Didn't you love those classic '90s "Linux installation reports"?

[commodorejohn]

In case you didn't notice, Microsoft specifically states that SecureBoot must have a disable-option on x86 machines (not ARM machines), in order to qualify for the 'Windows logo' program.

Only because everybody started screaming "monopoly!" when the SecureBoot requirement was first announced. As the ARM thing shows, they're totally on-board with lockout in markets where they think they can get away with it.

 

[Scali]

Only because everybody started screaming "monopoly!" when the SecureBoot requirement was first announced.

Nope, the Windows Logo requirements came first.
See the oldest cached copy on archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/2012060...t.com/en-US/library/windows/hardware/jj128256
From June 2012, so before Windows 8 even launched.
Or this article from January 2012: http://www.extremetech.com/computin...t-calm-down-microsoft-is-simply-copying-apple

Over the last few days it has emerged that Windows 8 ARM computers, be it tablet, laptop, or possibly even desktop form factor, will be locked down and unable to run any other operating systems. This is in strong contrast to x86 Windows 8 PCs, which Microsoft has mandated must be able to run other operating systems.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but can the FUD please stop already?

As the ARM thing shows, they're totally on-board with lockout in markets where they think they can get away with it.

In the ARM-world everybody does it.

 

[Pepinno]

Linux installation Report: Fedora 23 on Lenovo G50-70 (not without having to previously flash the UEFI): http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/lenovo-g50-fedora.html

 

[Doug G]

Linux installation Report: Fedora 23 on Lenovo G50-70 (not without having to previously flash the UEFI): http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/lenovo-g50-fedora.html

Fedora 23 runs fine on my Lenovo y70-70 with secure boot. Well, as long as I somewhat cripple the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M GDDR5 4GB which doesn't seem to be fully supported with the Noveau kernel drivers. I have to turn off the dual graphics mode in setup. Otherwise, no UEFI updates needed, worked "out of the box"
]

 

[SpidersWeb]

Only because everybody started screaming "monopoly!" when the SecureBoot requirement was first announced. As the ARM thing shows, they're totally on-board with lockout in markets where they think they can get away with it.

Is there a corporation in existence that wouldn't want a lockout market if they could get away with it?
I'm not familiar with the timeline specifically, but to me the important thing is they listened before it turned in to a disaster.

As for the ARM thing - still sounds like it's an OEM option, and most ARM devices I know of aren't designed to have the OS changed as it is. I can't install Android on my iPhone either.

I'd prefer it was managed by a third party, but I have no concerns about computers not being able to run Linux due to a UEFI update - there will always be workarounds, different hardware options, and law suits to keep that in check.

 

[Scali]

As for the ARM thing - still sounds like it's an OEM option, and most ARM devices I know of aren't designed to have the OS changed as it is. I can't install Android on my iPhone either.

Yes, and since no single device/OEM has a monopoly position, everyone is fine with that. Most computer systems were like this anyway, in the old days.
They may not have been specifically 'locked', it's just that they shipped with ROMs with some basic (no pun intended) routines, which were all proprietary. Not to mention the wide range of hardware back then, which was all incompatible.
I can't run MS-DOS on my C64, if you know what I mean.

x86 and Windows are just so dominant that they need 'special treatment'. Which is not something I particularly care about. I'm fine with how the 'old world' worked: you don't buy the hardware and software separately, you buy the complete package. I only buy the package if I like it, and have never had the urge to run alternative OSes. In fact, most of the times I tried, I came away with disappointment. The only exception to that rule is the FreeBSD server I use at home. I first started running it on an old 486, which technically was an MS-DOS machine I suppose.
But I'm not married to FreeBSD (I've had to swap hardware/software many times over the years, I've come to expect it), so if for some reason FreeBSD won't work anymore in the future, I'll just look for an alternative. For now I see absolutely no problems though. I normally build my own PCs from parts, so no pre-installed or even bundled OSes (current FreeBSD server is an Asus barebone). And I don't think that is going to change in the near future. An OEM can hardly lock their motherboard to an OS that they don't supply, can they? That just doesn't make sense.

 

[commodorejohn]

Is there a corporation in existence that wouldn't want a lockout market if they could get away with it?
I'm not familiar with the timeline specifically, but to me the important thing is they listened before it turned in to a disaster.

There may be, but that doesn't make it any nobler or the companies that do try it any more trustworthy. If someone announces their intent to imprison me in their basement, then goes "oh, fine, we won't do that then" when I threaten to call the police, I'm going to go "well, that's alright then! No harm, no foul!"

 

[Pepinno]

It seems we're are back to tough times in the Linux-installation department...

I just saw this new Linux installation report, and it reminds me so much of the late '90s when trying to push Linux into a PC:

I learned a couple of days ago that audio on an Asus Vivostick TS10, which is a SoC built around an Intel Atom x5-Z8350, does not work under Linux kernels through 4.10. The bug fixes are in 4.11.

There was a lot to figure out to get Linux working on that PC. It came with Windows 10, and I thought I'd turn it into a dual boot machine. First, just to get it to boot a flash drive, have to know the magic trick in Windows 10: hold down the shift key when selecting "reboot" in the Windows 10 exit menu. If you don't, the PC will ignore the flash drive and just boot Windows 10 again. Then Linux couldn't mount the Windows partition, couldn't shrink it and it took a while to learn why. They'd installed Windows 10 with this Bitlocker encryption enabled. Why did Asus do that, I wonder? Fortunately it's not too hard to turn Bitlocker off, just takes a while to process. Once that was done, the partition tools could go to work. Installed Ubuntu 17.04. and it all worked except the audio. After much hunting around, I gathered that kernels 4.5 and perhaps earlier through 4.10 do not have working audio for this particular PC. Ubuntu 17.04 uses kernel 4.10. So I rolled my own kernel, using 4.11-rc8.

I'd never used an SSD based PC before, and it took more hunting to figure out which kernel drivers were correct. SCSI? No. Surely not old ATA or older stuff? Nope. There's this NVE driver for SSDs on the PCI bus. No, wasn't that either. The correct drivers are the MMC ones.

Wish the default settings of the kernel configuration were much more "opt in". They've set the configuration to include just about everything, including a lot of debugging code. They think only kernel developers want to compile kernels? Takes a lot of digging to exclude all the unneeded drivers.

I have this gut feeling that Linux installation reports are going to make a comeback...