If we can set these somehow, Im happy. a gui could be a payload maybe? I really hope the coreboot image that we someday hopefully get allow us to load our own payloads (as I asume it needs to be signed by FW to be accepted by the bootguard.)
1 Like
So after all thisâŚwhy do I need it? 
You dont. unless some parts of the following page intrests you: Welcome to the coreboot documentation â coreboot 24.02-168-g1879b6a34a documentation
I like the opensource part, custom payloads (this will keep comming back in the above docs) and potential faster boot times.
For a while it probably wont be something for regular users that have no clue. bugs, fixes, odd patches I think. untill stable. (possibly framework will sign a stable coreboot image?)
Anyway, none of this matters for regular users that are fine with closedsource already working bios/uefi code.
3 Likes
Right so itâs all to save a few seconds on boot. Gotcha I donât need that. I used to live in the days of a PC taking 5+ minutes to boot and software 15 minutes off tape, so the current few seconds is no biggie.
If only such effort could be used on something more important/useful. 
But for those that really need it I guess, go for it. 
I would hope that Coreboot (at least inheriting from Googleâs work for the Chromebook option) brings about better power management tweaks (things you get with vendors like HP and Dell). Also, Framework can continue to maintain the BIOS for stability and security related patches.
Other things would be more options (maybe XMP, undervolting, custom fan curves).
2 Likes
Itâs also about trust. Many people are becoming increasing distrustful of $bigcorp due to increasing use of underhand and anti-consumer practices such as hardware whitelisting to prevent replacement/upgrade of hardware (Hi Dell, Hi HP, Hi Lenovo! et al), encrypting bioses to prevent downgrades/bypassing of the previous mentioned whitelists (Hi again, HP!), BIOSes with bugger all configurability (Dell!), or attempts to prevent the installation/use of non Microsoft OSes (HP and others)
thereâs also UEFI, which is stupidly complicated and not very well defined/standardised, which has led to some notoriously buggy and/or incorrect implementations which, more often than not, the vendor has zero interest in rectifying.
open source means the code can be verified by anybody with the desire to do so. bugs can be found and fixed without being beholden to the original author, and itâs extremely difficult to conceal nefarious behaviour such as whitelisting.
9 Likes
Like @Peter_Schofield also writes, its so much more. but probably not for the average user. And many hardware startup tweaks various users would love to thinker with, and maybe even use in production environments. Coreboot is already used with Chromebooks and im fairly sure the Chromebook version of the framework laptop will.
Your probably fine without and can skip this thread, and the whole idea probably.
I see your wink, I hope its a slight joke statement 
3 Likes
Another aspect: coreboot has far fewer moving pieces than most BIOS, so it tends to either work or not. There arenât a zillion things to twiddle in different menus.
3 Likes
Youâre losing me. Iâd be happy if there was nothing but a tab that read âMENU!â and a bunch of options like âTwiddle/Twaddleâ, âFiddle/Faddleâ Samoflange: [Enable], etc.
Donât scare away the market of people who need a menu with esoteric options. Itâs literally a value-add option for me.
4 Likes
You might want to run heads to have a slightly more secure laptop, but to do that you would need to be running coreboot.
1 Like
Me too, I am under the impression that coreboot opens up the full mainboard features that the manufacturer may have hidden. I will be able to see CPU+RAM voltages/Above 4G Decoding etc. Although unlike AMI BIOSes like ASUS, I heard there are imposed limits in terms of voltage settings to protect the CPU/VRMs from damage.
Would be sad that if the features are even reduced moving to coreboot.
2 Likes
coreboot is an open-source low-level system firmware. It does not, by default, offer an in-depth configuration menu. That does not mean that those options arenât available. 
If youâre looking for a configurable list of every voltage, aperture, virtualization, et alia option on the machine⌠youâre going to have to wait for somebody to expose that through coreboot. With an open-source firmware, that âsomebodyâ could be someone from the community. Thatâs one of its biggest advantages!
6 Likes
This was what I heard from one of the other forum members (or was it you) previously. Just wanted to say that if coreboot has very little features compared to even the current one. It would really be disappointing.
For the UI, I have seen coreboot UI for some systems, so my expectations are really low. I would join a crowdfund to make it more better looking i.e. Intelâs VisualBIOS or ASUSâs desktop BIOS though. Or at least categorise the list of options with better user experience I guess.
1 Like
I would expect coreboot to be optional. Starlabs offers it as one of two firmware options. You can even flash from one to the other.
2 Likes
I am not sure about that considering Frameworkâs goal for longevity and repairability. Plus considering the size of Framework, not sure if it makes sense to maintain 2 BIOSes for the long term.
1 Like
Id agree, but isnt the hardware of the chromebook almost identical? Its not the same, thats what i know. But not tooo different. I just hope they do support it unofficially. Flash retail back before warranties? Id even flash it if that means id lose it on my mainboard.
I was thinking about a dual flash mod on my previous laptop, might dream about it for my framework. Not sure if thats possible tho, with bootguard and such. What did those 3 unlocked framework coreboot devs brick? Cant flash retail back with external tools?
Not sure if the Titan security chips on chromebooks (including Frameworkâs) would change things. I assume it shouldnât be that huge.
I havenât found any articles or anyone saying that the devs who bricked the Framework were able to flash it back. From my understanding, you could write into the BIOS chip externally. But no news.
3 Likes
@khimaros I donât mean to sound malicious toward purism. My comment about putting them out of buissness was mostly a dramatic way to emphasize the marketshare framework could grab. I think there are people out there, myself included, who donât trust purism. They had quite the kerfuffle in the mobile phone space that made many question their buisness practices. But for me itâs the fact that Iâm not confident in the security of their laptops that are purpose built for ⌠security.
Either way I donât mean sound aggressive. I just really think that with just a few tweaks framework (a laptop that isnât even marketed as a security laptop) Would probably blow them out of the water or at least force them to actually compete. Purism needs some competition.
p.s. good coreboot support would earn my purchase now. I just donât want to brick the thing. As far as the intel amd issue. They both have there own form of management engine so itâs just picking between two evils at this point. So it boils down to which company I want to support less. Meanwhile Iâm counting down the days till risc 5 is viable and gets built on opensource hardware.
My understanding is that PSP does not have network capability, while IME does. However, pluton does, and it is under the control of Microsoft. Pluton will be in both Intel and AMD as well as ARM.
@Peter_Schofield So microsoft is inescapeable down to the cpu level ⌠Thanks for that info. I hadnât come across pluton. Iâll definitely be looking in to that. If you might be kind enough to drop some sources, that would be much appreciated.