Lenovo UEFI Only Wants To Boot Windows, RHEL

[blackiwid]

No, but on the other hand, only a complete tool thinks that stupid shit like that happens because of some on-high corporate policy and not just because of an incompetent programmer who didn't think through what he was doing and half-ass fixed some other bug or misinterpreted spec.

The classic corollary to Occam's Razor always holds true: never ascribe to malevolence that which can be explained by stupidity.

Yes you are right, not lenovo wants to remove support for linux, BUT Microsoft and co is clever enough to know that such bugs will happen all the time, and they know that bugs that hits the bigger ones in this case microsoft get fixed soon, they dont even care if one oem would have to take back 1mio laptops and destroy them... but it will cause way way more problems for linux or even worse some small linux projekts. So the walls get bigger to start some small stuff... its like what we have in germany each company have to be member of a monopolistic lobby-group. You must be member of this company if you make a company. So this lobby-group are totaly organanised by the big players, its like EU where we talk about democracy and then only Germany says what will happen. but even worse in eu theoreticaly the other countries could stop such stuff in this case they cannot not even theoreticly. So what do the big players make, they say each company have to pay at lest 10 trillion euros forced fee to be forced member of this lobby group. the lobby group makes then in the politic only stuff for the big companies + some small stuff for the small ones so its not tooo clear what they do. Why do they do this, you would say they have to pay 10 trillions too the big players, yes but for a big company this 10 trillions are 0.0001 % of their income and for the small ones its 50% of their income. So they can hinder that to much new companys come to the market. We call this "handelskammer" or something like that. "Verb?nde"

And the other more IT-ish example is the bios-power-management stuff, but there it was not only broken by made to complicate so that it gave calculated problems with linux because of bad hardware-designers. there we have the emails that tell us that it was designed to explizitily not work under linux without extreme man-power. Haloween-documents.

So if that was a practic that was used against linux, I rethink my statement that you are right, even it would be bad enough that they calculate and only make this useless feature to create problems for the small companies. why should they actively worked to make powermanagement unusable under non-windows-os, why should they not do the same with the windows-only-boot-security-system.


UPDATE:

I googled it, what I meaned about ACPI, it was not in the halloween documents but there are documents:

http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf

So in this time the head of microsoft tries to figur out if its technicaly possible to make acpi windows-only like as much as possible, he does there not ask if it would be legaly ok or something like that, he does not care about that. So and when we see how well acpi works with microsoft and how bad it works under linux (its better than it was but its still not working with all computers) it seems he suceeded.

Its like somebody says on facebook I will run amok tomorow in the school xy... then 1 day later somebody did run amok there, 10 dead people are there, the offendor gets away without seeing getting seen from somebody who survived. And the facebook poster has no alliby. I think that facebook poster would have some problems... and if its even known that he is good with weapons (seems to have the knowledge and abilitys to do this) I think he would become heavy problems, would get quetions 48hours or so... why again did this not happen with bill gates? ok it did not happen because money making is a good thing no matter how... even if you kill people for that. but it seems it happend before, so I cannot agree that you have to be a tool to belive they do it here again.

But again even if I and others are here conspiracy theorizer, its clear that they at least know that developers make much much bugs and they will profitate from this bugs because windows-related bugs get fixed faster or even gets fixed while some low-user-linuxdistri problems gets slow or even not at all fixed. So they did win... not to mention they many manhours smaller companies / users have to invest to get it working at all even on non-buggy implementations... thats easier to manage for microsoft too.

[89c51]

Here's something funny.

I got something similar on the Intel motherboard i have. Yes that intel The FOSS loving, Linux hacker employing, incompetent moron firmware engineer employing, "we dont support linux on this motherboard", "we dont support adding entries to the boot menu" Intel.

And at last i am able to boot the fucking thing properly. All i had to do was create a fake Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi file to my EFI partition.

Fucking morons.


I don't think i will ever purchase another fucking thing from intel for the rest of my life.

[AJSB]

Here's something funny.

I got something similar on the Intel motherboard i have. Yes that intel The FOSS loving, Linux hacker employing, incompetent moron firmware engineer employing, "we dont support linux on this motherboard", "we dont support adding entries to the boot menu" Intel.

And at last i am able to boot the fucking thing properly. All i had to do was create a fake Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi file to my EFI partition.

Fucking morons.


I don't think i will ever purchase another fucking thing from intel for the rest of my life.

LOL....but please do tell details....my rig uses a regular BIOS and when the time comes, i want to be ready to bypass that crap....

[blackiwid]

And at last i am able to boot the fucking thing properly. All i had to do was create a fake Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi file to my EFI partition.

So is that another problem not related to secure boot or why can u not disable secure boot? is there no such option?

[89c51]

LOL....but please do tell details....my rig uses a regular BIOS and when the time comes, i want to be ready to bypass that crap....

Well its not about bypassing anything. UEFI is nice, bypasses bootloaders and works if the firmware engineers implement the whole thing the right way. The problem had nothing to do with secure boot or anything like it. Probably someone at the firmware department thought it would be the right thing to do since they only care about windows.

And part of the problem is me that thought: "Hmmm Intel. They give back to FOSS. I ll buy their motherboard". Never again.

Apart from the booting issue the motherboard also had another bug which forces me to boot it with "irqpoll". And this brings me to the "Linux supports more HW than anything" thing. Linux might do that but the manufacturers don't support Linux so you are back to zero if the problem cannot be solved at kernel/driver level.

[WorBlux]

Only a complete tool ? you mean fool right?

Make it complex and there will be many errors that?s UEFI.
Make it simple and there will be much less errors that?s COREBOOT.

We will see many more of these kind of problems.

By accident,stupidity or even by evil conspiracy.

We do not know the real cause but we know that UEFI is not a solution build with freedom in mind.

Even TianoCore and top of coreboot would be better as you wouldn't need to relly on the vendor to fix bugs or make changes.

[89c51]

So is that another problem not related to secure boot or why can u not disable secure boot? is there no such option?

I don't have secure boot enabled and its not related to it. Its just the firmware that checks for this file probably. If i don't have it boot entries created with efibootmgr don't appear.

[AJSB]

I don't have secure boot enabled and its not related to it. Its just the firmware that checks for this file probably. If i don't have it boot entries created with efibootmgr don't appear.

What i meant about details in the other post was precisely *how* and you where exacly put that file...and if is simply a empty file or if there is something inside it...

[enrico.tagliavini]

Make sure that you only buy hardware which is certified to run Linux:

http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/ - pre-assembled hardware
http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/catalog/ - individual components

they don't even list system76. anyway I don't give a damn if the hardware is certified by canonical, I want support from the hardware vendor

[89c51]

What i meant about details in the other post was precisely *how* and you where exacly put that file...and if is simply a empty file or if there is something inside it...

Sorry. Didn't get that. However the motherboard you will choose might have a sane UEFI implementation and it will just work without this crap.

When you will built your UEFI system you will create a FAT partition which will have the .efi files needed to boot the system. ie. (mount point)\EFI\Your_Distro\whatever.efi This is the In my case i had to create a (mount point)\EFI\Microsoft\Boot\bootmgfw.efi which is just a renamed Tianocore UEFI shell in order to make the entries i created with efibootmgr (or bcfg) appear.