Please count me in crowd-funding coreboot.
4 Likes
Me too
2 Likes
Count me in too. As long it is as stable as the current BIOS.
Also, considering how companies like Dell/HP tweak their firmware/BIOS to optimize battery life and performance, perhaps this could be a path forward to optimise battery at firmware and BIOS level.
5 Likes
With Coreboot, anyone could add new features, similar to expansion cards.
That would, in my opinion, greatly expand Framework’s “tinkering advantage” over other laptops.
That, security and the certainty that everything can still be maintained many years later are my main arguments for Coreboot.
8 Likes
Signed up to pledge a contribution to crowdfunding on coreboot and a free EC, should one be started.
I fully appreciate that this is not a small ask. I think there are a lot of people willing to put their money behind this. Are there incremental milestones that can be aimed for maybe?
I agree with DMA that this is essential to making the laptop properly available to tinkerers.But this goes so far beyond the practicality, and speaks to the underlying philosophy behind making this kind of hardware. Although it isnt easy or maybe even feasible to achieve totally, the north star ought to be fully open source by default (hardware & software). I think this represents the dream for many of the types who are interested in a Framework laptop in the first place.
5 Likes
(Further replies on this topic should be in its dedicated thread, Open Sourcing our Firmware)
5 Likes
Not really, either the BIOS is freed or it isn’t. I don’t think anyone is currently asking for Coreboot to be completely blob-free. So I’ll take Coreboot with the FSP and such still included.
One year on, does anyone know if we are getting any closer to having coreboot on the laptop?
Now that my unit is out of warranty, I would like to have more / fuller control of the hardware I ‘own’ (?).
7 Likes
It seems like we are indeed closer to having coreboot on this laptop. Recently I noticed a patch on coreboot’s Gerrit for one of those 3 non-bootguarded framework laptops that were sent out. (I guess we now know 2 of the 3 people those were sent out to). Apparently that patch has been up since March, but I guess it must have gotten buried in the further pages of Gerrit’s dashboard and not noticed for a while.
9 Likes
I think this can be the reason for the commits: “With open source Embedded Controller firmware and coreboot BIOS, the underlying system software is open too.” this holds for the Chromebook edition that I just got an email about. Should be quite easy to backport it to other 12th gen and probably also to 11th gen (with a bit more difficulty). Of course this still requires Framework to sign the firmware. Framework | Introducing the Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition
1 Like
Here is nrp’s answer to the question “What’s the difference from original?” on the Hacker News thread about the Framework Laptop ChromeOS version. The coreboot is mentioned there too.
ChromeOS! Specifically, the Mainboard is custom-designed for ChromeOS. This mean... | Hacker News
ChromeOS! Specifically, the Mainboard is custom-designed for ChromeOS. This means it uses coreboot instead of a proprietary BIOS and has Google’s Titan C security chip.There are some other smaller differences. To keep the cost down, the top cover is aluminum-formed instead of CNCed, for compatibility reasons we weren’t able to bring our fingerprint module in, and we were able to improve both audio quality and speaker loudness with an improved audio CODEC and louder transducers.
4 Likes
“It is technically possible to, and we’ve provided development systems to a few coreboot developers. This is something we’ll be putting more energy into next year as we grow the Framework team.”
Yeah…a timeline, at last!
(Though I do read it as “more energy doesn’t necessarily means it’ll be delivered / released quality to the public in that year”…but I’m hopeful)
9 Likes
Google’s Titan C security chip
Is it just me or does this basically sound like Google’s equivalent of Pluton? That’s… not exactly ideal, but it’s interesting that it’s present even with coreboot.
The longer this takes, the more doubts I have concerning, whether FrameWork’s original philosophy lasts longer or not.
Open, how much open?
Helpful, how much helpful?
Turning the table the opposite direction when a company reaches certain fame, is not really a surprise at this day and age.
I love FrameWork.
Really hope they won’t be ‘yet another company who said … instead did …’
Really hope they also provide 15inch+ variant (with Numpads) in near future.
Hope Coreboot doesn’t become a pipe dream.
I’d also be willing to pay extra/contribute to campaign supporting development of coreboot.
Sorry for being blunt, but having closed uefi on platform like this - totally defeat it’s purpose and CEO should be at least a little bit ashamed not putting much effort to make it happen,
for many reasons:
1st - having open uefi would target whole new group of clients (system76 main client base - hardware hackers, security enthusiasts, developers etc)
2nd - it would align with (alleged) frame.work’s mission, right now closed uefi contradicts their “openness” and “reusability”
3rd - it would gain “respect” of clients/potential clients and gain their trust (always more open is more trusted)
4th- open platform could be more peer reviewed and afterall more secure - alot of embedded developers all-over-the-world could check and audit the codebase, also contribute good functions to it.
One of the earlier post also made a great explanation why closed platform sucks especially for new company like frame.work - somebody already has a system that run out of warranty, and he doesn’t have any control over “his” computer, again also - frame.work is a startup - sorry for being realist also but it can go “down” after few years, and without opensource uefi etc - everybody will be left without any support, while having at least open uefi could be supported by some opensource folks.
I’m still waiting for corebooted frame.work, but my(and probably others) patience is limited. will not wait for-ever and go to buy something else.
Dear framework team - please also understand - that this thread is not an only “measure” of how this is important, we - who are writing here, are probably more enthusiastic and stubborn than other clients, please do believe me, that there are alot of potential customers which are going to your www - checking the specs , looking if you’re stating that u have open uefi - if not - they’re closing the tab and not giving a f* afterwards.
Just google a little bit around how huge is coreboot fandom, check on reddit how much people looks for opennes in laptops, and check how much clients companies like system76 or starlabs etc has.
open your eyes that you’re loosing alot of customers.
actually making coreboot “happen” is not “That much effort” in financing terms and also procurement-wise (to agree on not fusing cpu), and this is a really “low hanging fruit” to gain alot of new customers.
just my strong opinion.
10 Likes
I believe we’ve noted this elsewhere, but of the three unfused units we provided to coreboot devs, all three managed to get bricked in development. We’ll be preparing another set of unfused units for additional (or maybe the same) coreboot developers. In addition, we’ve provided a Chromebook Edition unit early to a community member who has expertise in alternative firmware for Chromebooks. As noted previously, Chromebooks use coreboot already.
15 Likes
Hoepfully we will have coreboot soon? Could it be possible to modify the coreboot for chromebook edition and be reused?
Where? This is the first I’ve heard of this. If you posted it to Twitter, I didn’t see it. I pretty much exclusively check the Forum for FW news.
4 Likes
Think what’s needed here is a set of procedure and the correct tools provisioned to those developers to self-service the bricked units. Otherwise you end up in endless loops of additional bricked laptops.
Unless, of course, it’s because Framework wants to keep that knowledge in-house.
2 Likes