Windows signature edition blocking installation of Linux

[AlTech]

19 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

embrace, extend, extinguish 

Yup. That's the one .

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

They are not really denying it though. They are saying "we are not directly blocking GNU/Linux. You just need the correct drivers.", but they did not deny that they are indirectly blocking it by mandating that users can not change from RAID to AHCI in the BIOS.

Saying "you must use this particular thing which GNU/Linux doesn't support" is just as bad as saying "you're not allowed to support GNU/Linux". Microsoft only denies to the latter but not the former.

So while it seems like the blame is on Lenovo (locking it to RAID mode) and Intel (not providing the driver), I would still not rule out Microsoft just yet.

Is it not odd then that if Microsoft indeed played a role that they would use a unusually specific test case to "start off with"? This is why I do not buy the lousy argument; if you look at the target case, and try to evaluate Microsoft's end goals, none of it is adding up. What would Microsoft have to gain by doing what people claim they are doing, and why do nobody else have this problem?

[zMeul]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

They are not really denying it though. They are saying "we are not directly blocking GNU/Linux. You just need the correct drivers.", but they did not deny that they are indirectly blocking it by mandating that users can not change from RAID to AHCI in the BIOS.

Saying "you must use this particular thing which GNU/Linux doesn't support" is just as bad as saying "you're not allowed to support GNU/Linux". Microsoft only denies to the latter but not the former.

So while it seems like the blame is on Lenovo (locking it to RAID mode) and Intel (not providing the driver), I would still not rule out Microsoft just yet.

MS is to blame in this too

MS is keen on locking people out of any OS that's not W10

 

what best way to do it than forcing the onboard controller into RAID mode and telling Intel they can't supply a driver

[dalekphalm]

14 minutes ago, zMeul said:

MS is to blame in this too

MS is keen on locking people out of any OS that's not W10

 

what best way to do it than forcing the onboard controller into RAID mode and telling Intel they can't supply a driver

There's literally no evidence to suggest that Microsoft has specifically asked, requested, or demanded that Intel not supply a Linux driver.

 

This is essentially a totally made up allegation with zero evidence or support.

 

Surprisingly, fellas, Microsoft appears to be innocent here (Well, as innocent as Microsoft can get anyway).

 

Blame Intel if you want to blame someone. Ask them to write a Linux RAID driver.

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

There's literally no evidence to suggest that Microsoft has specifically asked, requested, or demanded that Intel not supply a Linux driver.

No evidence, but not that far fetched either. Microsoft has demanded that Intel and AMD drops support for Windows 7 and 8/8.1 with their newest processors.

Demand for RAID only SSDs might be their latest way of pushing users towards Windows 10. Or does the driver work for Windows 7?

 

 

1 hour ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

Is it not odd then that if Microsoft indeed played a role that they would use a unusually specific test case to "start off with"? This is why I do not buy the lousy argument; if you look at the target case, and try to evaluate Microsoft's end goals, none of it is adding up. What would Microsoft have to gain by doing what people claim they are doing, and why do nobody else have this problem?

What would they gain? More control over their customers. What company wouldn't want to make sure their customer couldn't leave for their competitor? Same reason why Apple locks the iPhone to only run iOS.

 

Why does nobody else have this problem? Boiling frog. Doing such a big change on all computers would be very obvious and probably get a lot more outrage. I mean, if they do it one OEM at a time then people will think just like you're doing right now, "why is it not an issue on X and Y? Totally not MS's fault". It might also be that Lenovo is the first OEM that renewed their contract after Microsoft started suggesting locking it to RAID-only.

 

I am not saying Microsoft are guilty, but I don't think "it works for other OEMs and they have nothing to gain" are logically sound reasons for why Microsoft are innocent.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

34 minutes ago, zMeul said:

MS is to blame in this too

MS is keen on locking people out of any OS that's not W10

 

what best way to do it than forcing the onboard controller into RAID mode and telling Intel they can't supply a driver

On what basis is this claim coming from? Thin air?

 

Let me repeat my earlier question:

 

What would Microsoft have to gain by doing what people claim they are doing, and why do nobody else have this problem?

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

On what basis is this claim coming from? Thin air?

thin air?! where have you been?

 

[dalekphalm]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No evidence, but not that far fetched either. Microsoft has demanded that Intel and AMD drops support for Windows 7 and 8/8.1 with their newest processors.

Demand for RAID only SSDs might be their latest way of pushing users towards Windows 10. Or does the driver work for Windows 7?

 

 

What would they gain? More control over their customers. What company wouldn't want to make sure their customer couldn't leave for their competitor? Same reason why Apple locks the iPhone to only run iOS.

 

Why does nobody else have this problem? Boiling frog. Doing such a big change on all computers would be very obvious and probably get a lot more outrage. I mean, if they do it one OEM at a time then people will think just like you're doing right now, "why is it not an issue on X and Y? Totally not MS's fault". It might also be that Lenovo is the first OEM that renewed their contract after Microsoft started suggesting locking it to RAID-only.

 

I am not saying Microsoft are guilty, but I don't think "it works for other OEMs and they have nothing to gain" are logically sound reasons for why Microsoft are innocent.

Look, @LAwLz, the possibility exists that Microsoft may very well have intentionally "asked" Intel to not make a Linux RAID Driver, but that allegation wasn't because someone got wind of it, or there's rumours of it, or there was some evidence to support it.

 

No.

 

He literally just made it up out of thin air in his post.

 

Does that mean it's wrong? No, not necessarily. But I personally prefer to wait for at least SOME suggestion of evidence before I blame a company for something.

 

I do blame Microsoft for their actions in regards to processors dropping support, but I look at Microsoft, as with every other company, on a case by case basis.

 

I'm not going to lambast them for something they "might" do. I'll lambast them for things they are doing, or have done.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

thin air?! where have you been?

 

And this somehow magically means that "Kaby Lake" platform now equals all Intel RAID drivers? Let's be clear. We should be going after Microsoft for their wrongdoings. Not imagined things with zero evidence.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

And this somehow magically means that "Kaby Lake" platform now equals all Intel RAID drivers? Let's be clear. We should be going after Microsoft for their wrongdoings. Not imagined things with zero evidence.

Intel will release a new chipset along KabyLake

 

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

27 minutes ago, zMeul said:

thin air?! where have you been?

 

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No evidence, but not that far fetched either. Microsoft has demanded that Intel and AMD drops support for Windows 7 and 8/8.1 with their newest processors.

Demand for RAID only SSDs might be their latest way of pushing users towards Windows 10. Or does the driver work for Windows 7?

Sigh... that is only yet another tirade of misinformation, half-truths, and over-simplification. And how in the world of wherever you live does this relate to the blind accusation being made here?

 

18 minutes ago, zMeul said:

Intel will release a new chipset along KabyLake

And this means what, exactly? Even if that is somehow relevant, correlation does not equal causation.

 

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What would they gain? More control over their customers. What company wouldn't want to make sure their customer couldn't leave for their competitor? Same reason why Apple locks the iPhone to only run iOS.

 

Why does nobody else have this problem? Boiling frog. Doing such a big change on all computers would be very obvious and probably get a lot more outrage. I mean, if they do it one OEM at a time then people will think just like you're doing right now, "why is it not an issue on X and Y? Totally not MS's fault". It might also be that Lenovo is the first OEM that renewed their contract after Microsoft started suggesting locking it to RAID-only.

 

I am not saying Microsoft are guilty, but I don't think "it works for other OEMs and they have nothing to gain" are logically sound reasons for why Microsoft are innocent.

OK, boiling frog, whoopee-doo! The fact that they would target Lenovo first, on a specific set of hardware, and the fact that BIOS updates from other Lenovo laptops fail to reproduce this problem, makes no sense at all. Don't try to make an argument for the sake of making an argument; you have been doing this for years now, and I have zero patience for it.

 

This time I am simply going to refer the both of you to Gerdauf's Law in my signature. I have to say though, your pessimism truly knows no bounds.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

Sigh... that is only yet another tirade of misinformation, half-truths, and over-simplification. And how in the world of wherever you live does this relate to the blind accusation being made here?

what now!? half truths?!

Intel spokesperson has said, and I quote:

Quote

“We are committed to working with Microsoft and our ecosystem partners to help ensure a smooth transition given these changes to Microsoft’s Windows support policy,” an Intel spokesman said.
"No, Intel will not be updating Win 7/8 drivers for 7th Gen Intel Core per Microsoft’s support policy change," he added in an email on Tuesday.

 

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Just now, zMeul said:

what now!? half truths?!

Intel spokesperson has said, and I quote:

 

That is specific to Windows 7 and 8, and only the fact that they were not being updated was mentioned.

 

We are talking about Linux here; are you actually trying to force an apple and an orange to have sexual intercourse or something?

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

-

we'll talk again in couple of months, after KabyLake gets released

you .. you keep on believing MS isn't least bit involved in this

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

we'll talk again in couple of months, after KabyLake gets released

you .. you keep on believing MS isn't least bit involved in this

Eh... what??

 

Since when do I believe that Microsoft is not doing this? I am simply saying that the there currently is no sufficient evidence to support the accusation. Instead of getting worked up in implausible and potentially unrelated what if's, try to focus on the current situation at hand, please and thank you.

[Misanthrope]

31 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Look, @LAwLz, the possibility exists that Microsoft may very well have intentionally "asked" Intel to not make a Linux RAID Driver, but that allegation wasn't because someone got wind of it, or there's rumours of it, or there was some evidence to support it.

 

No.

 

He literally just made it up out of thin air in his post.

Stumbling into a realistic possibility by chance doesn't takes away from the possibility. You already accepted is not an uneducated guess and that there's precedent, move on.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Stumbling into a realistic possibility by chance doesn't takes away from the possibility. You already accepted is not an uneducated guess and that there's precedent, move on.

You do not point a finger after finding something by chance; you build an argument first based on current actions and activities. Presenting an argument (about anything at all) solely based on precedence will get you laughed out of court, no matter how convincing it may appear.

 

Come on, this is tech, not American politics.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

You do not point a finger after finding something by chance; you build an argument first based on current actions and activities. Presenting an argument (about anything at all) solely based on precedence will get you laughed out of court, no matter how convincing it may appear.

 

Come on, this is tech, not American politics.

The argument has already been made by someone else regardless. Pointing out someone couldn't have made said argument doesn't makes the argument any less valid and it's nothing but pointless fucking ad hominem.

[2FA]

There are two possibilities, only one of which has supporting evidence and the other is a claim.

 

1. Microsoft has nothing to do with it. This is the one with evidence. There is no proof the agreement exists, MS has denied the allegation. Only Lenovo's are affected which is weird if MS is behind it, wouldn't other OEMs being doing the same? A necessary driver only for booting exists only for Windows which is made by Intel.
2. Microsoft is partially responsible. A Lenovo rep claimed it to be part of a agreement with MS. No such agreement has been proven to exist. Is purely a claim.

To go with the possibility with supporting evidence is the rational thing to do, believing regardless in the other possibility regardless of evidence usually indicates bias which interferes with objectiveness and replaces it with subjectiveness.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

There are two possibilities, only one of which has supporting evidence and the other is a claim.

 

1. Microsoft has nothing to do with it. This is the one with evidence. There is no proof the agreement exists, MS has denied the allegation. Only Lenovo's are affected which is weird if MS is behind it, wouldn't other OEMs being doing the same? A necessary driver only for booting exists only for Windows which is made by Intel.
2. Microsoft is partially responsible. A Lenovo rep claimed it to be part of a agreement with MS. No such agreement has been proven to exist. Is purely a claim.

To go with the possibility with supporting evidence is the rational thing to do, believing regardless in the other possibility regardless of evidence usually indicates bias which interferes with objectiveness and replaces it with subjectiveness.

So the fact that the Lenovo rep opened himself to Libel is no evidence at all? This is not some random guy stating nonsense on an opinion piece this is a company rep. Lenovo's own legal department would have amended or retracted said statement by now.

 

[2FA]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

So the fact that the Lenovo rep opened himself to Libel is no evidence at all? This is not some random guy stating nonsense on an opinion piece this is a company rep. Lenovo's own legal department would have amended or retracted said statement by now.

 

Have you never dealt with a support tech that you know is spewing pure bullshit? I have several times.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

The argument has already been made by someone else regardless. Pointing out someone couldn't have made said argument doesn't makes the argument any less valid and it's nothing but pointless fucking ad hominem.

First, please cut it out with the fancy-pants Latin; it only make you look naive here.

 

Second, you missed my point by a mile and a half. Now what is the Latin for that... perhaps "Ignoratio elenchi"? A solid argument has NOT been made, but rather blind assumptions, bunch of connecting dots where they do not exist, and overall propaganda.

 

Third, you cannot exactly make something "less" valid when there is almost no validity to the particular claim in the first place. To claim otherwise, you would have to jump through some rather large bridges.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, DeadEyePsycho said:

Have you never dealt with a support tech that you know is spewing pure bullshit? I have several times.

Hence I also said:

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Lenovo's own legal department would have amended or retracted said statement by now.

At most I could conceive that this is somehow escaped both their notice and Microsoft's but if it's out in the news that's very unlikely. Microsoft's silence on the matter speaks very loud about things they might not even be able to disclose under NDA or to avoid disclosuing business information to other manufacturers that might hinder their ability to negotiate favorable deals in the future.

 

So bottom line: I really dislike when people absolutely dismiss all speculation. In some cases, as when there's verifiable precedence on similar cases, it's not unreasonable to consider speculation and conjecture.

[LAwLz]

38 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Look, @LAwLz, the possibility exists that Microsoft may very well have intentionally "asked" Intel to not make a Linux RAID Driver, but that allegation wasn't because someone got wind of it, or there's rumours of it, or there was some evidence to support it.

 

No.

 

He literally just made it up out of thin air in his post.

 

Does that mean it's wrong? No, not necessarily. But I personally prefer to wait for at least SOME suggestion of evidence before I blame a company for something.

 

I do blame Microsoft for their actions in regards to processors dropping support, but I look at Microsoft, as with every other company, on a case by case basis.

 

I'm not going to lambast them for something they "might" do. I'll lambast them for things they are doing, or have done.

 

26 minutes ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

Sigh... that is only yet another tirade of misinformation, half-truths, and over-simplification. And how in the world of wherever you live does this relate to the blind accusation being made here?

You don't have to be so defensive. I am not accusing anyone of anything. All I am saying is that the possibly is there.

I am not saying that they are doing it, but going "They aren't doing it! It's all lies and blind accusations" is just as foolish as going "they are totally guilty! Fuck you Microsoft!".

You should keep an open mind and not assume things.

 

29 minutes ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

OK, boiling frog, whoopee-doo! The fact that they would target Lenovo first, on a specific set of hardware, and the fact that BIOS updates from other Lenovo laptops fail to reproduce this problem, makes no sense at all. Don't try to make an argument for the sake of making an argument; you have been doing this for years now, and I have zero patience for it.

How does it not make any sense?

I have given perfectly logical and reasonable replies to all the arguments for why "Microsoft can not possibly have made this happen". It does not seem like they were guilty this time, but to blindly defend them and make personal attacks against anyone who even dares to suggest that Microsoft might be involved is foolish.

Being too quick and aggressive with defending a company is just as bad as being too quick and aggressive to attack a company.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

This time I am simply going to refer the both of you to Gerdauf's Law in my signature. I have to say though, your pessimism truly knows no bounds.

I really don't get how "Gerdauf's law" applies here. You seem mad at me so are you saying I am a carbon copy of you?

Are you saying I am bitterly against Microsoft despite having had a completely neutral stance, not accusing them of anything all throughout the thread?

 

I honestly don't get why you are so mad at me right now. You could not possibly be more neutral than I have been in this thread, and you're still trying to warp it into me being bitter and oppose to Microsoft? Calm down dude and read my posts again if you really think I have been against Microsoft in this thread.

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

A solid argument has NOT been made, but rather blind assumptions, bunch of connecting dots where they do not exist, and overall propaganda.

The validity of the assumptions and conjectures is subject to personal opinion, you obviously disagree: noted.