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.
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.
“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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I understand that you have tried the “open approach” towards few guys from opensource (and I’m really thankful that you did), but also few guys here from this thread tried to give you a “hint” how to do it proper way - i. eg using 3rd party development company which will professionally port coreboot for you (without bricking stuff or having external flashers and tools to deal with f** ups).
I wish you well as a company but from my personal point of view - you’re investing time in projects(chromebook) which probably won’t give you as much of return and respect in community you try to address, when you could support openness and right to repair movement which would build your position on the market as a reliable and trustworthy company.
I know the laptop market really well, I’m watching the market and used the laptops which has been intel 286 ;), also I have built myself and contributed (2 times CEO, 1 time CTO) to building three hardware/software product companies - so i understand all procurement / development and subcontracting issues that you have. I’m still really impressed how you manage your development and that you’re trying basically to “fight the dragons” with your product - which is impressive, but in my humble opinion “not enough” if you do something open you must to go “all in” or you loose credibility.
I was thinking that the partnership with Google brings in Google expertise without really investing much for coreboot etc as well as Google’s perspective on certain design philisophies.
I would think that would kinda trickle down to the current owners (which I guess is coreboot and speakers), is a roundabout way but I would think it doesn’t burn so much cash. It definitely takes longer though. That being said, I am not sure if Framework’s team is big enough to maintain coreboot on their own (at least for now).
I do agree that I wouldn’t mind to be part of the crowd funding effort to pay for coreboot porting like I mentioned above.
in the companies like Frame.work - the cash need is not a primary issue - the issue is rather on managemen focus - which is being burnt on unnecessary partnerships imo. also i could only assume that partnership with google is “time intensive” because small company like Frame.work must adhere to certain “workmanship” standards of google. so it certainly burns alot of time.
also that’s why you can simply use outsourced company lik 3mdeb and others - which are really god and fast at it. and not “time intensive” while working with them
You have a point there. I am not sure about cash, though my knowledge of startups is much lesser compared to listed companies. I remember VCs pulling out funds during economic slowdowns and stuff and my POV was this was being prudent financially. And the sum of the partnership would result in a bigger value as a whole.
I am frankly not familiar with how BIOSes are made and maintained. I was looking at motherboard manufacturers such as ASUS/MSI/EVGA, the teams doesn’t look small. ^^"
if you do something open you must to go “all in” or you loose credibility.