The 3.09 Beta BIOS is on track to lose its “Beta” status in a couple of weeks.
Yes, I understood the meaning…but I don’t understand what it implies.
What makes it not a beta in a couple of weeks. Why a couple of weeks, specifically. What is that track / plan?
To say something is on track for a future event to occur means there’s a set of sequence / expectations between now and then to occur / not occur in order to get from here to there. And that sequence is planned for, anticipated with some degree of projection.
Alternatively, I could also ask: What could set it off-track…and stay on beta?
i.e. If it’s still not obvious: I’m saying, there’s a roadmap…and we don’t know about it.
@Second_Coming Beta and final release software versions can be identical, the difference is just the degree of confidence that it doesn’t contain significant issues or bugs. I would assume that they are waiting for enough people to have installed it without issue that the confidence increases to the point where the Beta label can be dropped.
I understand that. Question is why a couple of weeks. Some kind of download counter…estimating the install base of the new BIOS? Why not four weeks? Why not Aug 1st?
The other thing about road map: Let’s say Framework is still around 15 years from now… How long will 1st gen mainboard be having BIOS updates for?
Now that is a question worth asking.
LoL…Yeah, I guess I do generally tend to ask a lot of questions…off on a tangent.
Regarding BIOS updates support (you already know…but I’m just saying the following for clarity to others): It has some degree to do with EOL, planned refresh cycle…especially for those who use it for work and / or purchased via the business / corporate program (if any). For the general population, some may not care so much as their consumer laptop background / experience / expectation with BIOS update support is usually just around 2-3 years, if that. In the corporate world, we tend to see anything from 7-10 years.
There are at least two ways to look at this:
- We’re not sure if Framework will be around for how long…so, we’ll cross the bridge when we get there.
- It’s already planned for x years, built into the pricing model, and best guesstimate on operating cost…etc.
Either way, there’s no transparency as to which it is…or neither.
I genuinely think it is a good question worth asking. *I was also poking fun 
We don’t know and FW possibly do not have a plan that far ahead.
I would expect them to support BIOS updates as long as there is a reasonable install base and a need. In other words significant security issue.
I know. It’s all good.
Sometimes, I just wish they give us that hard-to-swallow pill. If they don’t know, say so. If it’s hard to plan for, say so. That’s transparency.
I get where you are coming from. I feel they have been comparatively (to other manufactures) transparent overall. The RTC issue was something they probably needed time to investigate further before making a statement. A statement that would be view by many analysed and cross-examined for details.
Being transparent immediately may have been the better choice-“We don’t know why this is happening but will get back to you” I can see both sides but they are probably cautious as a start-up how to proceed. Not saying they were right or wrong in how they are/have handled it.
the other consideration is that until coreboot support becomes a reality, framework are subject to decisions made by insyde. If they decide to stop releasing updates for this platform then there’s not a lot that framework can do about it.
Yeah, there’s that, too. But again, we don’t know jack…
When you buy a Chromebook, they publish when EOL is expected. The same goes for some smartphones. Insyde knows how long they plan to support a platform for. I’m sure Framework asked that question about Insyde before selecting it. One would hope, at least…
1 Like