Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Sep 2016 22:55 UTC
Linux

There's a story going round that Lenovo have signed an agreement with Microsoft that prevents installing free operating systems. This is sensationalist, untrue and distracts from a genuine problem.

With that solved, let's get to the real root cause of the problems here:

The real problem here is that Intel do very little to ensure that free operating systems work well on their consumer hardware - we still have no information from Intel on how to configure systems to ensure good power management, we have no support for storage devices in "RAID" mode and we have no indication that this is going to get better in future. If Intel had provided that support, this issue would never have occurred. Rather than be angry at Lenovo, let's put pressure on Intel to provide support for their hardware.

As someone who tried to move his retina MacBook Pro to Linux only a few weeks ago - I can attest to Intel's absolutely terrible Linux drivers and power management. My retina MacBook Pro has an Intel Iris 6100 graphics chip, and the driver for it is so incredibly bad that even playing a simple video will cause the laptop to become so hot I was too scared to leave it running. Playing that same video in OS X or Windows doesn't even spin up the fans, with the laptop entirely cool. Battery life in Linux measured in a 2-3 hours, whereas on OS X or Windows I easily get 8-10 hours.

Thread beginning with comment 634691
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Thu 22nd Sep 2016 00:13 UTC
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

Intel allocates its resources to development of custom proprietary interface they don't really bother to support in a more or less reasonable manner: no Linux drivers, default Windows driver does things wrong. Sounds like a bad idea that was not dismissed until it was too late. Fine.

But in what kind of universe the proper workaround is to disable standard interface and force the aforementioned custom proprietary vendor-specific interface onto innocents? And more so, how the hell did someone get an idea that removing a firmware setting for unbreaking hard disk access is a reasonable thing to do?

Sure, this story tells a lot about Intel's decision making, but Lenovo's responce is much more idiotic by far. And on top of it there were reports of Lenovo stuff bullying people out of reporting the issue on Lenovo forums...

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by ddc_
by dionicio on Thu 22nd Sep 2016 01:12 in reply to "Comment by ddc_"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Sometimes better to think that PR is -by design- a race to the bottom.

Edited 2016-09-22 01:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ddc_
by dionicio on Thu 22nd Sep 2016 15:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by ddc_"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Just, could just be a slight hint of uncompetitive behavior? Of course, resource allocation more than enough to dismiss any regulative attempt.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by ddc_
by segedunum on Thu 22nd Sep 2016 10:56 in reply to "Comment by ddc_"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The general rule is that if something takes effort a manufacturer won't do it. This took effort and there is a certainly reason behind it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Thu 22nd Sep 2016 11:03 in reply to "RE: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

This is a perfectly valid reason for defaulting to Intel's proprietary implementation. This is not a valid reason for removing a knob from firmware though. It almost looks like Lenovo did something stupid to AHCI mode on those laptops and tries to hide the problem instead of working it around in software or recalling hardware. I won't be amazed if people flashing custom firmware with knob reenabled will find some interesting error patterns in disk access, or maybe even fried disks.

Edited 2016-09-22 11:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4