[RESPONDED] Coreboot on the Framework Laptop

[GhostLegion]

@TheTwistgibber

It is not that Framework “does not care” about Coreboot, it is that we have a very long list of priorities for a very small team (we are less than 50 globally and have existed for less than 3 years) and while being able to support Coreboot would be fantastic, it is just not a priority for Framework right now given the sheer number of initiatives that we have to launch now and in the immediate future. We pivot from one NPI (New Product Introduction) to the next, back to back, and have since our first product launch. Our firmware/BIOS team is small and is supplemented by an outside 3rd Party partner. The consistent, “well, just hire more people then” is unfortunate as those in the know understand that’s not how it works, especially for a small, private company trying to exist in a very mature market segment. While tech in general is shrinking, layoffs are in the news constantly, and global economies are getting hit hard, we’re still here, releasing new products, and working hard to support everything we’ve already launched.

Framework is a small scrappy startup and I don’t see that changing in the immediate future. Given that you pointed out that Framework is constantly pivoting from NPI to NPI (and will for the foreseeable future) Coreboot support is almost assuredly DOA. I get it, Framework can’t profit off of Coreboot like it can off a NPI but I said it before and @djinntsu reiterated it

@djinntsu

I get software isn’t as sexy as hardware, but if Framework really wants to support right-to-repair and reducing e-waste open firmware is a MUST

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Reduce is first on that list for a reason. It is unreasonable to expect Framework to pay Insyde to develop BIOS patches for every release until the heat-death of the universe but opening up the would at the very least create the potential for continued support past the point where Framework EOL’s 11th and successive generations. I’m glad to have an official response even if I am more than disappointed in the response. Now that we the community know where you guys stand on official Coreboot porting efforts, we can pivot to new questions, namely “If a community effort leads to a Coreboot port, will users utilizing said port still receive warranty and support?”.

There was a user in this thread somewhere employed by a company that does Coreboot ports. I say a Kickstarter/Indiegogo be created with the intention of contracting the port out to their company. $15K was the amount quoted in general, I’ll be in contact with them to get more details on that and see what their interest would be in such a project.

EDIT: Dasharo (the company mentioned previously) can be contracted in the same way as Insyde to dev your BIOS and provide support in the same way. Why has this option not been explored? Framework does not need to on board any other hires and it keeps the same category of costs as contracting out to Insyde. If we the community pay for a port to Dasharo, will Framework commit or at least consider dropping Insyde in favor of Dasharo?

EDIT 2: Alright, so a quick glance at how Dasharo makes money gives me 2 conclusions.

1. They charge based upon how many laptops will be sold with their firmware (assuming it comes from the factory with it) but the implication is that this is standard practice.
2. Derived from conclusion 1, a community based fundraiser will be the more expensive path without a commitment from Framework to switch to Dasharo as Dasharo understandably wants the support contract more than they want the porting contract.
3. As expressed in EDIT 1, there is a path forward for Framework that allows them to satisfy the community desire for Coreboot with necessitating the hiring of more staff. It would be preferable to have the Coreboot stuff done in-house for logistical reasons but Dasharo would be a huge step forward and would signal some goodwill here.