[SOLVED] Issue With Framework Laptop Bootable Media

I just received my Framework Laptop DIY and it has been a painstaking experience trying to understand why Framework isn’t able to recognize a bootable disk. After successful installations using a bootable device with Archlinux on both mac and windows, I’m trying to avoid an inevitable return, as I like the concept of the laptop.

I’ve created a bootable disk with archlinux-2021.08.01-x86_64.iso using Rufus (as seen below) and the bootable disk is working on my Macbook pro (2018) and Alienware laptop (2020) with windows 10:

But Framework is entirely incapable of recognizing the bootable disk and continues to throw an error screen that the “Default Boot Device is Missing”, despite recognizing that the disk itself is connected when displaying the list of bootable media.

The following shows the the Rufus log output following the ISO image process.

Rufus Log Output

I can only be led to believe there’s a significant defect with the Framework Laptop itself as I have had no issues configuring other laptops with the same Archlinux ISO image.

What Framework displays upon powering on with the bootable disk inserted (this is the bootable disk that successfully worked on a separate alienware and macbook laptop):

And Framework displays the bootable disk in the bootable media list but when selected, I am returned to the same screen:

Try turning off secure boot. I was seeing the same thing when booting with Ventoy until I turned it off.


That was it Malachid…>…<

Cheers :beers:


@kbouw could you please provide some details on the setting you changed to make this error stop appearing?

I’m assuming the issue was secure boot not being turned off; hence, causing the issues.

Secure boot can be turned off in the BIOS menu under the security tab.

1 Like

I just edited the title to mark this issue as solved, hope that’s okay

You’re right in that the “Significant defect” portion could be removed, I will do that if the OP is okay with it. There’s no need to be demeaning towards them though, errare humanum est (plus they were rather nice about it).

Intent is what matters here, and I don’t think the OP called it a significant defect with bad intentions, but because they didn’t know better. Changing the title to effectively ridicule them for it is however demeaning in its intention in my book, fact or not. Not everything that might be true has to be said as well.

I’ll remove the “defect” portion in the title now because I don’t think there will be objections.

1 Like

And as a general rule, nor can toxic gatekeepers :slightly_smiling_face: