Or, alternatively, they removed a firmware setting that makes their hardware work less well and didn't think about Linux at all.
Writing a piece of code that resets that one particular variable on each boot?
Sorry, but that's just nasty. There is no reason to do that if the goal is just to provide best experience on supported OS.
Although I agree that it's unlikely this was targetted specifically against GNU/Linux and other OSes. The most important thing would be that Windows 7, 8 and older won't boot anymore.
I don't believe it's accurate to say there's "no real reason", it seems like enforcing this behaviour is very much aligned with the goal you've posited.
This is under the assumption that this was indeed done for the purpose of ensuring Intel specific drivers are used for power management purposes.
Hiding the option from BIOS menu is absolutely enough to "ensure Intel specific drivers are used for power management purposes". It would be annoying, but workaroundable. There is no real reason for anything more, aside of being able to get months of complains about not releasing a one line fix allowing your customers to use your hardware.
It absolutely is not enough, because I can come up with a single contrary case.
If this change was made in a BIOS update, simply hiding the option would leave some users stuck in the "wrong" setting forever. So one might write some code to flip it back at the same time.
This is the simplest way of fixing the problem. It doesn't need any assumption of maliciousness or incompetence. It's just unfortunate for Linux users, since they clearly didn't get any consideration when this fix was written, that's all.
Aside of that, this couldn't even be a change made in BIOS update, because every OS installed earlier, including preinstalled Windows, would stop booting without being provided with Intel driver.
I guess switching modes, a la progressive enhancement, is impossible with disk access then??
There's only so many ways you can slip and slide on this ;-).
Why should a commercial company be forced to provide support for a platform?
If they advertise the hardware as supporting Linux then sure they absolutely should be required to support it. If they don't, then why should they have to support it?
But then I reserve the right to be indignant about this. And I also think it is a bit stupid:
Lenovo had a reputation for having serious business Laptops. They cared about power-user customers who wanted to configure everything, and they had good Linux support.
Either they messed up technically - they did not know the effect this small change would have on Linux support. No problem, can happen, but is still a bit stupid. Or they messed up business-wise, by knowing this change would disable Linux, but not considering that important. I believe this is a much stupider screw-up.
It's like you buy one of these modern crossover trucks, and then find out you can't use it off-road in the desert. Of course, 99% of customers will use them in urban and light rural traffic, and only rarely will they be used off-road. But part of the allure of such a vehicle is that you could.
I don't believe that moustache-twirling executives are staging a conspiracy to kill Linux. But I do think Lenovo has lost their attention to detail that made them so special, and I can no longer recommend Lenovo products without hesitation, like I used to, which is a bit sad.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Lenovo_Thinkpad_Yoga_26...
Their laptop brands are VERY distinct, and have been for a long while. Thinkpad is the brand that you should recommend for Linux users, not Lenovo in general.
Here's Debian: https://wiki.debian.org/InstallingDebianOn/Asus/X205TA
Here's Ubuntu (this is a very long thread): https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2254322
There's a video on youtube of a school tech support guy who has a bunch (149) of ASUS X200 to image the drives from a USB drive, and that involves updating the "bios" and then editing the bios settings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yectQ5MeS_Y
tl;dr: it's not fun on any of these netbooks.
The only issue I've ever had with Thinkpad laptops was the Prime Nvidia/Intel video card switching... which is very similar to this in that it just wasn't supported by the drivers.
I see that Dell just had a big expansion of their Developer Editions... good for them! But it still appears that a fresh install of Ubuntu takes manual configuration of video drivers and power managment, meaning that they haven't figured out how to really make embracing Ubuntu smooth.
But that does not make it a conspiracy by MS or Lenovo.
it is a commercial decision. companies get to make those
consumers then get to choose whether to buy their stuff
but it's not a conspiracy.
I would hate to send him unprepared into the wild with a Lenovo.
Every OS they support costs money in developer time. It's a commercial trade-off what Operating Systems to support.
Put it this way, do you see lenovo or Dell or HP developing drivers for OpenBSD? there's no commercial ROI on that, so they don't
In this case it would appear that Lenovo don't think there's a commercial reason to help out with Linux drivers.
It would be interesting to see how this is achieved in other pc's in the signature edition range : https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/cat/categor...
Because it's support for installing an OS, which is not the same as supporting an OS. The OS installation itself is unsupported.
Users running an unsupported OS is cheaper than users running a prescribed, supported OS, problems with which generate support calls.
Supporting Linux is part of what I'm doing here at my job, in a company that makes SoC's. The customers want a base platform (Linux-based) with board support, packages, a toolchain and so on. That's "Linux support".
"This is not locked down, so you may install Linux on it" is not Linux support.
I must have missed the post where somebody advocated having troops parachute into Lenovo's head office and round executives up at gunpoint. Could you let me know who was advocating the use of force?
Not being able to change the OS on a laptop severely reduces its aftermarket value too. My laptop originally ran Windows. I bought it second hand to run Linux on.
Unless you're under the age of about 25 I'm not sure how you've never once flashed a BIOS unless you aren't in tech. Pretty much every new server from Dell/HP/Cisco/IBM/name your vendor requires a BIOS flash at least once in it's lifetime. Usually at the time of acquisition for HBA compatibility.
I once bricked an X230 with BIOS flashing (through Thinkpad Update). Judging from the forums, I'm not alone.
Now, there are two options. 1) to support this hardware correctly, you'd need to make complex changes to the driver. In this case, I cannot see how it is the Linux' developers' "fault" that this doesn't work. It would be great to have a driver, but it depends on information that Lenovo doesn't give out. Or 2), it is trivial to make a driver, e.g. you just have to look for a certain ID. In this case, I would also blame Lenovo or MS, for there would be no reason to bock AHCI to "ensure a good customer experience" etc.
Whether this situation has come from malice or not, I don't care very much. Anyway, I think it is up to Lenovo to provide a solution (a BIOS update, a Linux driver, or information neccessary to write a driver).
Now, is it a conspiracy or not? I'd say the most likely option is carelessness. Maybe this happenend: "Shall we set this to AHCI or RAID? Currently it is set to RAID and works fine." - "Do we need AHCI?" - "Nah, Windows 10 runs fine, maybe for some older OSes" - "We don't care about those, just leave it on RAID. And while you're at it, comment out the AHCI option."
Did MS give any instructions to Lenovo to block Linux installs? Maybe not specifically, but we have to remember this is a "Signature" edition laptop. (There was the accusation that this only effects the signature edition and not other editions, which would be particularly damning btw..) I wouldn't be surprized if there was an agreement like. "The partner (Lenovo) shall install any crapware on Signature edition laptops. They shall not not preinstall other OSes. And they shall not offer support on installing other OSes." -- Which would be entirely reasonable for a special "Windows Signature" edition laptop.