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 real

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 misdirected ought not to detract from the fact that blame is necessary. If users don't vocally oppose measures like this, the industry will assume that this kind of restriction is reasonable. It's not. Yes, power management is important, but anyone who puts linux on their laptop will quickly learn there are limitations to the features of that device that were originally tailored to the OS the device shipped with. That's a good lesson, and a good opportunity for a community to develop around the device (if it's good enough) to mitigate those deficiencies and adapt them for the particular linux distro. In short, Lenovo is at fault for not being up front about this limitation, for not explaining it, and for not devoting at least some resources to mitigating for their potential linux-inclined users. Then again, perhaps a linux-inclined user might also be one of the many that don't trust Lenovo after their self-signed certificate scandal.