Has anyone actually confirmed this is anything but missing drivers in 3.2.x kernel versions?

Have a look lenovo forums [1] (also linked prominently from original article), where OP has following to say:

  I am attempting to install ubuntu 16.04 on my yoga 900.
  The bios can see the 512 gb samsung hard drive and so can Windows.

  The ubuntu installer can not see it at all. 

...and first person to reply adds:

  I have the same issue with the 900S model. 
 
  I have tried the newest kernel 4.6 but linux doesn't
  even list the pci express device in lspci.

So no, positively not the 3.2.x kernel to blame here.

[1] https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Linux-Discussion/Yoga-900-13ISK...

Right. Thanks for that. I am reacting to the claims that it's "locked by Microsoft". This looks to be missing Linux support for an Intel device. Sad, but not unusual.

Someone should inform the foss-boss! when his website come back up.

This article could certainly use some clarification. I bought a Lenovo Yoga 500 two weeks ago and had no problems whatsoever with installing Ubuntu 16.04 after setting the UEFI to 'legacy' and nuking the complete drive after making a disk image backup for warranty purposes.

Did I dodge a bullet here? It came with Windows 10, but perhaps it wasn't this 'signature edition'.

That's a total different thing, I did the same with my Lenovo G50-80 laptop, but the problem with the model in the thread is the Signature Edition and the BIOS lock, it's different from normal UEFI stuff.

> This was so predictable.

That Linux lacks drivers for something and Microsoft somehow got the blame for it as part of some grand conspiracy? Certainly predictable for /r/linux. I thought HN was better than that.

Device not showing up on PCIe but probe isn't "a lack of driver". The OS doesn't even have a chance of loading a driver if it can't see the device.

Read this subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12546250

With a tweaked BIOS (one that permits the AHCI setting), Linux can be installed.

> after manually flashing a modded BIOS by soldering chip programming hardware

I would classify this as a hack rather than "can be installed"

It's so predictable that people would run with conspiracy theories that make no sense and link to things that are completely unrelated.

The "issue" that came up today in this article has absolutely nothing to do with SecureBoot.

Microsoft has already used SecureBoot to <s>lock out Linux</s> 'offer better security' on their phones and tablets. Is it really such a stretch for people to be afraid that they're going to require desktop/laptop vendors to leave SecureBoot on in the future? (and conveniently only recognize the key for Windows?)

Probably our best saving grace against that is how rapidly mobile is cannibalizing the desktop/laptop market. Probably not even worth the antitrust probes in Europe to attempt that anymore.

But I don't blame people for being immensely skeptical given Microsoft's actions on mobile. Best case, we're paranoid, PCs end up fine. Worst case, PCs are locked down, and "I told you so" won't help reverse it.

Yes, I do think it's a stretch considering their agreement with OEMs requires OEMs allow for diabling SecureBoot and require allowing users to enroll their own keys.

The PC market and mobile phone markets are very different, with a huge precedent already being set that mobile ARM devices are locked down. Are you equally upset that iPhones and virtually all Android devices also have locked down bootloaders?

On top of this, Microsoft cross signs the keys used to sign the Linux bootloaders so that they work out of the box even on computers that have only the default MS keys enrolled.

Considering that most people fail to grasp those two salient points when presenting their conspiracy theories... yes... I feel comfortable dismissing most of them out of hand.

> their agreement with OEMs requires OEMs allow for diabling SecureBoot

Nobody ever goes from one extreme to the other. Restrictions are added a little at a time to minimize the outrage.

Look at Gatekeeper on OSX. "Oh it's just an option", then it's enabled by default. "Oh you can just turn it off." Now it automatically turns itself back on every 30 days. Their next move will likely be to require all apps to be signed. Again, if I'm wrong, great! As someone who releases OSX software but won't pay Apple for the privilege, I hope I am.

Further, you don't always have to go 100% restrictive to achieve the same effect. Look at web browsers and self-signing certificates. Sure, you can still accept and install them, but it's been made such a pain that nobody can really pull off a self-signed website.

What serious OSX developer is going to release unsigned software that requires people to go in and turn Gatekeeper off every 30 days? It might as well be mandatory for all the choice developers looking to earn a living on that platform have these days.

> Are you equally upset that iPhones and virtually all Android devices also have locked down bootloaders?

Yes! There's not really much of a market for alternative phone operating systems; but even still, I buy Android because I can sideload regular applications without hacking ("jailbreaking") my own property.