Re: thinkpad X1 7th o 8th generation
Bjørn Mork <[email protected]> Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:41:54 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.hardware.thinkpad |
|---|---|
| Organization | m |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Florian Reitmeir <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > Am 11.08.2020 um 10:52 schrieb Bjørn Mork: >> >> That's completely useless in my experience. It just means that you >> might be able to boot Ubuntu. Which you already knew. It's very hard >> to prevent... >> >> The Ubuntu certification does not answer any of the important questions: >> Which hardware parts will work >> >> - out-of-the-box? >> - after installing proprietary firmware? > > i really believe there is no notebook out there which has no p-firmware. > BIOS/UEFI firmware for ssd's .. the claim is pretty useless. I completely agree based on that interpretation. But I was thinking about firmware which must be downloaded and install on the system disk, but I see that this wasn't clear. The typical example is an Intel WiFI card. It will not work without a proprietary firmware blob which the driver loads from the system disk. The firmware by itself isn't any worse that what you'll find in flash on the SSD or system BIOS, but the installation method forces the user to accept non-free software sources. This is an important distinction to some users. I believe a proper certification should include this information. >> - after installing out-of-tree drivers? >> - after sacrificing your first-born? >> - never ever > > it is not the fault of an OEM, that da driver is not included in the > linux kernel. We disagree there. The OEMs select hardware components. As end users we can only "vote with our wallets" if the OEMs do the same. Today there are lots of hardware options which will work with Linux. The OEMs can and should push back, and they can also independently work on Linux support. They are in a much better position than the average developer, who often don't stand a chance getting any documention or other development help from the vendor. We do also have examples like the Lenovo Fibocom L850-GL integration, where Lenovo blacklisted the module in USB mode and thereby unnecessarily prevented it from working in Linux. They knew very well that the PCIe interface is undocumented and closed with no available Linux driver, while the USB interface had a standardized CDC MBIM function which would work out-of-the-box in Linux. Anyway, I don't think anyone cares who's fault it is that a device doesn't work. We want to know whether it works or not. Predicting the future adds some uncertainty, of course, so it might be hard to say "never ever". But I do think there are examples of hardware we can make that assumption, and be pleasantly surprised if it proves wrong. > hard claims. so lenovo should test every possible lte modem out there > to satisfy your needs? No, why would I want that? I want them to drop the code they add to lock me to Lenovo parts, which are over-priced and hard to use with Linux. This code is added purely for commercial reasons, and I am beating back at that. IMHO it is a commercial suicide. "We know our hardware sucks, so have to prevent you from fixing it". > you don't even know what they modified in the firmware/hardware and why. > thermal? regulatory? The regulatory requirement is a lie that is hard to kill. If it were true, then why are there laptop vendors who don't add such code to their BIOS? There are no legal or technical requirements forcing vendors to add this code. That's just mumbo-jumbo excuse. Laptop vendors are not required to prevent any hardware modifications. Even if some of these modifications might have thermal or regulatory consequences. That's the user making the modificatios' problem. And it's not like the vendors try to prevent you from removing or replacing a fan or an RF shield. Which have far more serious consequences than replacing a modem module with another certified modem module. > i know law's like regulatory for WIFI and LTE are not the most loved > things, but they exist. Bullshit. Well, of course regualtory laws exist, but the contents is actually sane (in the parts of the world where I've seen and/or written them at least). Please point me to the law (of any country) which requires a laptop vendor to add modem whitelists in the system BIOS. Bjørn -- The linux-thinkpad mailing list home page is at: http://mailman.linux-thinkpad.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-thinkpad