit: > designed to prevent malware That's the official story. Anybody familiar with Microsoft's history knows they have been trying to lock down the wintel platform for a long time. Creating a "Trusted Computing" environment specifically for DRM purposes has been a goal since "Palladium".

> That's the official story. Anybody familiar with Microsoft's history knows they have been trying to lock down the wintel platform for a long time. Creating a "Trusted Computing" environment specifically for DRM purposes has been a goal since "Palladium". Are you implying Microsoft encouraged Lenovo to disable the firmware toggle for Secure Boot? Even though it's only defective on one model of one manufacturer's com…

Microsoft seems to have used a phased-in strategy: first it was all optional, then it should be there by default but ALSO with a mandatory option to disable to get the Windows logo (and probably goes with big OEM deals) then IIRC with Windows 10 MS dropped the mandatory removable part (but it is still ok to have it) on x86, and on non-x86 this is probably already mandatory to NOT be able to remove it. I guess in a few years they will render it mandatory to NOT be able to remove it also on x86, for new computers to be eligible to Windows compat logo/OEM deals.

Given implementations are huge and full of bugs, the stated intent is also complete bullshit: it is actually far more dangerous to have a platform with that kind of "security" measures, because once a hole is found malware can hide in there more efficiently and be extremely difficult to remove.

Re: In Defense of Free Software: My Case Against Lenovo in Mexico

#13

Post by gozur88 »

pdkl95 wrote: post #6
iancarroll wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secure Boot is designed to prevent malware from tampering with the BIOS by verifying bootloader (and sometimes kernel-mode driver) signatures. In this case, it looks like Lenovo either accidentally or intentionally borked the implementation of Secure Boot, because you are supposed to be able to turn it off when using non-Microsoft operating systems. FWIW, I believe Fedora supports Secure Boot by signing a static boot…

> loads GRUB As your link mentions, that loader only loads signed kernels (with signed modules). edit: > designed to prevent malware That's the official story. Anybody familiar with Microsoft's history knows they have been trying to lock down the wintel platform for a long time. Creating a "Trusted Computing" environment specifically for DRM purposes has been a goal since "Palladium".

Microsoft is in an impossible position here. Signed kernels are the only way to prevent rootkits. If they don't move in this direction people will complain about insecurity. If they do we get complaints about locking down the platform.

Re: In Defense of Free Software: My Case Against Lenovo in Mexico

#14

Post by x1798DE »

Const-me wrote: post #10

I’m not defending Lenovo, I think they broke the law here and should fix their UEFI firmware. However, when you throw away your OEM windows, you’re essentially throwing away money. There’re good laptops that come with Linux or FreeDos preinstalled. They mostly targeted towards enterprise market (who get their Windows through volume licensing). But I find it’s a good thing: besides OS choice I usually get upgradabilit…

> However, when you throw away your OEM windows, you’re essentially throwing away money.

Can you actually get these *nix laptops for cheaper than their Windows equivalents? I personally consider Windows these days to be just one more piece of bloatware to remove, but I never got the impression that it added much to the bottom line cost.

Re: In Defense of Free Software: My Case Against Lenovo in Mexico

#16

Post by Const-me »

x1798DE wrote: post #14
Const-me wrote: post #10

I’m not defending Lenovo, I think they broke the law here and should fix their UEFI firmware. However, when you throw away your OEM windows, you’re essentially throwing away money. There’re good laptops that come with Linux or FreeDos preinstalled. They mostly targeted towards enterprise market (who get their Windows through volume licensing). But I find it’s a good thing: besides OS choice I usually get upgradabilit…

> However, when you throw away your OEM windows, you’re essentially throwing away money. Can you actually get these *nix laptops for cheaper than their Windows equivalents? I personally consider Windows these days to be just one more piece of bloatware to remove, but I never got the impression that it added much to the bottom line cost.

Those aren’t exactly *nix laptops, those are enterprise-targeted laptops without an OS.

And yes, models without Windows are typically cheaper, sometimes significantly.

Consider ProBook 450 G3 X0P36ES versus T6Q45ET. They both have i5-6200U, 4GB RAM, matte 15” FullHD, Intel GPU. The former has FreeDOS preinstalled and costs €540, the latter includes Windows 7 Professional and costs €750.

Re: In Defense of Free Software: My Case Against Lenovo in Mexico

#17

Post by [deleted] »

gozur88 wrote: post #13
pdkl95 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> loads GRUB As your link mentions, that loader only loads signed kernels (with signed modules). edit: > designed to prevent malware That's the official story. Anybody familiar with Microsoft's history knows they have been trying to lock down the wintel platform for a long time. Creating a "Trusted Computing" environment specifically for DRM purposes has been a goal since "Palladium".

Microsoft is in an impossible position here. Signed kernels are the only way to prevent rootkits. If they don't move in this direction people will complain about insecurity. If they do we get complaints about locking down the platform.

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Free Software: My Case Against Lenovo in Mexico

#18

Post by iancarroll »

xorblurb wrote: post #12
iancarroll wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the official story. Anybody familiar with Microsoft's history knows they have been trying to lock down the wintel platform for a long time. Creating a "Trusted Computing" environment specifically for DRM purposes has been a goal since "Palladium". Are you implying Microsoft encouraged Lenovo to disable the firmware toggle for Secure Boot? Even though it's only defective on one model of one manufacturer's com…

Microsoft seems to have used a phased-in strategy: first it was all optional, then it should be there by default but ALSO with a mandatory option to disable to get the Windows logo (and probably goes with big OEM deals) then IIRC with Windows 10 MS dropped the mandatory removable part (but it is still ok to have it) on x86, and on non-x86 this is probably already mandatory to NOT be able to remove it. I guess in a fe…

How does Secure Boot enable malware to "hide in there more efficiently"? With or without Secure Boot, a compromised bootloader is in a privileged position, but not any more so with Secure Boot, from what I can tell.

Re: In Defense of Free Software: My Case Against Lenovo in Mexico

#19

Post by speeder »

Const-me wrote: post #16
x1798DE wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, when you throw away your OEM windows, you’re essentially throwing away money. Can you actually get these *nix laptops for cheaper than their Windows equivalents? I personally consider Windows these days to be just one more piece of bloatware to remove, but I never got the impression that it added much to the bottom line cost.

Those aren’t exactly *nix laptops, those are enterprise-targeted laptops without an OS. And yes, models without Windows are typically cheaper, sometimes significantly. Consider ProBook 450 G3 X0P36ES versus T6Q45ET. They both have i5-6200U, 4GB RAM, matte 15” FullHD, Intel GPU. The former has FreeDOS preinstalled and costs €540, the latter includes Windows 7 Professional and costs €750.

I am from Brazil. When I was looking for a laptop in 2013, most non windows laptops, even when compared to identical models that had windows, were usually 130usd more expensive...

I bought then an ASUS n46vm with win8, hoping to remove it and install linux... never figured how to boot any os installer, even after disabling secureboot even memtest86 refused to boot.

Re: In Defense of Free Software: My Case Against Lenovo in Mexico

#20

Post by speeder »

tzs wrote: post #15

Google seems to turn up numerous people having no trouble disabling Secure Boot and installing Linux on that model computer. I wonder if the problem is confined to particular sub-models or particular revisions of the BIOS?

I had a asus n46vm with the buggy behavior... but found noone else complaining about it on Google.

Since it also had other quirks (usb 3.0 port never worked) it might be a hardware defect interacting with the boot process.

Post reply on HN