Sure but that doesn’t magically make the laptop ship with Coreboot, does it? Example A: the existing AMD based board now. Even OpenSIL doesn’t guarantee Coreboot support, it just makes it easier from my understanding.
If Framework wanted to make a board with Coreboot (besides the Chromebook edition) it isn’t like they have had a lack of opportunities
Would Intel prevent them? It doesn’t seem infeasible to me for Intel to have in their contract with FW that they’d cease to provide OEM support if Boot Guard isn’t utilised.
that and its been said FW back then, and probably still today, doesnt have alott of manpower on the firmware side of their business. enough for support and development of current and next boards. which is understandable and sadly all too common. Id like to remind ourselves that FW offered (atleast) 3 bootguard unlocked boards to people with (somewhat?) proven skills to attempt it. with sadly (semi) bricked state as a result.
(semi as in, the fix was probably a external flasher, and atleast one of them said they dint had the time to order one.)
I have more hope for AMD ryzen then ANYTHING intel currently. 
With regard to coreboot anyhow.
So… yeah.
This is the only thing stopping me from buying a framework laptop. Its so painful to see this oversight.
Looking at the amount of activity in firmware updates—and comparing it to the amount of activity in releasing new products—I’d unfortunately have to recommend you buy something else (such as an old, corebootable ThinkPad). Framework’s firmware development seems to have oscillated between “afterthought” and “damage control” for the entirety of their history so far, so new (and costly) developments in that area, such as Coreboot port, seem extremely unlikely.
(They have, admittedly, attempted to obtain effectively-free labour some months ago by sending out Frameworks to a couple of well-known developers involved with Coreboot. Another Coreboot developer employed by AMD received an AMD Framework and made an alpha-quality port for the AMD Framework in their spare time, with the caveat that no suspend functionality of any kind worked or was planned. That’s effectively it as far as official company involvement: so they’re not opposed to the idea, but very much unwilling to spend non-trivial amounts of time or money to get it to happen.)
Thanks for the info.
It makes me look at fw in a totally different light. Feels like they are all for show.
Not meaning to discredit them in general. Its just a massive red flag.
I fail to see a red flag. in what way do they break promisses they make? especially in regards of opensource or bios variation support?
buy Purism, System86 or StarLabs, or a chromebook. Intel (and AMD) have strict requirements for current gen CPU/Chipset which include bootguard and alike. manufacturers like FW can try, and they seem to be willing to help get a coreboot image, or shim in devs.
They focus on repair and your able to customize alott on the building of your laptop/desktop. within the constrains of the selected chipset. even if we are able to get coreboot, officially the microcode is unkown, and a code blob. All talk, more code.
Knock it off with the personal attacks or we will be forced to close this thread again. Messages removed.
A thread for prayer.
Please fw… make it so we can use coreboot.
I suppose that’s because your looking at it in a binary sense.
At the top of the fw about page is this statement.
In what way is using Intel Boot Gaurd in keeping with that statement?
Is the word ‘electronics’ exclusively referencing hardware? Or should software be considered intimately entwined?
Hopefully that offers a little more insight an food for thought into my perspective.
We can debate minutia until the end of days, but it will never reach an end if there are no foundational principles. They should be explicit and objective.
So why use that hardware?
Perhaps chasing the latest and greatest hardware is the very source of that problem?
Since there’s no other alternative for x86_64.
I think you’ve completely missed the point.
Were talking about a specific category of hardware which cannot be implemented in fw products without proprietary firmware. This doesn’t include every intel and amd product.
Not until Risc-V or Microwatt produce one. Could be a while… or maybe not. Idk.
Who? I didn’t see any personal attacks. Was one erased?
Yes, three posts:
I, perhaps unduly harshly, criticised someone for their manner of speech, after they were somewhat harsh to another. He kindly provided more context in PMs, and apologised to the other person as I did to him, so all’s well. 
Got it… anywho, wonder when coreboot will be ported to either the amd or the intel one. if intel one, which im skeptical of, if intel me can be disabled, i will want it.
if amd, same and that one i think is more likely.
Framework Laptop Team is no have CoreBoot mainboard for Framework Laptop 13, 12, & 16?
I think when AMD has completed OpenSIL and later Framework implements OpenSIL on their Framework AMD Phoenix/Strix (Point|Halo) variants, that’s when we’ll probably get coreboot