4 ms·
Its actually no problem not to be backwards compatible with your "crazy new super advanced hardware". Except when that CNSAH is holistically proprietary and bl
by zanny 10y ago
Its actually no problem not to be backwards compatible with your "crazy new super advanced hardware".
Except when that CNSAH is holistically proprietary and black box, with no documentation, no announcement of it, no schematics or free drivers or anything. "We made this black box that you aren't allowed to know how it works but you aren't supporting it so you are in the wrong".
- Hydraulix989 10y agoI'm confused. Lenovo is claiming that the problem is Linux's fault because Linux isn't "forwards compatible"with the CNSAH -- except the CNSAH is actually backwards compatible with Linux, except Intel's usually enabled/unrestricted backwards compatible functionality is intentionally blocked by Lenovo by two lines of code in their BIOS. The fact that Intel's hardware is "CNSAH" (or even black box/proprietary/etc) is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I'm not saying that it is Lenovo's onus to ensure that Linux is forwards compatible at CNSAH at all -- it's actually their responsibility to make sure they don't break existing backwards compatible functionality; you're misrepresenting my actual argument. I'm also _liberally_ and very generously using "backwards compatible" to describe AHCI, when I should be calling it "modus operandi."
- n-gauge 10y agofrom what has been shown to be a reversed engineer of the bios... a simple goto statement to skip menu config code muddies the water here... Why would a professional company do this? It certainly doesn't look accidental when seen from this angle.
- Hydraulix989 10y agoYes, as I say (I'm a software engineer), the proof is in the pudding; it's one thing to read a sugar-coated damage control PR press release; it's another to look at the code.