7 ms·
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 tha
by captainmuon 10y ago
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.
- raesene9 10y agoShould 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?
- npiazza83 10y agoI 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.
- raesene9 10y agoAbosutely 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.
- parenthephobia 10y agoWhat conceivable commercial purpose of Lenovo is served by making it difficult for people to install operating systems other than Windows 10 on their laptops?
- raesene9 10y agothat's easy, they don't spend money on developing drivers for Linux. Every OS they support costs money in developer time. It's a commercial trade-off what Operating Systems to support. Put it this way, do you see lenovo or Dell or HP developing drivers for OpenBSD? there's no commercial ROI on that, so they don't In this case it would appear that Lenovo don't think there's a commercial reason to help out with Linux drivers.
- vacri 10y agoI'm a bit puzzled as to how a low-karma user with no submissions is able to post so many comments, when there's supposed to be a timed comment limit to prevent exactly this sort of repetitive go-nowhere discussion.
- tw04 10y agoIf you're going so far as to install Linux on a laptop that shipped Windows, flashing the BIOS isn't a big deal at all. The real problem is that it took a third-party to fix the BIOS rather than Lenovo releasing a "BIOS for Linux" directly. I get not wanting to expose it from the factory to keep a user from screwing themselves, but there's no reason not to provide it to the power user.
- PieterH 10y agoI disagree. I'm happy to install Linux from a USB stick. I'm not happy reflashing a BIOS. Have installed many, many laptops with Linux (ironically, my all time favorites are older Lenovos like the X220). I've not once flashed a BIOS. Not being able to change the OS on a laptop severely reduces its aftermarket value too. My laptop originally ran Windows. I bought it second hand to run Linux on.
- tw04 10y agoFlashing a BIOS takes about 1/10th the time and effort of installing Linux. Unless you're under the age of about 25 I'm not sure how you've never once flashed a BIOS unless you aren't in tech. Pretty much every new server from Dell/HP/Cisco/IBM/name your vendor requires a BIOS flash at least once in it's lifetime. Usually at the time of acquisition for HBA compatibility.
- mjg59 10y ago> 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.
- pbhjpbhj 10y agoWell really you need to say "didn't think users would install any operating system ever" to fit with the information here. Pre-installed Win10 being the only option doesn't seem to fit with the idea that Lenovo would want to sell more PCs. I guess switching modes, a la progressive enhancement, is impossible with disk access then??
- seba_dos1 10y agoRemoved the option from BIOS menu? Okay, stupid and annoying, but well, there's always EFI shell where you can edit variables by yourself... Writing a piece of code that resets that one particular variable on each boot? Sorry, but that's just nasty. There is no reason to do that if the goal is just to provide best experience on supported OS. Although I agree that it's unlikely this was targetted specifically against GNU/Linux and other OSes. The most important thing would be that Windows 7, 8 and older won't boot anymore.
- Whitestrake 10y ago> There is no reason to do that if the goal is just to provide best experience on supported OS. I don't believe it's accurate to say there's "no real reason", it seems like enforcing this behaviour is very much aligned with the goal you've posited. This is under the assumption that this was indeed done for the purpose of ensuring Intel specific drivers are used for power management purposes.
- seba_dos1 10y agoThere 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 complains about not releasing a one line fix allowing your customers to use your hardware.
- n-gauge 10y agoWhat about other big customers of Lenovo ? Those that use Linux for Java development but are not Microsoft for example. I don't see this as carelessness, and how much money would a market leader make from such a corrupt request?