Thus, this laptop can only ever be installed from the Lenovo win10 media. No win7, no win8, no retail win10 (for now), and .... probably as a (not unwelcome) side effect, no linux.
Still, just as evil and despicable.
So using that install media you can extract the drivers and install older windows versions anyway.
So it's a pretty crappy conspiracy :)
And it does effectively stop users from installing Linux, Win7, Win8 and even Win10 - except from the provided Lenovo install media; which makes Microsoft happy (no Win7/Win8) and Lenovo happy (full control of installed versions).
The API/ABI for drivers didn't change between 7,8,10
On the other hand, Microsoft could have easily gotten a much more "robust" lockdown - by simply demanding mandatory, unchangeable Secure Boot like on the ARM tablets. But they didn't do that.
Flagged as a dupe. It's here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12545966
I'm sure anyone with enough knowledge to decompile a BIOS would have obviously thought of that idea though. I'm guessing the BIOS images are signed or something?
Regardless, this smells evil to me...
Didn't you hear that Secure Boot is basically broken?
Edit: it'd be rather amusing and saddening if this whole controversy was caused merely by someone misunderstanding/misreading a perfectly sensible requirement to disable the RAID mode, and instead disabled the other options. Given the level of communication fluency among some programmers, I would not be surprised if this were the case; and the fact that the machine still boots into Windows because it has drivers might've let this slip past QA...
Sure, real/standards-conforming NVMe would be better -- and wouldn't require driver shenanigans in either Windows or Linux -- but there should be a performance advantage to 'RAID' mode in this case.
In reality the agent probably misunderstood what's bring asked.
In reality the script read, "can I buy this with linux installed?", the answer would be only "windows 10 signature edition".
They probably don't even know what linux is.
> This system has a Signature Edition of Windows 10 Home installed. It is locked per our agreement with Microsoft.
> I've been able to successfully get past Lenovo's lock through direct bios flashing. I'm looking into better solutions, hopefully I can find a way to do this without an external programmer. I was going to keep people updated from the Lenovo forum, but as this is no longer an option I will keep people updated from here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/53ri0m/warning_micro...
As a default it would be fine, if it could be changed without removing the BIOS chip.
It's a locked UEFI setting causing a problem: true. The setting is causing a piece of hardware to behave in a mode not handled by the current Linux driver: also true. So there are two ways of looking at it.
First: It's a software issue that Lenovo should clear up (i.e. remove the locks on the appropriate parts of the UEFI configuration)
Second: It's a hardware issue that the Linux community can address by writing a driver for the alternate hardware mode.
Lenovo apparently wants to treat that computer as an appliance; if someone borks their installation enough that even a system restore won't fix it, it's a call to Lenovo support, and a bill if the machine's out of warranty.
For customers whose Windows installations are working correctly, it's access to a faster, more power-efficient driver. That's how it makes sense, IMO.
I'm scratching my head here. Help me out. I've seen extremely limited consumer take-up of desktop Linux.
A serious question: What gives Linux users the right to expect that Linux will run on any given PC / laptop?
Think about it. These PCs/laptops are designed to adhere to Microsoft's Windows PC hardware standards doc (which was never, ever an open standard) and, with few exceptions, only tested against various versions of Windows. Linux users are failing to receive a feature that they were never promised in the first place so it's unclear that they have any valid cause for complaint.
Perhaps Linux, BSD, etc. users should be creating their own PC standards doc and asking OEMs to adhere to it instead?
Nothing. It's very well possible that in future, we have Apple devices that only run iOS, Google devices that only run Android/ChromeOS/Whatever and Microsoft devices that only run Windows 10 - and a large server market with a tiny consumer segment of devices that run linux.
We'll all be fine in that world. We just won't have any control about our devices anymore.
Perhaps Linux, BSD, etc. users should be creating their own PC standards doc and asking OEMs to adhere to it instead?
That's actually a good idea in theory - so far that "standard" had been the x86/x64 IBM compatible PC. Except that I fear they lack the market power to actually make such a standard more than a stack of paper. You'd need an OEM network the size of Microsoft or enough capital and brand trust so you can make your own devices. I see neither for linux.
If I buy some hardware, I've done research on whether all of its chipsets and devices have Linux driver support just as a matter of course, because I don't expect that Linux will run on every PC. But I feel like I have a right to know if a company puts a non-standard artificial restriction on their hardware. Apparently in this case, Windows 10 doesn't even have the driver included by default, so I can't even reload the software that the machine was designed to run, on my own. That sounds like a defect in the product, to me.
Where? I'm looking at http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/yoga/900-series/yoga-90... and the specs page lists only Windows 10 Home and Pro in the operating systems section.
> and effort was expended specifically to disable that option
Lenovo has issued a formal statement denying it. http://www.techrepublic.com/article/lenovo-denies-deliberate...
I was imprecise. The chipset supports a Linux-compatible option, were it not explicitly disabled in the firmware.
> Lenovo has issued a formal statement denying it.
They deny purposefully disabling Linux, and I don't have any evidence against that denial. They don't deny disabling AHCI, because they clearly did. In the disassembly of the code: https://lnv.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/76843...
Intel's RAID is implemented in their driver. Switching the option from AHCI to RAID switches the disk controller's ID so it doesn't bind to the OS's standard driver (whichever OS that is), and binds to Intel's instead (assuming it's present). Intel provides its driver (and only for Windows), Lenovo locks the option so that hapless users mucking about in the UEFI settings don't make their machines unbootable.
Lenovo can deny "deliberately blocking Linux", but they can't deny "practically blocking Linux".
I expect any computer I own to run anything I put on it.
Locking out software is like a car maker trying to control what brand of gas you put in your car.
None of those other examples are sold with the intention of the user changing the system in a way unexpected by the vendor.
PCs are supposed to be open-ended, and for this you typically pay more for the hardware capability than a product which serves as a gateway into a walled-garden ecosystem (phones, gaming consoles, etc.)
Any cpu in my household is mine (presumably.) I don't care what peripherals it has, it's just a computer.
From my POV all those devices are just computers with various peripherals. I don't see any way in which attaching a specific peripheral changes the universal nature of the cpu.
How else am I going to avoid the crapware/malware that lenovo is famous for?
Happens that the same BIOS tweak that prevents windows from working also prevents linux from working.
I don't expect lenovo to spend time/effort accommodating linux, but I also expect them to not artificially limit when I can do with a laptop I purchase.
A offline (PDF) version is available at the bottom-most link on the page.
This sounds believable to me. But I'll put my tinfoil hat on just for fun and pretend it was an intentional move. Could this make sense as a new twist on the old strategy, making it "Embrace, Extinguish, Extend"? With the WSL, they made it theoretically possible to run Linux software on Windows. With that in place, locking existing users out of Linux might cause a lot less negative backlash as the users can still continue to use their old programs - except under the supervision of Windows. If this catches on, it could actually allow Microsoft to grab some if the more consumer-oriented parts of the Linux ecosystem.