After protest, Lenovo adds Linux compatibility to Yoga 900 and 900S laptops
pcworld.com
pcworld.com
However, the kernel maintainers turned down the patch because the hardware itself was bizarre, underspecified, and unreliable in common cases.
This is an ongoing story and i expect there'll be a resolution in a few months.
ML discussion thread is here: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2016-October...
Do you happen to know what does he work/has worked on regarding Linux?
More about him, here: http://www.advogato.org/person/dwmw2/
It sounds like trying to tunnel NVMe through something that is only connected over an AHCI interface.
The kernel patches are refused because the kernel devs expect to maintain the code for as long as there are devices in active use that need it once allowed in.
Thus they demand a proper spec for the device behavior so they can test for breakages down the line. And apparently the patches are already violating AHCI behavior expected by the kernel.
Or at least that is what i got out of reading the short ML thread.
> Another option is to buy Linux-based laptops with the latest Kaby Lake chips, like System76’s Lemur laptop, which starts at $699, or Dell’s XPS 13 Developer Edition, which starts at $949.
So, which is it? Can Kaby Lake chips support Linux or not, because those statements seem contradictory.
Or is it the chipset driver? Here also I wonder what would have changed dramatically since the previous generation.
I've found the only thing I needed to install chipset drivers for was for mainboard-specific features, like LED and Fan control, and for (back then) bleeding edge features like USB3. Granted, this was because basic chipset support was integrated into windows. Still, I wonder what the breaking change or new feature in Kaby Lake is.
I suspect this is mostly artificial and the EHCI emulation is still there but just fused off to encourage people to upgrade.
In this case it's the SATA storage controller, which is configured by the BIOS in a mode that isn't compliant with the AHCI spec.
Not quite. It's the PCIe bridge, configured in a thoroughly nonsensical way that makes it pretend that an NVMe device (which is a PCIe device in its own right) is hidden behind a SATA controller.
Is that it, or is there more to this I'm missing?
Wait, wasn't Optimus Nvidia's baby?
Kaby Lake works with any OS which has drivers for them. MS didn't plan to make any for Windows < 10 and wasn't asking OEMs to develop them for those Windowses.
https://www.engadget.com/2015/08/12/lenovo-updater-security-...
https://www.cnet.com/news/superfish-torments-lenovo-owners-w...
But I am not going to buy a laptop that won't run Linux. have any recommendations?
Just keep buying Thinkpads. They are fine and support Linux. I would stay away from regular consumer laptops anyway.
One step forward, two steps back.
Is that actually true, or is it really that using Microsoft's AHCI driver instead of Intel's driver hurts performance? Last time I checked, Intel's driver could be used even when the controller is in AHCI mode.
https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/44694.html
Apparently, there isn't much difference between AHCI and RAID modes in the hardware itself.
> because they don't want to spend money on officially supporting it
I hope this doesn't mean the warranty and support is void after doing this, wouldn't even surprise me.
That's literally what they said. The GP is telling you it's a lie (and is very probably right, but I don't know the details), but they said you can not dual boot.
Mac OS X 26.2%
Windows 7 22.5%
Linux 21.7%
Windows 10 20.8%
Windows 8 8.4%
Windows XP 0.4%
Though it is possible that the sort of developers that use desktop linux don't use Stack Overflow.
[0] http://stackoverflow.com/research/developer-survey-2016#tech...
One fifth is a market segment that is large enough to cater for. If you even put a small team on the task of ensuring that Linux installs on your notebooks, and make the minimal neccessary changes (like this BIOS change... or better revert of a breaking change), then you could claim Linux support as your unique selling point, and grab a huge fraction of those 20%.
Keep in mind that that's 21.7% of stack overflow users (i.e. developers), not users in general.
According StatCounter (based on browser stats), GNU/Linux represented 1.44% of desktop/laptop OS as of last month. Perhaps developers are more likely to use these laptops in particular, but they're unlikely to be 100% of users.
The unfortunate reality is that while this number is largerish, whenever a company comes out with a linux-based "developer edition" laptop, folks don't buy it.
The Dell XPS 13, for example, is a great looking machine - but too many folks were busy buying macbooks to help Dell learn this market segment does indeed want more products like this.
We need to vote with our wallets, in order to reinforce this behavior.
Perhaps this may change now that developers are feeling disenfranchised with Apple over the recent model releases.
To answer your question, as a picky hardware nut I have yet to see anything worth paying extra for. Give me a 4lb 15" 1080p matte IPS with user-expandable RAM and a PCIe m.2 slot, a SATA drive bay instead of a cdrom, _no_ dedicated graphics card, a non-chiclet keyboard, a high quality trackpad _centered under the space bar_, and a user-replaceable (hot-swappable?) battery that gets 8-10hrs on a single charge and I'll think about forking out extra money. Otherwise eff off, I'm happy with used Thinkpads.
It's a tough crowd to please, to be sure, especially when half of us are perfectly capable and willing to put in the extra effort to get random finicky component X working.
Hardware margins are thin, unless you're Apple.
And when I say professional-grade, I mean sturdy, expandable, and hackable to the core. Designed for Linux/*BSD first, that still runs Windows if the end user wants to install it themselves. If something like the Novena can succeed with a 1.2GHz ARM, I'll be damned if something similar with a quadcore x86 wouldn't do a hell of a lot better. It may bring in small change to a Dell of the world, but there has to be _somebody_ in China who would think otherwise.
The way to do it, I think, would be through a crowd-funding type of platform. 3D print a prototype, prove the sales are there, and then you can spend the money on design and tooling for manufacturing.
Every attempt I've seen, though, has either failed, or fallen prey to the lock-in-based lure of Microsoft.
Those notebooks are generally more expensive than their Windows counter parts (because Microsoft subsides then) and does not offer any customization (Dell XPS 13 Developer Edition still comes with a "Windows" key, wtf?!), so why bother?
In my case, coming with either Windows or Ubuntu is exactly the same, since I use Arch Linux and will have to reinstall anyway.
Almost all Linux users are familiar with the process of putting Linux on a machine, since that's the only way to get it. The thing that's primarily helpful about seeing a manufacturer have a "blessed" linux system to me is more that I can be confident all the drivers I need exist; I'd probably whack the install they sent me and replace it with something else anyhow.
> The Dell XPS 13, for example, is a great looking machine - but too many folks were busy buying macbooks to help Dell learn this market segment does indeed want more products like this
Not sure about the why other (potential) Linux users might not buy notebooks such as this, but despite single-booting Linux for the past several years, I wouldn't be any more likely to buy a computer with Linux pre-installed on it because the chances that the computer has a distro/configuration I would want to use is basically zero; if I'm going to have to reinstall Linux and/or configure it from scratch, then the fact that it's specifically marketed as a Linux laptop doesn't really give me anything. I suspect that this might be at least partially responsible for "developer edition" laptops failing, as at least in my anecdotal experience, many people who are looking for an out-of-the-box experience aren't generally inclined to use Linux as their main OS in the first place.
Couldn't agree more (as a Fedora user myself! - Ubuntu is typically the "blessed" distro on these systems for various reasons).
However, "linux support" is more than a chosen distro - it's the supporting code necessary to make linux a first-class citizen on the given hardware (driver support, setup scripts, porting popular software, etc...), as well as support knowledge and training at the OEM (bash is bash, and Firefox is Firefox on Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch or whatever).
As for technical support and training, I can see that being useful in an enterprise context, but again, I honestly can't see the type of people who want to single-boot Linux on their laptop being interested in support and training from Dell, HP, etc. It's been my experience that by the time someone is comfortable enough to use Linux as their sole OS (which many people don't want to do despite being comfortable enough due to needing Windows for other reasons, like gaming), they aren't really going to need or want any tech support from an OEM.
On the other hand, I've yet to find a distro that pre-installs a GUI with configuration and packages anywhere close to what I want in a setup. I go out of my way to use distros with an option to install without a desktop environment even if it has an option to install the one I want, since it usually comes with a lot of extra crap I don't want. Obviously I'm probably a little more extreme here than even most Linux users, but at least among Linux power users (i.e. the people I'd expect to be interested in buying a laptop to single-boot Linux) that I know, Unity is considered to be kind of terrible.
Am I wrong in assuming that these types of "developer edition" laptops will generally come with a vanilla Ubuntu install? I admit that I've never really looked into getting one, so it's quite possible I'm mistaken in understanding the kind of setup they provide
There are other laptop lines targeted for developers.
The fact that there are about as many developers who are Linux users as there are Mac users is quite telling.
I need to update my LinuxCounter [1] profile after years of neglect.
(and I should update my profile too)
Lenovo have a 20% market share in the UK and my gut feeling is that 20 million UK employees sit in front of a computer rather than a sat-nav or a point of sale system etc.
Given that Lenovo have dozens of Thinkpads and Yoga variants, there are probably a dozen machines of interest to the linux desktop type of person.
If we assume that PCs/Macs get replaced every two years (generous) then the arithmetic works out at around a thousand sales per model per year to desktop linux users. I run normal Ubuntu not some variant - Mint/Debian/etc. Linux != Ubuntu, there are those that prefer the Red Hat flavours. Therefore a default Linux install of Ubuntu isn't going to be what picky linux devs will want.
Note that in the UK the keyboard is different and there is a 'u' in colour. You would want your default linux install to work out the box without having to change locale settings.
Obviously the US/Canada market is vast compared to the UK, but not more than 10 times larger. So that still means a low figure for expected linux sales even for the gigantic Lenovo company. Why would they bother to support it? There is no business case.
How does that work economically? Because not everybody buys the crapware license later (and they normally cost less than Windows), and mass stealing of data is not very lucrative.
It's just a form of marketing for these companies - ie. a certain percentage of potential users will convert into paying users.
The reason Windows laptops have been cheaper or the same price as the linux counterpart is usually due to the combination of subsidized licensing from Microsoft, crapware installation kickbacks, and lower cost of support infrastructure (the OEM already has a huge Windows support staff and infrastructure, creating a new one for Linux - or more correctly, a specific distro of linux - costs more).
If the linux laptops sell more and more, eventually the support costs will come down to on-par (or lower perhaps... who knows). It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and one that OEM's are not willing to foot the bill up front for. We have to vote with our wallets and take that short-term hit in order to push the ecosystem in that direction.
But crapware can not pay that much. The crapware creators themselves get less revenue than licensing costs, and they can kick back just a fraction of that revenue. (That is, unless they have another business model that isn't selling licenses or spying on users.)
Even say, $1.00 per system sold with crapware pre-installed can make a difference in the profitability of a product line at scale. Then there's the kickbacks for when a customer does pay for a subscription.
Unless, of course MS is paying the OEM to install Windows, or billing for Linux computers. Or crapware has some business model that I'm not aware of.
It is just about the demographics.
Example: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2467082/data-center/lon...
I work as a tech guy (linux wrangler / code monkey) for a finance firm. I worked in finance during the meltdown of LSE and the new linux based "Millennium" platform. I agree with you that Linux consistently is higher throughput AND lower latency, but that is my point. Windows isn't on supercomputers because it isn't a great fit and there isn't much of a market for it. Ditto can be said for Linux on the Desktop.
* This message brought to you from my RHEL7 work workstation running GNOME 3 and Chrome :D
This doesn't seem like that big of a deal actually. It's nice of them to provide a legacy mode bios, but this will perhaps encourage the community to write open source drivers for the storage controller in its native mode, expanding the hardware that the linux kernel can support. That would be a win win.
Then, one user patched the BIOS and manually reflashed it using an SPI flasher and some soldering, and Linux worked just fine by detecting the drive.
Yes, the ideal solution is that Intel gives specs to OSS devs to build a driver (or even builds on themselves), but the path of least resistance is to have Lenovo unblock that BIOS setting, which amounts to changing one line of code, or 15 minutes of one engineer's time.
I remember that stuff like this used to quickly be redirected to /dev/null like five years ago.
Great news then! Something has changed then :)
Good on them if they do, but I feel like you'd be laughed out of Small Claims court. What's your argument? You weren't forced to buy a Lenovo computer, you could have bought any machine, including one with Linux preinstalled and no "Windows Tax."
Because they are obligated to. Forced product bundling is illegal - it violates anti-trust law.
Looks like the legality of it varies by state / region / country. Maybe it's not illegal where I live; I'm in South Texas. I'll research it though, thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)