Windows signature edition blocking installation of Linux

[2FA]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Hence I also said:

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.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/microsoft-linux-isn-t-blocked-on-windows-10-pcs-508528.shtml?utm_content=bufferb8801&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Without the existence of a GNU/Linux driver, there is zero possibility of a Linux installation being able to boot. Intel would be the company required to make the driver.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/microsoft-linux-isn-t-blocked-on-windows-10-pcs-508528.shtml?utm_content=bufferb8801&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Without the existence of a GNU/Linux driver, there is zero possibility of a Linux installation being able to boot. Intel would be the company required to make the driver.

Actually intel does not dictate all of the options available at a BIOS level for it to make it possible. That's ultimately up to Lenovo, who is claiming they might not do so due to an agreement with MS. MS has made similar agreements in the past and also implemented said features on their own hardware.

 

It's up to all readers to decide if this is a ridiculous proposition outside of the realm of possibility or not.

[2FA]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Actually intel does not dictate all of the options available at a BIOS level for it to make it possible. That's ultimately up to Lenovo, who is claiming they might not do so due to an agreement with MS. MS has made said agreements and also implemented said features on their own hardware.

 

It's up to all readers to decide if this is a ridiculous proposition outside of the realm of possibility or not.

Except that the hardware in question is made by Intel.

 

There also exists the possibility that Apple secretly paid Lenovo to make the claim to smear MS. See, I can speculate wildly as well.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Except that the hardware in question is made by Intel

Intel made the motherboards? Coded the UEFI/BIOS for them? Made all revisions to the motherboard AND UEFI for their specific models? I'd be an industry's first for intel to basically be Lenovo's bitch but yeah, could be.

[2FA]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Intel made the motherboards? Coded the UEFI/BIOS for them? Made all revisions to the motherboard AND UEFI for their specific models? I'd be an industry's first to intel to basically be Lenovo's bitch but yeah, could be.

Good to know that AMD and Nvidia aren't responsible for drivers as well even though they made the hardware. The OEM is responsible for proper implementation of its hardware.

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Except that the hardware in question is made by Intel.

This is not a hardware problem. It's purely software.

The problem is that Lenovo for some reason decided to lock the BIOS into RAID-mode only. If it was possible to change to AHCI then GNU/Linux would work just fine.

[2FA]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This is not a hardware problem. It's purely software.

The problem is that Lenovo for some reason decided to lock the BIOS into RAID-mode only. If it was possible to change to AHCI then GNU/Linux would work just fine.

And how exactly does that relate to MS?

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Good to know that AMD and Nvidia aren't responsible for drivers as well even though they made the hardware.

They are, but they made a single device at issue: the raid controller. Lenovo decided not only to include said device but to include it as the only option when we know people manufacturing motherboards can easily include several types of controllers and such to make this generally a non-issue for many yet a major point of contention for this laptops.

 

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

And how exactly does that relate to MS?

According to a person working for Lenovo, Microsoft told them to do it.

Microsoft's response kind of danced around that and did not deny it.

[dalekphalm]

43 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This is not a hardware problem. It's purely software.

The problem is that Lenovo for some reason decided to lock the BIOS into RAID-mode only. If it was possible to change to AHCI then GNU/Linux would work just fine.

You're correct in that allowing AHCI mode would bypass the problem. However there is some precedence for the reasons why they might disable that mode. The article was clear about that: Lenovo could simply have disabled AHCI mode to ensure a good user experience.

 

Their point was that with the existing install, if you change from RAID to AHCI mode, you'll literally bork Windows, and it won't boot. You can of course, just switch back, but many users are just smart enough to be able to Google something like "Go into BIOS and change RAID to AHCI", but they won't know enough to know the risks or to know how to fix any issues.

 

Now, ignorance is not an excuse, but it's a valid reason why Lenovo would want to limit how a user screws things up.

 

Ideally, Intel would just release a RAID driver, and then Lenovo can keep AHCI mode locked. However, given the circumstances, I would like Lenovo to provide a BIOS update that unlocks AHCI mode.

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

This is not a hardware problem. It's purely software.

The problem is that Lenovo for some reason decided to lock the BIOS into RAID-mode only. If it was possible to change to AHCI then GNU/Linux would work just fine.

And the Linux community needs to grow a pair and get their loaders and installers  working in RAID mode. If that means Intel and Lenovo need to provide some more documentation, then they should.

[Hawx]

9 hours 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.

 

Don't give the "rep" too much credit. Lenovo's "product experts" are nothing more than third-party contractors that write replies from a spreadsheet. They have no clue about the legal agreements between two companies.