Tesla's Musk says NY Times review led to a 'few hundred' cancellations - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/02/25/tesla-musk-says-ny-times-review-led-to-few-hundred-cancellations/

<comment><USER2> How many of those cancellations were due to the way Musk chose to comport himself in his response to the article (rather than as a direct result of the article itself)? I'm just wondering because, as someone who very much admired Musk in the past, I have to admit that, if I had a Tesla on order, I would be reconsidering my decision (and it would have very little to do with the article itself).

<comment><USER3> What exactly was bad about his behavior? Most engineers I know cheered that the scummy newsies who are always trying to twist things into a story to get attention got shown for what they are. He's seen as kind of a brilliant techie that managed to win over the system of fake articles starting another wave of fake articles ad infinitum through dint of technology and foresight. Although in reality it is more like experience since Top Gear pulled the same thing on him so he just knew to expect it.

<comment><USER4> Except this wasn't a 'fake article' (whatever that means). Sure, there were some valid criticisms over the accuracy of the reporter's notes, but overall the conclusions seemed valid. They weren't even overly negative; just that the car doesn't quite compare to cars with petrol (or diesel) engines for long distances in cold weather.

I found Musk's reaction overly aggressive and coming off as petty. He pointed out inaccuracies, though none seemed to contradict the conclusions of the article. What's more, his accusation of malicious intent was very serious and completely unsupported. It's nice to see a CEO that's emotionally invested in his company's products, but he'd might be better off with a cooler head handling PR.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a duplicate from yesterday: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5281453></comment>


Orange censors all blogs, not just GigaOM - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/europe/orange-censors-all-blogs/ <comment><USER2> Unbelievable. And they keep saying how child porn filters will only ever censor porn, so we have nothing to worry about, and that we are exaggerating when we worry about censorship. Right.</comment>


Linux can't be installed on a recent Lenovo laptop - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/53ri0m/warning_microsoft_signature_pc_program_now/ <comment><USER3> This looks like a timely moment to bring up Cory Doctorow's _The coming war on general computation_ talk:

> _So today we have marketing departments who say things like "we don't need > computers, we need... appliances. Make me a computer that doesn't run every > program, just a program that does this specialized task, like streaming > audio, or routing packets, or playing Xbox games, and make sure it doesn't > run programs that I haven't authorized that might undermine our profits". > And on the surface, this seems like a reasonable idea -- just a program that > does one specialized task -- after all, we can put an electric motor in a > blender, and we can install a motor in a dishwasher, and we don't worry if > it's still possible to run a dishwashing program in a blender. But that's > not what we do when we turn a computer into an appliance. We're not making a > computer that runs only the "appliance" app; we're making a computer that > can run every program, but which uses some combination of rootkits, spyware, > and code-signing to prevent the user from knowing which processes are > running, from installing her own software, and from terminating processes > that she doesn't want. In other words, an appliance is not a stripped-down > computer -- it is a fully functional computer with spyware on it out of the > box._

Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg)

Transcript: [https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcrip...](https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcript.md)

<comment><USER4> I don't buy this. For example, if I rent an apartment, but there is a locked cupboard in it where the landlord stores a bunch of tools and other bits and pieces, I don't complain to AirBnB that I didn't get the full use of the property, and start a campaign suggesting they are infringing my rights by not letting me access the landlord's cupboard?

If I buy a device that is advertised to do X, and this is accomplished by running a program to do X on a locked-down general purpose computer, then it is (assuming no issues with program X) fit for purpose by any definition. If I wanted a general purpose computer, I would purchase one. The fact of the implementation detail being a general purpose computer is irrelevant, it doesn't impair my ability to do X if I cannot remove X and install Y, in fact it _improves_ the ability to do X, by preventing the possibility of all sorts of misconfigurations and installation incompatibilities.

I admit that it's hard to find real-world analogies, and the landlord-cupboard above is not a perfect fit, but I still have no problem with saving money by purchasing a device that does one thing, and one thing only. I have no expectation that it be hackable or extensible, unless it is advertised as such.

<comment><USER3> I think you want to read the full transcript or listen to the whole talk instead of just respond to the one paragraph I highlighted. The context is quite important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The worst part is the reaction from Lenovo in my opinion. They just locked the thread reporting the issue on their forum, not saying anything about the problem itself but instead threatened the community to turn the pre-approval option on. This really makes me angry and makes me want to boycott their products. I really hope this issue will spread so that Lenovo learn that they made a bad move on this one.

It also made me realize how important it is to have a community on which one can rely to spread problems like this one. Several people on their own can't do much against big companies, but a big tech commnity can.

<comment><USER6> > It also made me realize how important it is to have a community on which one > can rely to spread problems like this one. Several people on their own can't > do much against big companies, but a big tech commnity can.

I never think that a support forum should be owned by the company.

There is a clear conflict of interest. The company does not want you calling them out on product flaws or their behaviour, on a site that they own and that reflects on their brand and products.

It's a shame that fora frequently are not financially viable, as they do need to exist to provide a centralised place for consumers to gather, share problems, diagnose and solve them.

Companies shouldn't run their support forums. Instead, companies should offer a better level of support by default.

<comment><USER7> > _fora_

Off-topic, but for future reference:

fora = forums, viri = viruses, indices = indexes, formulae = formulas,

etc.

<comment><USER8> Meaning is the same for 'fora' and 'forums', but both are fine and 'forums' is in fact more commonly used: [http://grammarist.com/usage/fora- forums/](http://grammarist.com/usage/fora-forums/)

I suspect same is true for viri/viruses and formulae/formulas but I'm not even worried enough about to check. Me saying 'viri' or 'formulae' would be me being a person I don't want to be.

<comment><USER9> It would make you an ignoramus in all things Latin, I assume? Given that "viri" means "(a plurality of) human males"...

<comment><USER7> You are, of course, correct - unlike those people who write 'viri' or, even more often, 'virii' instead of the correct Latin 'vira' \- which, as it happens, is not part of common English use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The other HN thread suggests this not actually a dark conspiracy by Microsoft but simply a case of missing linux drivers for the storage devices.

This sounds believable to me. But I'll put my tinfoil hat on just for fun and pretend it _was_ an intentional move. Could this make sense as a new twist on the old strategy, making it "Embrace, Extinguish, Extend"? With the WSL, they made it theoretically possible to run Linux software on Windows. With that in place, locking existing users out of Linux might cause a lot less negative backlash as the users can still continue to use their old programs - <USER2> under the supervision of Windows. If this catches on, it could actually allow Microsoft to grab some if the more consumer-oriented parts of the Linux ecosystem.

<comment><USER11> >locking existing users out of Linux

A serious question: What gives Linux users the right to expect that Linux will run on any given PC / laptop?

Think about it. These PCs/laptops are designed to adhere to Microsoft's Windows PC hardware standards doc (which was never, ever an open standard) and, with few exceptions, only tested against various versions of Windows. Linux users are failing to receive a feature that they were never promised in the first place so it's unclear that they have any valid cause for complaint.

Perhaps Linux, BSD, etc. users should be creating their own PC standards doc and asking OEMs to adhere to it instead?

<comment><USER12> "Universal" machine.

I expect any computer I own to run anything I put on it.

Locking out software is like a car maker trying to control what brand of gas you put in your car.

<comment><USER13> Does that include your cable company DVR, your PS4, your doorbell, your wifi- enabled refrigerator, your thermostat, and the 50 other devices in your home that contain (or are) computers?

<comment><USER14> Personal computers are perceived as the last vestige of this sort of freedom in a consumer product, hence the outrage.

None of those other examples are sold with the intention of the user changing the system in a way unexpected by the vendor.

PCs are supposed to be open-ended, and for this you typically pay more for the hardware capability than a product which serves as a gateway into a walled- garden ecosystem (phones, gaming consoles, etc.)

<comment><USER13> I guess Lenovo should make it clear if the computer is locked or not and maybe offer an upgrade option to get it unlocked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Site is down.

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fossbos...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fossboss.com/2016/09/21/windows-10-signature- edition-blocks-installing-linux/&num=1&safe=active&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

The article looks dangerously uninformed, from a brief skim.

It's based on [https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/53ri0m/warning_micro...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/53ri0m/warning_microsoft_signature_pc_program_now/?st=itckdfrp&sh=b67cac2d)

I can't find any info on what SSD the Lenovo Yoga uses but if it's anything like the NVMe drive in my Dell XPS, it's just the way the card is set up.

Depending on which kernel your installer is using it won't see the NVMe drive as it simply has no drivers for it.

<comment><USER16> I dunno, this looks like a smoking gun: [http://i1.wp.com/fossboss.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/B7g...](http://i1.wp.com/fossboss.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/B7gMpFL.png)

<comment><USER15> I don't think being able to change the drive to AHCI mode would fix the problem. The BIOS (actually UEFI) "locking" and storage driver are two separate issues. I mean, hell, if someone wants to send me one of these laptops I'll test it and do a full writeup.

Of course Reddit has gone off without anyone actually confirming what the issue is. Microsoft would be smart to come out with a statement on this if it picks up any steam.

<comment><USER17> "I don't think being able to change the drive to AHCI mode would fix the problem."

One user Bownairo confirmed that changing the drive to AHCI mode did fix the problem by allowing the drive to be recognized in Linux, after manually flashing a modded BIOS by soldering chip programming hardware:

[https://imgur.com/a/ox4Ey](https://imgur.com/a/ox4Ey)

<comment><USER15> Props to that guy going above and beyond.

I wonder what it'll take to get Linux to see the drive in RAID mode.

<comment><USER17> New kernel drivers from Intel, most likely.

djpohly and the BIOS hackers deserve some credit too for their REing:

[https://www.bios-mods.com/forum/Thread-Request-Lenovo- Yoga-9...](https://www.bios-mods.com/forum/Thread-Request-Lenovo- Yoga-900-BIOS-Unlock-AHCI-enable-attached-BIOS-fd)

Conditional flag locking users out of the Advanced settings page (with the RAID settings) of the BIOS, as shown in disassembled code:

[https://lnv.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image- id/76843...](https://lnv.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image- id/76843i7CD81FDBF9327A32/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is horribly misleading - [http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/44694.html](http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/44694.html) has some more details. But the short version is that Lenovo are force-enabling a feature that ensures they get better power management, and which is unsupported under Linux because Intel have never submitted code. If Intel ever do so (or if someone else writes it), Linux will just work.

<comment><USER19> It's not horribly misleading, Matt. If you view it from the perspective of the average Linux user, I think you'd agree that:

1\. Lenovo is usually one of the first choices for a Linux laptop.

2\. Lenovo obviously has made the call here to ignore the Linux community on their forums.

3\. Lenovo has actually stated "This system has a Signature Edition of Windows 10 Home installed. It is locked per our agreement with Microsoft." \-- whatever that means.

4\. Win10 dropped the requirement that Secure Boot can be disabled. This has already been filed as a complaint to the EC:

      I remember when in 2012 secure boot was announced for the new
      Windows 8. I am from Spain, and at that time a lawyer (Jose
      Maria Lancho[1]) that was the president of a Spanish LUG
      (Hispalinux) create a official complain to the European
      Commission about the Windows 8 certification program in
      relation with the requirements of Secure Boot.

      At that time the certification program describe that one of
      the requirement was to have an option to disable SB via UEFI,
      but only for desktops and laptops, but not for tables. Now
      this option is not anymore required for the Windows 10
      certification program. That point was one of the argument
      that we exposed in the complain.

      Is very sad to see that the circle is closing as we
      predicted in the complain, and with this new Signature
      Edition thing a new movement in this direction. And so far,
      the European Commission is not doing anything in that
      regard, and less and less hackers, lawyers, and groups are
      fighting against this kind of movement.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/53ri0m/warning_micro...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/53ri0m/warning_microsoft_signature_pc_program_now/d7vs4qc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It sounds like Lenovo's BIOS is using a RAID mode with the internal SSD that Linux does not understand. Lenovo apparently provides a driver for this RAID mode for Windows 10. If you want to install something else (Linux, Windows 8) you are out of luck until someone produces a driver for that operating system.

<comment><USER21> If this [1] Lenovo employee's answer is a real deal, and this was in fact sanctioned by MS, I wonder if their actual goal was to prevent people from installing Windows 8/7/whatever. MS did go on record by saying they are willing to block people from installing old versions on new hardware. [2]

[1] [http://imgur.com/a/niewu](http://imgur.com/a/niewu)

[2] [http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/16/10780876/microsoft- windows...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/16/10780876/microsoft-windows- support-policy-new-processors-skylake)

<comment> vertex-four Given the quality of answers to questions that I'm used to by computer manufacturer "product experts" online... it's really unlikely that that's actually the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have been a long time ThinkPad user and recently purchased my latest ThinkPad T460p. Sadly it has some issues, the latest NVidia drivers don't work on the device but I'm forced to use the 1 year old driver that Lenovo provides in their packages. Figuring this out took my several days of trouble shooting (only dx9 was affected).

Also the system fan is constantly running. I went to their support site and the online support is not available in my country and the "contact support" system doesn't/didn't work (opened some empty box in the website). Super frustrating.

As much I hate to admit it, the ThinkPad is no longer what it was back in the IBM era.

Combined with stories about vendor lock in. I'm saddened to say that this shall be the last ThinkPad/Lenovo that I'm purchasing.

<comment><USER23> Honestly Dell does Ubuntu pre-installed and therefore its XPS and Precision models never give this kind of bullshit uphill, even if you don't buy the Ubuntu version. It's now my go-to vendor, simply because I consider any vendor which does not do full testing on Linux, and sells any hardware that doesn't fully support it, as suspect and not worth bothering with. I'm sad to see that Lenovo is now in that camp.

<comment><USER22> Just wondering, does Dell support non-US keyboard layouts? I only saw that XPS available on some Dell-US site..

<comment><USER23> I'm running an ISO keyboard on a Dell Precision as we "speak". Recall you don't _have to_ buy the Ubuntu pre-installed version because it's the same hardware. I retro-installed mine on a UK-keyboard Windows Precision M3800 (now superseded by the 5510). And it works perfectly. If I were to buy one now I'd just go for the 13-XPS as the infinity display is big enough, although a fully kitted out Precision 5510 with Xeon, 32GB RAM and Nvidia quadro is mighty tempting but we're talking 3000 USD (2150 GBP) with 1TB SSD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The community's reaction seems absurd to me.

For whatever reason, the device only exposes some sort of RAID controller to the OS, and for whatever reason, there's no working option for exposing a more standard AHCI interface instead. The problem is that Linux doesn't (yet) have a driver for that RAID controller.

Okay, great. Linux doesn't yet support particular piece of hardware. News at 11.

Just like usual, if you want odd hardware to work on Linux, you'll have to write some drivers. That's just how it is. This is nothing new or scandalous. The reasons why Lenovo doesn't support AHCI don't matter. They don't, so now somebody must write a driver for what they do support. Once that happens, nobody will complain anymore. It's that simple. Nothing is being locked with Secure Boot; nothing is being locked with crypto; there is no DRM at play. If you want hardware support, write a driver.

As for all the Lenovo-bashing going on here... My personal experience with my new Thinkpad P50 has been overwhelmingly positive. It's working on Gentoo Linux entirely: [https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Lenovo_ThinkPad_P50](https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Lenovo_ThinkPad_P50)

<comment><USER25> It seems absurd because you complete glossed over the most important part: " and for whatever reason, there's no working option for exposing a more standard AHCI interface instead."

This isn't linux's fault for not supporting some non-standard raid driver, this is lenovos fault for not allowing users to change the bios settings to non-raid.

Also, just because you are been using a Thinkpad sucessfully (which is largely been immune from the issues we are talking about compared to the rest of lenovo line), to use that to dismiss the very real issues regarding lenovo's recent moves is disingenuous _at best_.

<comment><USER24> > This isn't linux's fault for not supporting some non-standard raid driver, > > this is lenovos fault for not allowing users to change the bios settings to > non-raid.

Lenovo made a computer that exposes hardware to the OS for which Linux does not yet have drivers. They could have exposed a more standard interface, but they didn't. I guess this is their fault, okay. But again, what's the big deal? What's next? You'll be upset when Synaptics releases a new touchpad with a different protocol, for which Linux doesn't yet have a driver? You'll scream and complain, "they could have supported the other protocol! they could have unlocked it! it was just a few bits inside the internal SPI flash!" Okay. But they didn't. Now write a driver if you want it to work.

I'd be upset if they used some kind of crypto secure boot situation to lock down the device. This seems very far from that, however.

> Also, just because you are been using a Thinkpad sucessfully > (which is > largely been immune from the issues we are talking > about compared to the > rest of lenovo line), to use that to > dismiss the very real issues > regarding lenovo's recent moves > is disingenuous at best.

I didn't mean to dismiss anything except for some comments I've seen in which people said Thinkpads are awful on Linux. Thought I'd chime in to offer a differing experience.

<comment><USER26> Yes, Thinkpads have traditionally had the best linux hardware support of all laptops, ever since there were x86 laptops (the easiest installs were thinkpads, and toshiba, early on).

Now, this piece of hardware removes support for the standard way to access the hard drive. Why did they do that? Hardware engineer couldn't fix a glitch in a new chipset in time to fix the issue in time to ship? Exceedingly unlikely. You only change those chips when you have to, because of cost or design constraints, and Lenovo is shipping other, similar hardware that does work with standard storage drivers.

Someone (one person!) managed to flash the BIOS to add AHCI support, but certainly I don't need to point out that this level of tinkering is equivalent to a crypto secure boot situation for well over 99% of laptop-buyers. That is, they would not be able to defeat either.

Now, a large portion of those buyers are not even aware of linux, so it's very easy for them not to care. Some people take umbrage to the argument-from-not- caring (I've got mine! My video plays fine! etc.), not because you have shown that their position is wrong, but because it seems to them that you are arguing that you understand that they are screwed, you are not, and "too bad for you".

<comment><USER27> Interestingly, despite Thinkpads being the best at running Linux over the years, they never officially supported it. At some point they began cracking down on it.

At last job, we had to wipe machines back to the version of Windows that came with them in order to get Lenovo to honor the NBD support we paid for, even when it was obviously not a software glitch (displays dying or DVD drives not reading discs in any OS). We kept a couple spare hard drives around with vanilla Windows installs for this reason.

We were pretty excited when Dell started shipping their Developer models. Told Lenovo to pound sand when it came time to refresh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Somebody managed to circumvent the problem on a Yoga 900 by flashing a new BIOS which allowed access to extra configurations. Some soldering required. The details start at [https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Linux- Discussion/Yoga-900-13ISK...](https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Linux- Discussion/Yoga-900-13ISK2-BIOS-update-for-setting-RAID-mode-for- missing/m-p/3434304#M8266) Check the link to imgur in that post. Not for the faint of heart. There are other posts with extra details from the same author in the next pages of the forum.

</comment><comment><USER29> Get a Developer Edition XPS 13 from Dell instead, comes with Linux pre- installed. I have one and they are awesome, if manufacturers support Linux they get my $.

<comment><USER30> I bought a Lenovo X1 Carbon (most recent gen) and really regret it for a great many reasons. Wish I had gone for the XPS. Actually what swayed me was the very slightly larger screen.

<comment><USER31> Mind sharing what your biggest issue with the X1 Carbon is?

(In the market for a new laptop, and the X1 Carbon is/was on the list.)

<comment><USER32> As another anecdote, I have purchased six X1 Carbons for staff in the past year or so and they have been great. The staff all travel a lot and they appreciate how light weight it is. The only machine-specific support I have had to provide so far was the SMM BIOS vuln. updates.

Despite that, I am making new purchases with Dell mostly because of price and service. Check out the Latitude E7470 in comparison to the X1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Supposedly Intel's NVMe variant of Rapid Storage Technology is currently unsupported on Linux. I find this puzzling because conventional RST doesn't really do anything that matters to the OS other than changing the AHCI controller's id, so Linux "support" is trivial. But conventional RST relies on the PCIe target being on-board and, with NVMe, the target is the SSD itself, so I don't fully understand what the newer NVMe does.

My laptop won't even POST with RST on, so I can't meaningfully experiment.

</comment><comment><USER34> So they did lie when they said "Microsoft Loves Linux". [https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/windowsserver/2015/05/06...](https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/windowsserver/2015/05/06/microsoft- loves-linux/)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

<comment><USER35> > _So they did lie when they said "Microsoft Loves Linux"._

No, the title and "secret agreement" theory is just BS.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)

> _Meet the new boss, same as the old boss._

MS hasn't been the boss of anyone much ever since 2005 or so...

[http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html)

[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html)

<comment><USER36> Then why did a Lenovo employee say there is an agreement? [http://imgur.com/a/niewu](http://imgur.com/a/niewu)

<comment><USER37> They might be misguided. Until there's an official announcement one way or another, I wouldn't pay too much attention to some random Lenovo customer service guy.

<comment><USER38> Right, but there isn't going to be an official announcement, unless a hundred thousand people jump to premature conclusions and bring out their pitchforks. I agree that it's not terribly smart to draw a conclusion at this point in time, but it's potentially more malicious, if we don't.

<comment><USER39> Regardless of whether such an agreement exists, and regardless of whether it's a secret if it does exist, I still have my pitchfork out. Lenovo had already lost my good will for their various other shenanigans over the last couple of years, but locking down the machine in a way that makes it impossible to install an alternative OS has decisively lost them my business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> _> Lenovo for example confirmed that they singed an agreement with Microsoft for this._

If true, it's illegal product tying, and those who signed such "agreement" are violating antitrust law. Someone should sue them until they stop doing this. Lenovo are infamous for refusing to refund Windows tax until brought to court, but this is a new low for them.

<comment><USER41> And they will lose.

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/sony-wins-pre- ins...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/sony-wins-pre-installed- software-windows-battle-cjeu/)

<comment><USER42> It is a different situation, IMHO. The guy purchased a Sony laptop with a Windows license, and pretended that by refusing the EULA he was entitled to getting the cost of the Windows license refunded. Sony refused, offering instead that he returned the laptop for a full refund. The guy refused and filled the lawsuit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is probably the standard "firmware is sending different data to different OSes", which has existed since forever. Or maybe it's just a shitty firmware bug or even a kernel bug.

However, I'm glad this is making this type of fuss. It means bad PR for Lenovo if they don't do any Linux QA (as they mostly never did). Good.

</comment><comment><USER16> This was so predictable. And of course, the FSF called it: [https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted- boot](https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot)

<comment><USER15> Has anyone _actually_ confirmed this is anything but missing drivers in 3.2.x kernel versions?

<comment><USER21> Have a look lenovo forums [1] (also linked prominently from original article), where OP has following to say:

      I am attempting to install ubuntu 16.04 on my yoga 900.
      The bios can see the 512 gb samsung hard drive and so can Windows.

      The ubuntu installer can not see it at all.

...and first person to reply adds:

      I have the same issue with the 900S model.

      I have tried the newest kernel 4.6 but linux doesn't
      even list the pci express device in lspci.

So no, positively not the 3.2.x kernel to blame here.

[1] [https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Linux- Discussion/Yoga-900-13ISK...](https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Linux- Discussion/Yoga-900-13ISK2-BIOS-update-for-setting-RAID-mode-for- missing/td-p/3339206)

<comment><USER15> Right. Thanks for that. I am reacting to the claims that it's "locked by Microsoft". This looks to be missing Linux support for an Intel device. Sad, but not unusual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Lenovo again. As if the recent thinkpad scandal was not enough. Incidentally I know of another company that went to bed with MS and it didn't work out very well - enter Nokia.

<comment><USER45> Don't forget about other greatest hits like the Superfish scandal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I see no conspiracy here, just an OEM that doesn't get it.

<comment><USER47> You're quoting Hanlon's Razor.. But this could also be Hanlon's Dodge([https://cluelesscreationcorporation.quora.com/When-the- burea...](https://cluelesscreationcorporation.quora.com/When-the-bureaucracy- fails))... I'm not saying it is, but it could be.

<comment><USER48> Never knew this principle had a name. Will have to try to remember it. Of course for us plebeians, it is oft heard "ignorance is no excuse".

<comment><USER49> I would _love_ a resource that related the various notions, expressions and idioms of society in the way that you just did. The sophistication of this association is well beyond anything machine learning can do. Except for maybe to crawl the internet and determine it was a relevant association stated by some human somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> A "product expert" forum support guy reveals a SECRET AGREEMENT between Microsoft and Lenovo. Come on.

<comment><USER51> I don't see word "secret" anywhere in his answer.

EDIT: [http://imgur.com/a/niewu](http://imgur.com/a/niewu)

<comment><AUTHOR> I named it secret because these laptops have been sold for months and no one was aware of this agreement with MS until today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> On some recent Lenovo laptops.

I have a recent X260 running Fedora 24 and I'm very happy with it, and with Fedoras support. I use both smartcard and 4G data module with it. Only thing I don't use is the fingerprint reader.

Only sad bit is that I had to disable SecureBoot to run VirtualBox. I would have happily signed the VirtualBox kernel modules if it wasn't for Lenovo missing a small detail in the implementation of the UEFI spec that enables users to write their own MOK.

<comment><USER53> Wait a second. Are you running Fedora24 on metal or on Virtualbox? If on metal, then how do the (unsigned) virtual box kernel modules matter?

And if on virtualbox - you don't actually know if it would run on metal. VirtualBox hides quite a lot from you.

(I expect that it will run on metal - I just don't think you have evidence one way or another if you are running it on vbox)

<comment><USER52> I said I was running Fedora 24 on an X260, implied that it's on metal.

However, I also want to run VirtualBox inside Fedora, because my job requires me to have a Windows VM. And VirtualBox has its own kernel modules, with SecureBoot they need to be signed. Unfortunately the poor UEFI implementation Lenovo has provided won't let me enter my own MOKs into the UEFI because coincidentally that little write call is missing.

I dunno, tinfoil hat surgically implanted under my scalp, it feels like they're not making it easy for Linux, when the Linux community is doing their best to adapt to SecureBoot.

Edit: And just to be clear, I did of course disable SecureBoot at this discovery but it was sad to do so because I had hoped to see how well Linux had adapted to this new tech that came out several years ago and was heralded as a Linux blocker. ;)

<comment><USER54> Why don't you use KVM/libvirt instead of Vbox?

<comment><USER55> I'm not sure that would help - libvirt _also_ has kernel modules

<comment><USER56> The kvm kernel modules come with the Fedora kernel, and thus are already signed by Fedora's key.

It's virtualbox which for some reason won't upstream their kernel modules, so they have to be compiled and installed by its users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Just out of curiosity, what's the rationale for MS & Lenovo to do this, why to risk PR? The number of people wanting to install Linux is marginal and they are already "on the wrong side".

<comment><USER58> I guess they just wanted to lock out Windows 7/8\. They don't gain anything by denying Linux to a few people. But preventing that the buyer can downgrade to Windows 7 fits exactly to their strategy and makes sense for Microsoft.

Also, an agreement to lock out Linux might not be legal from an antitrust perspective, whereas an agreement to restrict usage to the current version of the OS is much less critical.

<comment><USER59> Why lock on 7? (Probably same reason than promoting free 10, but I didn't get that either.)

<comment><USER60> Microsoft prevents users from rolling back to Windows 7, maybe because Microsoft gets more data from its users with W10.

Data looks like the new business model of Windows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> This sounds like "linux kernel missing support for some new proprietary intel device"

I'll see if i can pick one of these up on my way home and do some testing :)

<comment><USER15> Very interested in seeing your results. I wish I had the cash on hand to just pick up a laptop for the hell of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Microsoft 2016: lots of open-source, still closed-minded.

</comment><comment><USER63> Maybe someone can help me understanding.

Why is it OK to lock down smartphones, TV devices, consoles, but not OK for PCs?

<comment><USER64> When was it okay to prevent me to do what _I_ want to something _I_ own ? Absolutely never ever. Region locking of DVDs, DRMs of all sorts, smartphones locking are plain, shameless abuse.

It's however particularly unacceptable to lock down what used to be open.

<comment><USER65> Is worth saying that for most things, you buy them in the state they're in - there's no "right" to openness, as much as we might want it. Just because you own a house, doesn't mean you can just put a 6 storey extension in the garden.

Then tension is that we've almost always been able to install Linux on standard Windows machines and so have gotten used to it being open, but I'd be loathed to say (if the manufacturers have decided to make it tricky deliberately or just not thinking) we have a fundamental _right_ to do it.

<comment><USER66> > there's no "right" to openness

But there is a right not to buy this stuff and a right to tell other people not to buy it, too. There is also a right to tell the vendors how much you abhor them for selling such closed products and there is a right to tell journalists or other people why buying closed products is a really bad idea. And you have a right to lobby to make producing/buying closed products socially unacceptable.

<comment><USER65> Exactly. If you want openness then tell the manufacturers you want openness and people can put their money where their mouths are, however, I still don't believe expecting it as default when exceptionally few people (relatively speaking) ever have or will, is an entirely rational thought process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Lenovo... I instantly think of SuperFish. I remember years ago determining to never own a Lenovo after attempting to change the wireless chip to one of identical size/compatibility only to find that it would not boot - the BIOS had a whitelist for one chip. HP has also done this. No Lenovo and no HP for me.

<comment><USER68> so what are you using now?

<comment><USER67> Acer, with Debian Testing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> It's things lIke this that destroy any enthusiasm over Microsoft doing things like bring Bash to Windows. Clearly, nothing has changed in Microsoft's business practices, and we can't let PR like "Microsoft loves Linux" fool us. Baller might as well still be CEO.

</comment><comment><USER70> Is it more of hardware/pc manufacture issue rather than portraying it as "Windows" issue?

<comment><USER15> Yes. The hint is in the screenshot that mentions not being able to use the drive in the Windows 10 installer (WinPE).

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Which is more likely? That Lenovo shipped a crappy BIOS, like plenty of OEMs have done before? Or that Microsoft is engaging in a covert conspiracy to block Linux users via forcing Lenovo to put the HD into Intel RST mode rather than ACHI?

It just doesn't make a bit of sense. If Microsoft wanted to block Linux, they would just require that SecureBoot not be disabled and require disablement of user key enrollment.

Besides, a clean copy of the Windows installation media doesn't boot normally _either_ unless you slip the Intel RST driver into a custom built version of the install media.

This is just another conspiracy that I don't think makes any practical or logical sense.

<comment><USER72> That's just what THEY want you to think!!!11

Seriously, though-. If Microsoft blocked Linux _overtly_ , they probably couldn't get away with it so easily; they'd end up with a PR disaster and/or an antitrust lawsuit. Plausible deniability helps them; now you can bet some people are going to say "come on, firmware screw-ups are no news, what are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist?" I mean, they have already taken advantage of ACPI in this way once.

(Tongue in cheek. It's not so totally implausible.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> First they came for the crapware license deals, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Windows User.

Then they came for spammer license deals, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Windows User.

Then they came to install back doors, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Windows User.

Then they came for my ability to install Linux—and there was no one left to speak for me.

<comment><USER74> C'mon, have some class. You're really going to co-opt a quote decrying war crimes and genocide to complain about not being able to install an alternative OS on your hardware?

<comment><USER75> With closed source software, such as the firmwares and MacOSes of the world, it is impossible to have 'checks and balances'. Yet without computers to run and develop open software on, it is that much harder to create alternatives to those closed systems.

I think this is very much a sliding scale. And that therefor the quote very much applies.

<comment><USER74> I'm still a bit flabbergasted: you really truly believe that disallowing installing Linux on a particular brand/model of laptop is directly comparable to the forced labor and extermination of millions of Jewish people during WW2?

<comment><USER67> I reluctantly comment here, but.. The misuse of technology (see: end of encryption; end of privacy; end of freedom; slippery slopes, etc.) could (by my perspective) lead to massive problems, including political/ideological persecution. However, "directly comparable" it probably isn't, yet.

If (IF) a time comes when the only software available is proprietary, restrictive, invasive and possibly insecure, in a world where software is ubiquitous and often essential, I think that could be bad. The definition of fascism does come to mind.

<comment><USER75> The question that pops up into my mind is: what steps preceed such a world?

Microsoft blocking installs of Linux on computers that I own, seems one of those steps to me.

<comment><USER67> I suspect a three-letter agency or two may be taking some steps, certainly not impaired by telemetry, backdoors or hording vulnerabilities - all of which I sort of prefer to try and avoid by using the OS and configuration of my choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> This might be helpful for some of you: 10 Places To Buy A Laptop With Linux Preloaded [http://www.cyberciti.biz/hardware/laptop-computers-with- linu...](http://www.cyberciti.biz/hardware/laptop-computers-with-linux- installed-or-preloaded/)

</comment><comment><USER77> Amazing how Lenovo managed to turn "Thinkpad", a respected and loved brand name, into shit within just a few years.

<comment><USER78> Most of the problems are with the non-Thinkpad line, no?

<comment><USER79> They're not as water resistant or as durable as they used to be, intact, not at all. I've been using thinkpads for 10 years. I've had a p61, x200, x201s and an x230. The x230 is when it started to break down. It's a shit laptop. Ive also worked on an T440 and upgraded it's ram for a colleague - it's extremely hard to open.

Sad to see such a loved frame be butchered like that.

<comment><USER80> Try a yoga 110e .... Full metal edu chrome book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> I doubt it's Linux they're concerned about. I think it's more likely that the driver in question only works for Windows 10.

</comment><comment><USER82> For the past couple of years I have been consistently amazed at how bad Lenovo has become.

What a bunch of morons are in charge.

Every year I wonder if it's going to get worse and sure enough they do something stupid.

</comment><comment><USER83> To quote Ashtefere on Reddit,

> * The linux drivers for the NVME chipset in this laptop do not yet exist. No > one is stopping them from being built.

> * Signature edition PC's must be locked into their highest performing mode > in bios - this happens to be the NVME raid mode in the bios

> * Windows can't even see this because the chipset is so new, thus the extra > driver needing to be loaded.

> * Lenovo have not yet built a linux version of this driver, but when they do > you would also need to preinstall it or use a distro that includes it.

> * Again, no one is stopping you from building the driver yourself.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/53ri0m/warning_micro...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/53ri0m/warning_microsoft_signature_pc_program_now/d7vym2w)

So....it sucks for compatibility. But it doesn't preclude compatibility.

<comment><USER84> I wish I could upvote this a thousand times, you're the only one here who saw it apparently, and nobody seems to care that the premise of this whole "scandal" is entirely fabricated.

It feels strange to be defending Microsoft and Lenovo like this, but Microsoft most likely had nothing to do with this specific configuration. There is no version of Windows that comes with a driver for this RAID controller, just the same as there is no Linux driver yet.

While I _might_ be tempted to believe that locking to RAID mode is a deliberate choice by Lenovo to take options away from users, the target here is not Linux. The target is Joe User who now can't (re-)install Windows on his machine. That's the freedom they're trying to take away.

Of course it doesn't help that Lenovo's marketing/support departments are utterly incompetent in communicating this, and switch to "guilty mode" by default.

By the way, _actually_ locking out Linux would be an easy feat: just require a Microsoft-signed secure boot loader in UEFI. That's the real horror scenario, not this RAID driver nonsense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> Looks like ZDNet picked up the story:

[http://www.zdnet.com/article/lenovo-reportedly-blocking- linu...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/lenovo-reportedly-blocking-linux-on- windows-10-signature-edition-pcs/)

Maybe we'll get an official response from Lenovo.

<comment><USER86> The ZDNet article above got an update, an offical response from Lenovo. I copied it from there:

UPDATE 9-21-16 7:25 PDT: Comment from Lenovo:

"To improve system performance, Lenovo is leading an industry trend of adopting RAID on the SSDs in certain product configurations. Lenovo does not intentionally block customers using other operating systems on its devices and is fully committed to providing Linux certifications and installation guidance on a wide range of products -[https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/documents/pd031426](https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/documents/pd031426). Unsupported models will rely on Linux operating system vendors releasing new kernel and drivers to support features such as RAID on SSD."

So no Microsoft involvement, just a lack of drivers on Linux's part. Although Lenovo could offer a method for owners to switch the SSD from RAID to AHCI mode to improve compatibility.]

<comment><USER87> >To improve system performance

How can they say that when this improvement effectively brings performance to zero for Linux users?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> So sad to hear this. I am typing this comment from a Ubuntu on Lenovo (some 2014 model). Looks like Lenovo is not interested in business of us people.

Also Microsoft, of late, has been getting some positive news regarding open source contribution. Looks like there are parts of it, which continue to remind us, why we hated it so much pre 2004, when it lost the computing dominance war with Google.

</comment><comment><USER15> Dupe, also really misinformed.

</comment><comment><USER89> Does anyone own novena or librem? I think they have became worth their prices. They're quite expensive, but you don't have to bother with crap like some day you won't be install Linux or BSD distro because someone loves your hardware too much and want to force you to being spied on.

<comment><USER90> Are you seriously equating the Novena with Librem? The former is a fully open hardware/software platform built from the ground up with openness and hackability in mind; some assembly required, configure it the way you want to. The latter is a rebranded x86 laptop with Intel's Management Engine firmly embedded and operational; it's a $600 midrange at best laptop being resold with Linux preinstalled for three times the price because it's "open".

<comment><USER89> Is there anything else?

<comment><USER90> Sure. The Novena is not for everyone; it's a hacker's dream laptop but not necessarily a power user's. Still, I strongly suggest not wasting money on a Librem and instead spend a little time researching a good Linux compatible laptop.

The last I heard, Dell still ships Ubuntu on some of their XPS models, and there are a few companies whose business model is based on officially supporting Linux on their own branded machines. System76[1] and ZaReason[2] immediately come to mind, but if you're seeking a fully open machine with no closed source drivers, look to Libiquity[3] for an older but FSF certified ThinkPad. Yes, it's a rebranded Lenovo so it may be a sour choice given the subject of this article, but it's a solid buy if you don't need today's CPU power. Ditto Minifree[4].

[1] [https://system76.com/](https://system76.com/) [2] [http://zareason.com/shop/home.php](http://zareason.com/shop/home.php) [3] [https://shop.libiquity.com/product/taurinus-x200](https://shop.libiquity.com/product/taurinus-x200) [4] [https://minifree.org/](https://minifree.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> you all put too much value in some "product expert" guy's words. if you dealt with support before, you know 90% of the time they don't know what they're talking about. I mean, come on, some support guy reveals a SECRET AGREEMENT between Microsoft and Lenovo? Come on.

</comment><comment><USER91> In a world where the most important computer networks and a substantial number of devices connecting to them run on free, open source software, the user's hardware needs are simple:

1\. it must work with an open source bootloader and 2\. there must be some open source drivers for it.

But those are actually _software_ needs, so how is it that hardware companies are allowed to dictate the outcome of the above two points?

How are they allowed under the law to create intentional incompatibilities?

Can other companies reverse engineer in order to write free, open source software?

Does anyone ever violate an NDA and win?

The benefits of inoperability are undeniable. These issues were ripe in the 1980's and are still very relevant today.

The discussion of the IBM PC BIOS in this thread is worth reading.

</comment><comment><USER92> I wonder what happens if you try to boot DOS (e.g. from USB) on current hardware, including these laptops.

My newest laptop isn't that new; it's an IBM x60 (the famous one with the fully free BIOS available, although I haven't switched... yet) and it does run DOS perfectly well. When I replaced the HDD with an SSD all I had to do was image the partition over to the new one and everything just worked. I've run Linux and even OS X(!) on it.

But from the experiences I've seen of people with newer hardware, including articles like this and the other one about new CPUs and Windows 10, it appears newer PCs are becoming far more closed and proprietary, and that's definitely NOT a good thing.

</comment><comment> UK-AL Silly headline.

In reality they're using a weird raid mode, no ones written a linux driver for yet.

<comment><USER93> That would not be headline-worthy. There are many devices that don't have Linux drivers.

The real problem is that somebody went out of their way to remove the ACPI setting in the BIOS, and apparently did this only for the Microsoft store "Signature" edition. Furthermore it doesn't seem to be a technical neccessity, since after re-flashing the BIOS the laptop works in ACPI mode with Linux and Windows.

Whether or not this was due to malice is besides the point for me personally. They should just say "oops, my bad" and set the flag allowing ACPI in the next BIOS revision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> I have a Lenovo Yoga 900 Signature Edition I just picked up from the Microsoft Store a month or so ago. Works great with Ubuntu, I guess I got an older model that didn't have the issue.

Although, I saw this mentioned a while ago when I was first installing it: [https://allanbogh.com/2015/12/23/installing- ubuntu-16-04-dai...](https://allanbogh.com/2015/12/23/installing- ubuntu-16-04-daily-on-a-lenovo-yoga-900/)

</comment><comment><USER95> This is a good time to mention [https://download.lenovo.com/pccbbs/thinkcentre_bios/9sj995us...](https://download.lenovo.com/pccbbs/thinkcentre_bios/9sj995usa.txt), with the quote "Fixes the issue of installing Redhat 6.3." (If you don't remember: [https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html](https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html))

</comment><comment><USER96> And the first distro to release an update that supports this hardware configuration wins.. and imho, that would be awesome... the behavior itself by Lenovo is deplorable, and I will probably not be buying from them ever again... Haven't purchased a Sony labelled product in well over a decade now.. Lenovo is on that list too after the spyware issue a couple years ago.

</comment><comment><USER97> I won't buy those 'designed for Windows' machine, even when it's 'compatible' to Linux out of the box.

Why bother to pay for the M$ license fee while you're going to rub out the disk and install Linux at the first place? (just bought a laptop from System76 recently)

</comment><comment><USER98> I have mixed feelings about this. If the company owned the ecosystem - e.g. a Microsoft Surface or an Apple MacBook, would we expect them to support a different operating system? Albeit, MacBooks do support Windows.

I think it's fair that a vendor support the operating system(s) they advertise. If Lenovo doesn't claim to support Linux (or any other OS), it's OK for them to do whatever they want to prevent users from installing a different operating system. I'd even go so far as saying that a different OS should void the warranty. There are programs out their that will brick the BIOS if ran incorrectly.

I know this is controversial, but it's a functional business model of a large company that needs to provide support. With that said, nobody should ever buy Lenovo after their SuperFish ordeal. They should've been sued out of business: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfish#Lenovo_security_inci...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfish#Lenovo_security_incident)

</comment><comment><USER99> I guess there is some logic, in that refurbished Lenovo laptops are still one of the more popular vehicles for Linux. I just installed Fedora on a refurb T410, slapped in an SSD, and for my (rather light) workload I notice no disadvantage compared with desktop Win10.

</comment><comment><USER100> Stallman was right.

</comment><comment><USER101> Classic Microsoft.

Their supposed FOSS turn is an obvious trap. Trust them at your own peril.

<comment><USER102> Classic Linux zealot/fanboy. M$ is evil and the root cause of a problem.

-Evidence?

-It's M$ bruh.

<comment><USER103> Yeah, it's not like they have a history of undermining whatever they consider competition, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> Don't buy a Lenovo laptop. You won't have control over it. They were installing ton of adware and a rootkit which is enabled even after formatting disk, and now this.

</comment><comment><USER105> Sounds like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_lending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_lending)

</comment><comment><USER106> Timing couldn't be better to now announce the new MacBook Pro.

The issue doesn't affect Thinkpad line but sure does help people to make a buying decision between a MBP and a Thinkpad.

<comment><USER107> Because Macbook Pros are known for hassle-free Linux support?

<comment><USER106> For most of these people it's a decision between OS X on MBP vs Linux on a non-Apple laptop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> My current laptop is dying, stuff like this (lenovo in particular often comes to mind) is why I keep fixing it. Shopping for a new computer is just so incredibly unpleasant.

</comment><comment><USER109> ...until Linux supports the new hardware modes.

Linux always lags in new hardware support. Other than the appallingly bad way Lenovo handled the questions on their site, is this news?

</comment><comment><USER110> I've been boycotting Lenovo for years. Their build quality is low quality compared to other vendors (Asus, Dell, MSI) and then there's stuff like this.

<comment><USER111> In a spurt of dissatisfaction with Apple, I tried a few years ago to buy a PC, and bought a Lenovo precisely because I'd heard such _good_ things about their build quality. My monitor had a prominent dead pixel and my spacebar didn't work, so my impression wasn't positive, but I thought that it was just bad luck.

Has the community perception of Lenovo's build quality changed, or did I just get the wrong idea in the first place?

<comment><USER110> You got the wrong idea in the first place, I think. For the first few years after the IBM split, Thinkpads were of pretty good quality. Now they're pretty poor, and Lenovo's other offerings are generally crap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Why was the title changed to "a recent Lenovo laptop" when at least four models are affected: Yoga 900 ISK2, Yoga 900S,Yoga 710S and Ideapad 710S.

<comment><USER93> Also, it seems only "Signature Edition" laptops are affected, i.e. those from the MS store. I think that makes a big difference.

<comment><AUTHOR> It does not make a much difference as all new Lenovo ultrabooks are "Signature Edition".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> Another Lenovo story.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9072424](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9072424)

</comment><comment><USER113> This kind of thing is seen as a positive in the infosec space, is it not? Meaning that an end user can't come along and boot linux (or anything else) via USB and bypass system security controls.

I'm personally not a fan and won't buy anything locked up in such a way, but I'm pretty sure that the security team is. Regardless, we see this all the time in other devices - tablets, phones, routers, gaming consoles, etc. It's only logical that MS would want to pursue lock-in in their subsidized environments as well.

<comment><USER114> If your disk is encrypted, no one's getting in there. The most they could do is wipe your machine clean and use it as their own, and I think that's still possible with this model of laptop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> Computing appliances produced by Apple and Lenovo are better for most developers than complicated tools like computers.

</comment><comment><USER116> I was just about to consider a Lenovo laptop. This is such a turn off that I'm putting it way down the list now.

</comment><comment><USER117> I was/am going to buy a Thinkpad T560. Is it affected? When is it a 'signature edition'?

</comment><comment><USER118> I have to wonder if this will end up spilling over into the ThinkPad line...

I'd be worried at that point.

</comment><comment><USER51> I wonder if similar ruling[1] for alternative OS'es as with browsers could be reached?

1\. [http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/web_browsers_choic...](http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/web_browsers_choice_en.html)

</comment><comment><USER119> Lenovo is closing a door, leaving an opportunity for someone else to open one.

<comment><USER120> This might be the case for this particular issue. But in the long term saying no to a deal is not a sufficient defense against freedoms being taken away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER121> I really like this post... Linux seems to become more mainstream :D

</comment><comment><USER122> I like these catchy titles. How long is this going to last? We have hackers who can crack iPhone pin codes designed to be secure and make hacking impossible. I guess we see a new BIOS that can enable Linux installations within a month.

<comment><USER82> That's not the point.

I'm not paying thousands of dollars to get something that needs to be "cracked" to work the way I want.

Lenovo will not see a single dollar of mine, ever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER123> I hope this is not true, that Microsoft is still in war with open source, under a different cover this time, embrace-then-eliminate. but again, this has been its gene for decades, so really no surprise to me.

</comment><comment><USER124> Well, i will never buy one of those. Thats for sure.

</comment><comment><USER125> This is shocking. I was looking for an ultrabook and the Lenovo Yoga series 700 or 900 series appealed to me. Learning this I don't know what to do now.

<comment><USER35> > _This is shocking._

No, the fact that people would believe some conspiracy with the specific intent of locking Linux is the case is shocking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER126> Microsoft is in a bad shape, isn't it? So this is what we see when titans like MS, Google, Apple, etc. are falling. I expect even more coming...

<comment><USER127> "Falling" is an interesting description, considering all 3 corporations you listed doubled or almost tripled their market cap within the last 5 years.

If anything they're falling upwards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER128> disgusting company. it's the first time I'm ashamed of being a Chinese

<comment><USER129> ...since 1989?

</comment></comment><comment><USER130> Basically with DMCA still going on, if you manage to install linux you WILL be a criminal.

Freedom is a crime \o/

Computing is fun again

</comment><comment><USER131> wait a minute, I thought Microsoft loved linux?

</comment><comment><USER132> Gross

</comment><comment><USER133> As much as I'd love to (hate to) see vintage 1990's Microsoft back in evil empire mode, this doesn't make sense.

What is their motive here? The Windows vs. Linux battle is long settled, and Windows is not under thread from Linux. Why would they intentionally block Linux on one vendors laptops, gaining basically no profit/market share, and risking lawsuits and online outrage?

Hanlon's razor applies; I assume this is a case of incompetence.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)

<comment><USER53> In my opinion, motive is locking win7/win8 out. Locking linux out would be a happy (for MS) coincidence in this case.

<comment><USER134> I'm going with this theory - it makes more sense than "MS HATES LINUX!!11!!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER135> I see lots of folks referencing the Dell XPS laptops.

Just as a FWIW, here is another option:

[https://system76.com/](https://system76.com/)

As per my opinion on this, I'd rather see people not have knee-jerk reactions to Lenovo screwing up Linux support and people rushing for "alternatives", but rather make a concerted effort to support companies focused on Linux-supported hardware (for the long-term).

Also, this story combined with the HP printer story really makes you wonder why hardware manufacturers are going backwards towards locked-systems when their software divisions "embrace the world of open source". Hardware really is the final frontier for open-source.

<comment><USER136> I've heard some good and bad reviews about system76 and zareason. I'm currently considering the Librem 13 on [https://puri.sm/](https://puri.sm/) for when they come out in october.

<comment><USER66> Why doesn't puri.sm even include an Ethernet port in their premium product Librem 15 and in Librem 11 (though they do in Librem 13); cf. [https://puri.sm/store/](https://puri.sm/store/). There are very good reasons to use ethernet and strongly avoid use of WiFi if you are serious about privacy. For example consider slides 69-76 of [http://de.slideshare.net/grugq/opsec-for- hackers](http://de.slideshare.net/grugq/opsec-for-hackers), where the FBI could see when there was data sent/received by simply looking at when there was activity in the suspect's private WLAN (something that is not possible in this form for ethernet) and decorrelate it to his TOR activity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER137> That fossboss site is renowned for badly researched and terribly worded articles

</comment><comment><USER138> >but they apologized for superfish

>but the rootkit is only a problem on Windows

>but it's still a great machine for Linux

I hope the people who told me that are now reading this.

</comment><comment><USER139> Well. Typical Chinese. If they can make a buck by screwing a customer over, they will make the buck.

You know Keizen? From Japan? The continuous improvement of products..

Chinese have something similar. Geizen. ("to be stingy").

Geizen, the continuous deterioration of product quality to increase profits. Same a millimeter in the thickness of the case. Use cheaper steal, make the cables shorter. The thing needs 6 screws? It will hold fine with 5. Will even hold with only 4. Maybe 3?

And if Microsoft gives a buck to lock the consumer in, why bother telling him? All part of Geizen.

</comment><comment> dream-on "Windows 10 can't be installed on a recent Raspberry Pi."

I am sure it can -- and one wonders why Microsoft bothered to port it -- but why go through the hassle?

The point is that users can buy small form factor computers and these computers do not run Windows.

They are called development boards.

Perhaps these boards are the future of "general purpose computing".

And perhaps they can be paired these with sexy enclosures that are made by company run by designers that does not sell electronics - they only sell enclosures.

And they look better than Apple's.

Then I woke up. It was just a dream.

</comment><comment><USER140> The website is down, this story deserves it's own website behind a CDN so people can be adequately warned.

win10antitrust.us is available on namecheap.com for $0.88.

</comment><comment><USER140> Blatant anti-trust violation in several nations.

Microsoft has _repeatedly_ lost anti-trust lawsuits in the past 16 years for this exact sort of behavior. How is it that they have not learned their lesson?

Windows 10 is failing, and now they've taken actions which will surely incur billions of dollars in fines. I would not be at all surprised if the ruling judge in the inevitable lawsuit punishes them harshly for not learning their lesson the first several times.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation)

Whatever executives are responsible for this should be drawn and quartered by the investors.

And hardly anyone is talking about Lenovo's liability. They are just as guilty as Microsoft and they're a much smaller company, will this destroy them?

<comment><USER141> > Microsoft has _repeatedly_ lost anti-trust lawsuits in the past 16 years for > this exact sort of behavior. How is it that they have not learned their > lesson?

Lack of effective penalties, clearly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER142> Class action suit starting...</comment>


Most People are Happier Working than in Their Free Time - <AUTHOR> http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2010/02/19/why-most-people-are-happier-working-than-in-their-free-time/

<comment><USER2> I don't agree with this. Maybe the pager influenced their state of mind. I know whenever I get interrupted when I'm doing something enjoyable it makes me annoyed. And vice versa, whenever I'm doing something boring, I'm glad to be interrupted. Maybe that is what was happening in the pager experiment.

</comment><comment><USER3> I suppose it depends how you define work and free time. Working at my day job and I'm not happier. Working on my own personal projects and I am happier. Depending on how you define work then almost any activity could be considered work. I'm happiest when working on my surfing. And of course I'd be less happy during free time if that consisted of doing absolutely nothing.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's true for me but I'm self employed and work on my own projects.. I know quite a few regularly employed people I'd pin this on too, though.

I'd argue that it's due to the structure of work life versus home life. At (office) work, you typically have set hours and a certain set of activities to perform - the reality vs expectations gap is quite small.

In your "free" time, however, you expect to have a good time, yet usually have to wash clothes and dishes, cook food, go grocery shopping, and 101 other dull activities that merely wrap around the occasional fun things like watching a movie, going out, having sex, whatever. The reality vs expectation gap in your free time is gigantic for many people.

</comment><comment><USER5> Happiness is really a subjective and uniquely learned process for each person... Everyone has a different set of assumptions, expectations, and mental processes they have to deal with, usually all of which have to be overcome on some level to be truly "happy".

For most people, being engaged in work gets them to that state of living in the present, where the mind is fully focused on a task and doesn't get a chance to explore itself.

For me though, being truly happy is being able to relax in that free time, soak up the present "nothingness", allow the mind to wander, take everything as it is (without judgment or assumption), and just be grateful for everything I've been blessed with (even if there are negative circumstances).

</comment><comment><USER6> Seems like Maslow dealt with this a long time ago. Working probably makes people happy because people realize that by doing so they're ensuring that their basic needs - food, shelter, "belongingness" - are being satisfied through work.

It would be interesting to repeat the same study for people who are financially secure.

</comment><comment><USER7> Labor is blossoming or dancing where/The body is not bruised to pleasure soul...

W.B. Yeats, "Among School Children"

</comment><comment><USER8> I think the above title (I haven't read the article) applies to North America and Britain much more than Europe, South America or India.

</comment><comment><USER9> What if i use my free time to work?

</comment><comment><USER10> This is clearly part of a wider conspiracy of mid-level managers to convince their employees to work themselves to death eschewing family, friendship, and life goals.</comment>


The Things We Do To Change The World - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mckaythomas.com/post/57622624455/the-things-we-do-to-change-the-world

<comment><AUTHOR> However, their enthusiasm and sense of adventure have reminded me, once more, of grander purposes. Beyond the code and financial models, the business and the politics of the startup, there are insanis praedonum, latin for crazy pirates. And these insanis praedonum can't be stopped. They roam the planet in search of the things their mother told them not to touch and teachers told them were foolish. Where books and movies require fiction to tell the tales of extreme adventurers, insanis praedonum need no such literary license. And though gold may be the excuse they share with others, it is the unconquerable human spirit that actually drives them, these insanis praedonum.</comment>


Fired exec: 'Starbucks saved my life' - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/worklife/02/05/starbucks.saved.my.life/

<comment><USER2> I read the book that he wrote. I recommend it because it's a personal account of how you can become happier if you become a small part of someone's day (as a Starbucks barista).

There is a funny story in his book. He was serving the morning rush and an attractive, vibrant woman ordered some complex coffee combo. It was his daughter but he didn't recognize her until she called him out on it: "Dad, it's me!"</comment>


Deathwatch 2016: Companies and tech whose time may have come - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/ars-deathwatch-2016-companies-and-tech-whose-time-may-have-come/ <comment><USER2> 1 An extended period of lost market share in their particular category

2\. An extended period of financial losses or a pattern of annual losses

3\. Serious management problems that raise questions about the business model or long-term strategy of the company

Gee, that sounds exactly what happened to the company I used to work for.

I'll add a couple more red flags to the 3 mentioned in the article:

4\. As an engineer, you get calls from a supplier asking why accounts payable isn't returning their calls.

5\. Poor employee benefits as the company can't afford to offer what is typically offered in the job market.

Additionally, they constantly tried to raise more capital with stock offerings to cover "general business expenses", and merged with several other companies in similar condition to make a bigger steaming pile of high entropy /low energy content matter to offer the gullible investment community.

There are a lot of these companies out there. They should be culled as they are toxic to the economy. The problem is, you have C-level management and investment companies which specialize in dicing and slicing these troubled companies to present to investors, and that prolongs the pain to customers, investors, and employees.

</comment><comment><USER3> Streaming music services are never likely to make money:

1\. Cost of goods is not controllable

2\. Competition is arguably my-playlist-algorithm is better than yours.

3\. Google, Amazon, and Apple run their service at break even to a loss and make up the difference with ancillary revenue.

I'm surprised FourSquare wasn't listed. They're going for another $40mm round at half of their prior valuation.

</comment><comment><USER4> My first BlackBerry phone is a passport, I would miss BlackBerry OS if (when) it dies. both the form factor as well as the OS makes it the best productivity device I ever owned.(I used ios and a lot of flagship android phones before owning the passport)

It is a shame that BlackBerry tried to market BlackBerry OS as an consumer OS. Also most gadget reviewers like games and the latest social media platforms so it seems silly to send a unit for review to them. I think they failed to market it correctly while the market for this type of device is smaller than for an iPhone it is bigger than the number of BlackBerry devices sold.

I really hope they continue to make BlackBerry OS devices I dread the day I have to go back to android or iphone

</comment><comment><USER5> Best Buy: why on earth does anyone shop here when you can get it on Amazon for much less, with a better return policy?

GM: why would anyone buy a car from a company that covers up safety defects?

Yahoo: what do they still do? I have no idea how they're still alive except for Alibaba.

Microsoft: who wants an OS that spies on them and has the worst UI conceivable? How long can they continue dumping cash on phones that no one wants?

Blackberry: even the US government doesn't use them any more.

Comcast (and friends): I can only hope.... too bad they have local monopolies on cable service. Google Fiber can't come fast enough.

</comment><comment><USER6> I guess the 56k dialup business still has legs. If anything should die already it should be that Internet relic.</comment>


Wait ages for a bus and then two come along at once - <AUTHOR> http://jasmcole.com/2015/03/02/two-come-along-at-once/ <comment><USER2> The WBEZ article below alludes to the true dynamics problem, but doesn't explain it. The problem is that say you normally run in 10 minute intervals. For whatever reason, double parked car, helping a disabled person on the bus, etc, you get a minute behind schedule. Now suppose at the next stop typically 10 people are waiting. They arrive at the bus stop at one per minute all day. Since you're a minute late, there will be 11 people, which will take slightly longer to load. Furthermore, now the buss is a little bit fuller, so it takes people a little longer to get to and from the doors. Now you get a little more behind schedule. The bus behind you now has the opposite happening. The extra guy you picked up should have been his passenger, and so he makes his stops more quickly, until he catches up with you.

You can try to fix this in a few ways.

1\. You can reduce the perturbations to the system, for example, offboard payment, dedicated lanes, stricter double parking enforcement, quicker entry/exit systems for disabled passengers.

2\. You can reduce the feedbacks, or provide a counter-feedback, for example, frequent scheduled waiting stops to resynchronize, don't collect fares when the bus is full, traffic light priority when the bus is full

<comment><USER3> This is a nice analysis, but the data in the article actually disproves it, at least to the degree show in the last plot (quite reliably in my opinion). The distribution of the waiting time is exponential, is a Poisson process, which means that buses do not influence each other.

<comment><USER4> The existence of one plausible explanation (good model fit) does not automatically invalidate another plausible explanation (mechanism of action).

<comment><USER3> It does if the explanations are contradictory. In this case this means one of two things:

1) The "first bus collects delay" theory is responsible for a part of the difference between the data and the model, after all there is some.

2) There is another mechanism at action that statistically reverses the effect of the "first bus collects delay" theory, not necessarily in the same bus runs.

Number 1) is coherent with Occam's razor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting. He should look at data from Japan, along with other countries. When I was in Tokyo the trains and buses were all spread out and things ran on-time; you can literally watch the train arrive as the est. time of arrival clicked down to zero. Buses were similarly on-time and never bunched up. Not once did I see this pattern while I travelled around Japan for 15 days.

When I arrived back in Denver the first thing I noticed were 2 light-rail trains that arrived about 5 seconds apart from each other. Buses also get similar bunched up.

Denver isn't anywhere near London's density; I wonder if this is more related to the system in place and ethnocentric factors such as the pride that Japanese operators seemed to have at running everything as precisely as possible.

<comment><USER6> My dad always causes a ~90 second delay for the Denver light rail, because the operator has to activate the wheelchair ramp for him. How do they handle that sort of thing in Tokyo?

(Also, I often see multiple light-rail trains bunched up after sporting events.)

<comment><USER7> I'd imagine that the platform on most light-rail trains is built so that a ramp is unnecessary?

<comment><USER6> There's a ramp inside the train that needs to be deployed to bridge the gap to the ramp at the platform.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like a strange design to me. On most of the train-based public transit I've seen (and even some of the "rapid" buses), the floor of the car is aligned with the floor of the boarding area, such that ramps are unnecessary.

<comment><USER6> they're aligned, but there's a small gap that needs to be bridged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Also worth reading: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_bunching](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_bunching)

</comment><comment><USER10> Well seems like he is aggregating data across many lines, stops and times per day. Not very surprising that the result looks random.

<comment><USER3> There are different kinds of randomness. The exponential distribution of the waiting time is a nice, mathematically pleasing result. Although not a very nice one to the commuter.

<comment><USER10> "Random" was poor wording on my part.

What the exponential distribution means is that bus arrivals are completely independent. The time since the last bus came doesn't affect the probability that a bus will come anytime soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've noticed that in the "two come along at once" scenario, the second bus often leapfrogs the first, skipping a stop while the first bus picks up passengers. I've no intuitive idea whether this would smooth out the flow more than waiting behind the first bus though.

</comment><comment><USER12> If we accept the exponential waiting time model, then another term for this phenomenon is Poisson clumping: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_clumping](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_clumping).

I think one intuitive way to explain it is if you're flipping some biased coin continuously, then if someone walks in, you are more likely to currently be in a long streak and have stuff clump afterwards. For exampling flipping a coin with probability 1/60 of heads each minute for an hour (so average wait time should be 10 mins):

        > ''.join('H' if random.randint(1, 10) == 10 else 'T' for i in xrange(60))
        'TTTHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHTHTTTTTTTTTTTHTTTTTTTTTTHTTTH'

<comment><USER13> This sounds interesting, but I don't understand. "if someone walks in, you are more likely to currently be in a long streak and have stuff clump afterwards" What does that mean?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Great article. And here's some academic research that models the dynamics of bus bunching and proposes a decentralized control scheme to minimize a combination of passenger wait time and travel time:

[http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2011/VWP/UCB- IT...](http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2011/VWP/UCB-ITS- VWP-2011-1.pdf)

...And here's a product we created to commercialize this research:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQXZybHO52A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQXZybHO52A)

Full disclosure: I am a co-founder along with the authors of the above paper of Via Analytics:

v-a.io

</comment><comment><USER15> At least with SF Muni the bunching of busses issue is more human/contractual/process related.

When the bus runs late (because stuff happens) and thereby completes it's route late and turns around, and is basically right up against the "next" bus... they send them both out BECAUSE the thought of paying a muni worker to wait for 10 minutes to create a sane space between busses is unthinkable in a penny wise, results foolish budgeting process.

</comment><comment><USER16> Interestingly enough, I ran into an extreme of this on Saturday; while I wasn't inconvenienced by it (the bus showed up 2 minutes after I arrived at the stop), I overheard the bus driver talking to riders he seemed to know as regulars.

This bus was on time, but there hadn't been a bus for over a 45 minutes; the schedule defined the interval as 1 bus / 7 minutes.

There were seven busses on the same route directly behind us.

</comment><comment><USER17> I thought this was going to be a rehash of this [http://www.wbez.org/series/curious-city/why-buses-arrive- bun...](http://www.wbez.org/series/curious-city/why-buses-arrive- bunches-110941) but then I saw maths. I'd love to see more articles/analyses like this.

</comment><comment><USER18> it's worth noting that this measures the distribution of bus intervals. The distribution of wait times will be more extreme because there will be more passengers waiting at a bunched stop, so the 'bunched' experience will be more common than the 'unbunched' experience. Moreover, the hours when the bunching phenomenon occurs are probably biased to high commute volume times.

</comment><comment><USER19> Another, very different pattern of bus arrival times evidently arises when buses slow down to prevent bunching: [https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130205-in-mysterious- patter...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130205-in-mysterious-pattern-math- and-nature-converge/)

</comment><comment><USER20> Bunching happens a lot when one delay causes one bus/streetcar/train to hold up all the ones behind it.

Best solution is letting transit vehicles going the opposite direction to turn ahead ahead of the bottleneck and serve the passengers waiting at the stations in front of the delay area.

<comment><USER21> Another solution would be to have the lead bus skip pickup at a stop (or two).

You'd need clear and solid signage to assuage people waiting though. Something like "Behind schedule, dropoff only. Next bus arrives in 2 minutes".

<comment><USER22> Or set a dropoff only stop 50 yards from the designated stop. That way the people from the stop don't try to board.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does London use pay as you board or proof of payment for buses?

Here in Chicago, I think boarding delays significantly contribute to bus bunching (or at least make it worse).

<comment><USER11> London buses are cashless. Either you use an Oyster or contactless payment card, or buy a ticket or pass in advance.

<comment><USER24> So, pay as you board.

<comment><USER25> Not in a way that delays you - the driver doesn't count change or anything.

<comment><USER23> Almost nobody in Chicago uses cash to board, but if there are 20-30 people boarding a bus, it can still take over a minute as they all have to go through the front door and tap their cards (and of course, it doesn't always work the first time for some reason).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Burners - <AUTHOR> https://www.exversion.com/forms/

<comment><USER2> > _Well, so what right? Google Forms will dump your data into a spreadsheet, > SurveyMonkey can export to csv, but the data in Exversion Burners can be > accessed via API just as easily as any other dataset. Which means you can > program on top of them._

...and you can't program on top of Google Sheets or a CSV?

It's very unlikely for an ad hoc survey to generate enough responses for something in which ad hoc analysis would not be sufficient.

> _There is no comparable system that allows anonymous users to change their > responses after they 've clicked the submit button._

I don't believe anyone would actually do that.</comment>


Spell it with an "e" - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=4a3f6bbb5f0c6021279ccb3c23558b3c480d995f

<comment><USER2> I assume a reference to Ken Thompson:

[http://books.google.com/books?id=poFQAAAAMAAJ&q=spell+cr...](http://books.google.com/books?id=poFQAAAAMAAJ&q=spell+creat+with+an+e&dq=spell+creat+with+an+e)

<comment><USER3> Not only that, a commit -by- Ken Thompson.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This has nothing to do with the naming conflict.

<comment><USER3> 'Ken Thompson was once asked what he would do differently if he were redesigning the UNIX system. His reply: "I'd spell creat with an e."'

<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kenneth_Thompson#Attributed>

<comment><USER5> i read somewhere that one of the early machines that unix ran on, maybe one of the pdp series, had a five-character limit on function names, which was the reason for 'creat'. or maybe a five-character limit on filenames? i'm not able to google up any supporting evidence at the moment, so i'm open to refutations or support.

<comment><USER6> Unlink is 6 characters, so is rename, geteuid and getppid are 7...

<comment><USER5> unlink() could have come a lot later, or been at a different level of abstraction, etc.

i'm really sure i read this, so i just made another attempt to find the original source. the closest i could get was this man page for tmpnam:

"Many applications prefer their temporary files to have certain favorite initial letter sequences in their names. Use the pfx argument for this. This argument may be NULL or point to a string of up to five characters to be used as the first few characters of the temporary-file name."

<http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/cgi-bin/man-cgi.sol?tmpnam+3S>

... which is a bit dubious, i admit, but just _might_ point to a five- character file limit at one point in the murky past.

<comment><USER6> In some of the older version of the PDP assembler the symbols could be any length, but only the first 6 characters were significant, so you'd better make sure that your first 6 chars are unique.

I don't see any reason to mix filenames and symbol length in any language though.

<comment><USER5> the one time i was poking around in the source files for the C standard library, the implementation for a given function was always in a similarly- named source file. printf() was in printf.c, and so on.

so let's say you're implementing unix on a machine that has a five-character filename limit, and you want to follow that rule. creat.c is going to implement creat().

that would explain why he now thinks it's a mistake: he _could_ have implemented create() in creat.c, but chose convention over forward-thinking.

<comment><USER7> I'm pretty sure Unix even in its most primitive forms never had a 5-character filename limit. It might have been 8 initially, but not less than that.

<comment><USER5> yeah, i admit, i'm kind of reaching. i am sure i read a story about where the original limitation came from, i just can't remember the details.

maybe it had something to do with kernel functions versus library functions? creat(), read(), write(), etc were all part of the early unix kernel, and were accessed via call gate or syscall or something, whereas printf() and friends were part of a library, and didn't require a trip into kernel-land, and therefore weren't under the same restrictions. something like that.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: I'm 28. Is it too late to get started with AI/Machine Learning? - <AUTHOR> If no, what are the great resources for starters? Any tips before I get this journey going? Thank you. <comment><USER2> It's never too late. Maybe apart from some age bias in the field (but that most occurs closer to 40). I would suggest starting with some good foundation in stats / modeling, this is an amazing book on that: An Introduction to Statistical Learning by Robert Tibshirani and Trevor Hastie.

</comment><comment><USER3> No.

I recommend the ML course by Andrew Ng (I did it on coursera) and the AI course by Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig.

</comment><comment><USER4> What? No. Why in the world do people even ask this kind of question. To a first approximation, the answer to "is it too late to get started with ..." question is _always_ "no".

 _If no, what are the great resources for starters?_

The videos / slides / assignments from here:

[http://ai.berkeley.edu/home.html](http://ai.berkeley.edu/home.html)

This class:

[https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine- learning](https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning)

This class:

[https://www.udacity.com/course/intro-to-machine-learning-- ud...](https://www.udacity.com/course/intro-to-machine-learning--ud120)

This book:

[https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Intelligence-Modern- Approa...](https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Intelligence-Modern- Approach-3rd/dp/0136042597)

This book:

[https://www.amazon.com/Hands-Machine-Learning-Scikit- Learn-T...](https://www.amazon.com/Hands-Machine-Learning-Scikit-Learn- TensorFlow/dp/1491962291/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509309023&sr=1-3)

This book:

[https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Machine-Learning- Python-...](https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Machine-Learning-Python- Scientists/dp/1449369413/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509309023&sr=1-5)

These books:

[http://greenteapress.com/thinkstats/thinkstats.pdf](http://greenteapress.com/thinkstats/thinkstats.pdf)

[http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkbayes/thinkbayes.pdf](http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkbayes/thinkbayes.pdf)

This book:

[https://www.amazon.com/Machine-Learning-Hackers-Studies- Algo...](https://www.amazon.com/Machine-Learning-Hackers-Studies- Algorithms/dp/1449303714)

This book:

[https://www.amazon.com/Thoughtful-Machine-Learning-Test- Driv...](https://www.amazon.com/Thoughtful-Machine-Learning-Test-Driven- Approach/dp/1449374069)

These subreddits:

[http://artificial.reddit.com](http://artificial.reddit.com)

[http://machinelearning.reddit.com](http://machinelearning.reddit.com)

[http://semanticweb.reddit.com](http://semanticweb.reddit.com)

These journals:

[http://www.jmlr.org](http://www.jmlr.org)

[http://www.jair.org](http://www.jair.org)

This site:

[http://arxiv.org/corr/home/](http://arxiv.org/corr/home/)

 _Any tips before I get this journey going?_

Depending on your maths background, you may need to refresh some math skills, or learn some new ones. The basic maths you need includes calculus (including multi-variable calc / partial derivatives), probability / statistics, and linear algebra. For a much deeper discussion of this topic, see this recent HN thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15116379](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15116379)

Luckily there are tons of free resources available online for learning various maths topics. Khan Academy isn't a bad place to start if you need that. There are also tons of good videos on Youtube from Gilbert Strang, Professor Leonard, 3blue1brown, etc.

Also, check out Kaggle.com. Doing Kaggle contests can be a good way to get your feet wet.

And the various Wikipedia pages on AI/ML topics can be pretty useful as well.</comment>