[HN Gopher] The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition ___________________________________________________________________ The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition Author : artogahr Score : 435 points Date : 2022-09-21 15:19 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (frame.work) (TXT) w3m dump (frame.work) | duped wrote: | My only quibble is that the display isn't high resolution. | amelius wrote: | This makes me afraid that the company might at some point be | acquired by Google. | | Hopefully someone can take that fear away. | lrvick wrote: | ChromeOS is a privacy nightmare I cannot recommend to anyone | which is a real shame because it is perhaps the most secure | consumer focused workstation operating system out there. | | I wish any vendor would offer a privacy-by-default telemetry- | disabled ChromiumOS option I could actually recommend. | dathinab wrote: | But if we are honest: | | 1. is it really worse then windows | | 2. google does has privacy option, partially thanks to the EU | forcing them and as far as I can tell they are not randomly | "undone" with updates from time to time | | 3. a lot of more common users do also have instagram and | similar, do most things through android/iOS apps and use google | search and chrome, or some chrome derivate. How much additional | information does using ChromeOs expose? | | Don't get me wrong for most people on HN it probably is | degrading privacy. But this is not targeting the common HN | user. | | This is targeting: | | - existing ChromeOs users looking for an upgrade | - this includes devs - this includes less tech | affine people - this includes people which bought | that premium Chromebook with a 3:2 Google sold years ago | - this includes a bunch of google (ex-)employs which might have | been the driving factor for bringing out a ChromeOs version | - this includes junior devs which grew up with a edu focused | chrome book | | - people which care about the mission of framework, but are not | highly tech affine, they might seem rare but they do exist | | - presents, Chromebooks can be nice presents to less tech | affine users and if they anyway use mainly Chrome and similar | it's not necessary "reducing their privacy" | | - people feed up by Linux desktop issues but disgusted with | Apple Hypocrisy and totally feed up with windows since a while | - especially if they are not supper sensitive wrt. privacy. And | while such devs might sound like a myth on HN I have meet | docents of them | | Lastly it's the same hardware and probably more or less the | same driver support issues, so the cost of shipping such a | version is probably not too high while at the same time it can | give you a bit more supply chain stability (by removing | hardware choices outside of cards). | | The main question is if the firmware is in a state where you | could just install Linux or Windows if you want. | lrvick wrote: | Giving ChromeOS devices to low tech users that cannot | understand the privacy and lock-in risks feels like a tech | version of giving kids cigarettes. It is simply unethical. | The HN crowd can make informed decisions to give Google | control of their entire digital lives but we should not make | that choice for others. | | I would never recommend Windows or MacOS to anyone for | similar reasons so those are not a comparison I care about | either. I would certainly recommend a Chromebook over either | if someone absolutely has no choice but those three, but | there are almost always other choices if you make some time | to teach someone. | | Most Linux distros are a security shit show so pre-installed | linux machines are hard to recommend to anyone that does | anything high risk on their machines like financial work or | journalism. | | Degoogled ChromiumOS feels like a good security/privacy | balance for most people but that is not currently a user | friendly option for installation and upgrades. | | In practice I find myself using and teaching others using | their machines for anything remotely privacy or security | sensitive to install and use QubesOS. For all the excellent | privacy and security design it has a high learning curve and | strict hardware requirements making it untenable for low- | budget or low-tech users. | water-your-self wrote: | >but we should not make that choice for others. | | Much of the HN crowd has their finances intertwined with | forcing these kinds of choices on consumers. Sometimes I | dream of an awful de-anonymized internet where your | financial holdings are bound to every post that you make | online. I think binding that incentive might change how we | ingest opinions. | n0ric wrote: | I'm having a hard time imagining the audience for this product. | EDU most likely isn't going to go with this product due to cost | (and can get easily complex, imagine trying to juggle all the | expansion ports being lost by students), and typical audiences | for ChromeOS devices don't always overlap with audiences who want | easy repairability (and most likely are purchasing the device for | the lack of nuances that other OSes provide). | washadjeffmad wrote: | I'm on a $150 Chromebook from Costco right now because it has a | really nice display for text, it gets 8 hours of battery life | at full brightness, and there's nothing I do that I can't do on | another computer, somewhere else. | | And somehow, this thing got my attention. I don't have any | interest in their traditional PC laptop line, but I've been | waffling over buying a Pixelbook for years because dealing with | Google Support is worse than entering a contract with a devil. | | If it helps you reconcile it, Framework doesn't do bulk or | business orders right now, anyway, so the target demographic is | only individuals. | JadeNB wrote: | > there's nothing I do that I can't do on another computer, | somewhere else. | | Is that a misplaced "can't"? (Something like "there's nothing | I can't do that I can do on another computer, somewhere | else"?) | resoluteteeth wrote: | Maybe they mean "there's nothing I can't do by sshing to | another computer when necessary"? | washadjeffmad wrote: | Bingo. This is a dumb terminal that does some wifi | calling, thanks to Google Fi. | refulgentis wrote: | People are sleeping on how awesome Chrome OS is. It really is | awesome. The 2020 equivalent of 2005 OS X vs. Windows. From | there, Linux container. It's mind-boggling to me because I | switched _off_ Apple the last 5 years after realizing how | powerful it is to be able to pick up a well-made powerful | laptop for $600 instead of $2400. It's so much better to have | something thats an iPad _and_ a laptop. Ugh. Anyways. | Underrated. Really really underrated. (disclaimer: I work on | Android at Google) | artificialLimbs wrote: | Curious if you've test driven an Mx Mac? | refulgentis wrote: | Yes, tl;Dr got one at work for iOS dev a couple months back | and I gotta be honest OS X is a real drag at this point. | Brings me no pleasure to say this. Was such a huge fan. | | Displays wider color range, CPUs faster, that's pretty much | it on the positives side. | samstave wrote: | As someone who is a CHRONIC mis-placer of [things], this | comment made me chuckle... | | I fricken lost my titanium SPORKS from my kitchen, one of which | was a "businuss card" gift from JD Blair... and I know that | nobody _stole_ my sporks... but for the life of me I have no | idea where my sporks are, my THREE pairs of $500 glasses that | costo made for me and so many other stupid things...(FFS I | literally just bought a pair of $150 BT headset, and left it | behind within two days of purchase (i was able to get them back | - but, yeah...)) | | I cant imagine if my laptop had removable parts (I leave shit | in Ubers all the time) | sangnoir wrote: | Sounds like you need a retractable lanyard expansion for the | frame.work laptop | dheera wrote: | Yeah exactly. $999 isn't exactly Chromebook territory. | IE6 wrote: | Chromebook ecosystem is completely saturated with low end / | low cost devices so there is not a segment of the market | there that is not being met. Even the "high end" devices are | often computationally anemic (Pixelbook series with Y series | CPUs and eMMC drives). As a Chromebook user I am glad there | are at least 2 high end options now (Framework and HP Elite | Dragonfly). | dheera wrote: | Why would people pay that much for a Chromebook, when you | could just install Ubuntu and delete all the icons except | for Chrome? | IE6 wrote: | Because they want a Chromebook and they don't want Ubuntu | with no desktop icons? I'm not sure what you're implying | to be honest. | dheera wrote: | I mean, a desktop with a full-featured OS like Ubuntu (or | Windows or Mac or whatever) can do so much more, and that | justifies a higher price of the equipment. If I'm paying | to have only Chrome and nothing else, I should be getting | some kind of huge discount ... | | Would you pay more to have a dumb phone that only does | calls, than a smart phone? | 8jef wrote: | ChromeOS has real Linux with terminal, Android with any | app store you fancy, frequent updates that probably won't | break your stuff, it's sandboxed all around, one can skip | Chrome and use Firefox (and VLC and others) either from | apt, Flatpak AND/or Android, machines are mostly | touchscreen, Libre Office full install possible, if your | machine is beefy enough you get Krita, you can totally | skip the Google experience apart from Parameters (I do), | and I'm missing some other good points. What not to love | (beside it's Google and whatever you do end up feeding | the giant hdd serving ads Google really is)? | | As one who always get second hand Chromebooks, right now | is the time to get a like new Acer 713 with i5 or a new | ThinkPad C13 with R5 on the cheap. I've got both this | week (cost C$825 total), will end up keeping the best for | my needs, give the other to a relative. | jjuel wrote: | I mean isn't that a fair question all around? Why pay | more for a high end laptop when you can just buy a cheap | chromebook? The myth that ChromeOS is just a web browser | is just that a myth. It can do so much more. Some people | like a high end laptop, but also prefer the safety and | security that ChromeOS provides. I owned a Pixelbook and | loved it. Honestly still miss it. I would absolutely buy | another high end ChromeOS device. | refulgentis wrote: | Pixelbook is 5-ish years old, there's a half-dozen models | with latest Intel like Framework and Elite Dragonfly | cbsmith wrote: | I mean, HP's Elite DragonFly Chromebook is 50% more... | [deleted] | Theodores wrote: | I have the original Pixel 2013 vintage and I do not regret | paying for that machine. However, it was exceptional for its | time with a user experience that I still believe is the best | it can be. | | Nowadays I have a Lenovo Flex 5i Chromebook with an 11th gen | intel, 8Gb RAM and a normal Full HD display. It costs | approximately half the Framework laptop. The keyboard is | really good and backlit, the speakers are MaxxAudio and that | actually means they are really good. The flip hinge, touch | screen and pen (in the box) work great. | | Out of laziness I do developer things on it. Rather than move | to the next room to use my 'proper' computer, I install the | linux apps and it works really seamlessly. I get that Android | is not quite right, but, if you just want to have your | notifications come through, it works great. | | USB C is a game changer and I no longer want to be able to | take my computers apart. I don't want the fans running more | than a gentle breeze and I don't want to be taking the | machine apart every year to vacuum out the cruft. | | In the early Windows/DOS days you would be spending hours | moving dip switches and trying to get the machine to work. It | was much like automobiles a century ago where constant | fiddling was required. | | There is a difference between getting work done and | tinkering. With a laptop that just works you are doing work | not tinkering. | | We all want more RAM, CPU speed and so forth and the upgrade | option is fine in principle. But do you buy a car with the | 1.6 litre petrol engine with the 'benefit' that you can put a | 5 litre V8 in there? Nope. But some people make money off | YouTube doing this sort of thing so it seems an acceptable | 'use case'. | | I am not actually negative about the proliferation of | Chromebooks at all expense levels, to me they certainly do | not have to be bargain basement - hence Chromebook Pixel. But | money talks and half of $999 is an unusual spend on a | Chromebook, never mind $999. | LegitShady wrote: | all the googlers now looking for a replacement for their now | cancelled slates. | rch wrote: | Christmas gifts for my parents. I've had them on Chromebooks | for the last few years, and my father is a tinkerer (Western | Electric in the 70s) who routinely opens up laptops, phones, | cameras, etc. for repairs or just because. | comprev wrote: | "just because" is a great personality trait to have (in the | context of learning more) and I'm thankful my father had the | same attitude. | | When I was a child we used to disassemble | mechanical/electrical things around the house simply because | I asked "How does that work?". On occasion the reassembly | didn't quite go to plan and a replacement kettle/toaster/VCR | had to be sourced rather swiftly :-) | geek_at wrote: | I also gave all elderly people a chromebook/box because it's | so much easier to manage and much harder to break / make slow | vineyardmike wrote: | As someone else said, it's great for gifts. If you're "the tech | guy/gal" in the family, you have to fix people's broken tech. | With this, it's a chrome book so it should be easy to use, | minimal handholding, and if something breaks it's easy to fix. | [deleted] | staticassertion wrote: | Oh shit I might get this. I've moved to ChromeOS for virtually | everything and it's awesome, and I've been looking for an excuse | to try framework | throwaquestion5 wrote: | Why is the fingernails of the last image grey? Gave me flashbacks | of a really fucked up toenails I saw in a podiatrist | nrp wrote: | I'm happy to answer questions anyone has on this product! | pbronez wrote: | Can you provide more information about why the fingerprint | module was excluded [0]? | | I've grown to rely on Windows Hello / Mac FaceID. It's | disappointing not to have a bio metric option. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32926574 | asdfk-12 wrote: | Would an ARM-based mainboard variant be a possibility down the | line? | freedomben wrote: | I'd also love to see a RISC-V variant at some point when it | makes sense. | Laaas wrote: | It is truly unfortunate that an ARM-based variant isn't | available. | | When you don't care about single-core performance and | compatibility, there really isn't much reason to use x86 at | all. For me personally, my priority is by far battery-life | (and LTE support is a nice bonus). | | I'm refraining from using Framework until they get an ARM | device out to replace my current ARM chromebook (Acer | Chromebook Spin 513, my NixOS configuration: | https://github.com/L-as/NixOS-lazor) | treffer wrote: | I have a 11th gen frame.work. | | 1. Could I swap mainboards to upgrade the 11th gen framework to | the chromebook version? 2. Is the coreboot chip flashable with | custom firmware? / Is the boot process locked? | | This might well be the mainboard I've been waiting for. | Congratulations on shipping this! | mohaine wrote: | I'm in the same place. I would love to upgrade mine to chrome | os just for the battery life. | ryukafalz wrote: | Also curious about this. If the mainboards are compatible | (especially if they're usable outside the laptop like the | current ones are) this is very interesting. | IE6 wrote: | This is what I want. | nrp wrote: | I noted this in another comment, but that mainboard swap | should work. You'll likely need a Chromebook-specific Input | Cover and Webcam for full functionality though, and this is | an upgrade path we have done limited validation effort on | thus far. | | When switched into developer mode, it should be possible to | update and customize firmware. There is a pretty active | community for Chromebook firmware customization out there. | Rebelgecko wrote: | How's battery life during the ChromeOS equivalent of | sleep/suspend/hibernate? | nsm wrote: | This is potentially a very attractive replacement for my | Pixelbook. | | What is the battery life when running Chrome OS? | | If I wanted to, could I later put a full Linux or Windows in | some sort of dual boot? | nightpool wrote: | They answered battery life questions here: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32927094, and bootloader | questions here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32926689 | (it's possible to install other OSs, but depends on community | support, it's not official) | alexvoda wrote: | 1. Does this come with CoreBoot and the jumper/screw to unlock | CoreBoot like other Chromebooks? | | 2. Does this come with the silly Chromebook keyboard that is | missing two keys on the left side? If it does, is it compatible | with the normal keyboard part? | | 3. When will you bring a motherboard with an AMD APU? | ex3ndr wrote: | What's the difference from original? | nrp wrote: | ChromeOS! Specifically, the Mainboard is custom-designed for | ChromeOS. This means it uses coreboot instead of a | proprietary BIOS and has Google's Titan C security chip. | | 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. | leonlag wrote: | > coreboot instead of a proprietary BIOS and has Google's | Titan C security chip | | This is what I was hoping when I got the announcement via | email. The question is if this will be locked down to | chromeos or if it's possible to install your own keys to | load a linux distro while still retaining verified boot | capabilities. | henearkr wrote: | Will it be possible to buy and use these new audio | components to improve a standard FrameWork? | | In the Markeplace I can see the new speakers but not the | new audio board (or is the codec actually on the | motherboard?). | baybal2 wrote: | > To keep the cost down, the top cover is aluminum-formed | instead of CNCed | | Forging is in no way inferior to CNC, on the contrary, a | forget aluminium part should have more rigidity per unit of | thickness, depending on the alloy. | | I guess, you got to volumes big enough to open the mould | for forging? | | If you need an audio engineer, I can refer you one fellow. | He worked at Apple, Harman, Asus, BBK, and is now looking | to relocated from the East Bloc. | NoraCodes wrote: | Interesting - does this mean it'll be possible to create a | Coreboot edition of the original Framework motherboard | design, or is that capability related to Titan C? | nrp wrote: | 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. | alexvoda wrote: | System76 have done work on enabling CoreBoot support on | several laptops (which AFAICT are rebranded and certified | versions of ODM whitelabel devices). | | Would any collaboration with them regarding CoreBoot be | helpful/desirable/possible/planned/etc. ? | NoraCodes wrote: | That's wonderful to hear! I'm very excited about where | Framework is going these days. | mixmastamyk wrote: | Bummer just bought one was very _not_ pleased to find | "intel vpro corporate" force enabled in the firmware. | cbsmith wrote: | I'm comparing this with the 12-gen DIY offerings, and it seems | like it's mostly the low-end configuration of the DIY with | ChromeOS installed. The FAQ says there are some subtle | differences like louder speakers and a "more power optimized | battery". Can you clarify what "more power optimized" means (a | rather vague statement as the specs page suggests the same | capacity and durability)? | | I noticed the 256GB of storage is different from the DIY | options. I'm guessing this is driven by hardware support | limitations for ChromeOS. I'm wondering if the same is true | with the RAM. | | The FAQ also says you can add memory and storage later, but I | noticed the FAQ mentions "We recommend using modules from | Google's Chromebook compatibility lists, which can be viewed in | our Knowledge Base, and are available for purchase on the | Framework Marketplace." I didn't find that compatibility list | anywhere in the Knowledge Base, but I did find this post | (https://community.frame.work/t/introducing-the-framework- | lap...) which seems to suggest you can upgrade to 64GB of RAM | and 1TB of NVMe storage, though it's not clear if that's using | parts that are on Google's compatibility list or not. Can you | provide any clarity on this? | nrp wrote: | The power optimizations are in the Mainboard electrical | design, firmware, and OS, and improve both standby and in-use | efficiency. The battery itself is identical to the one in | other Framework Laptops. | | On the storage, we use Western Digital SN730 and SN740 | drives, which are also what we put in the pre-built Framework | Laptops. These are roughly equivalent to the SN750 and SN770 | retail drives, respectively. | | On the memory and storage, ChromeOS technically has an allow- | list for memory and storage, though in practice we have seen | modules not on the list work fine. We'll be adding that list | onto the Knowledge Base. We will be making parts that are on | the list available in the Framework Marketplace for | guaranteed compatibility (the memory we already have, and | we'll be introducing SN730/SN740 storage up to 1TB). | cbsmith wrote: | > The power optimizations are in the Mainboard electrical | design, firmware, and OS, and improve both standby and in- | use efficiency. | | It'd be nice to see improvements in the mainboard of the | standard laptops as well. I imagine, in theory, much of the | firmware and OS improvements could be installed on one of | them already. | | > On the storage, we use Western Digital SN730 and SN740 | drives, which are also what we put in the pre-built | Framework Laptops. | | Ah, now I see it. The pre-built one has 256GB & 512GB | options that the DIY ones don't have. I'm always amused by | how specs differ between OEM and non-OEM parts. | | > On the memory and storage, ChromeOS technically has an | allow-list for memory and storage, though in practice we | have seen modules not on the list work fine. We'll be | adding that list onto the Knowledge Base. We will be making | parts that are on the list available in the Framework | Marketplace for guaranteed compatibility (the memory we | already have, and we'll be introducing SN730/SN740 storage | up to 1TB). | | Awesome. Thanks. These were really helpful answers. As | feedback, I'd say it would be nice to be able to select | different starting memory options in particular, but this | is a really great offering. | ddxv wrote: | Apologies for the direct question, but I've wondered, how does | this make sense for your business? Chromebooks have typically | been seen as cheap versions of laptops but Frameworks is priced | above the average Chromebook price. | | Is there a sense that there is an untapped 'premium' chromebook | audience or will this make sense even without that. Perhaps | you're looking for large/discounted partnerships with | educational organizations? | cbsmith wrote: | There's perception and then there's reality. | | While cheap Chromebooks abound, the market for Chromebooks | has matured significantly and a lot of vendors offer high | quality 'premium' solutions that really meet people's needs, | while typically costing less than say Apple's offerings. | Framework is jumping on that bandwagon. | nrp wrote: | It's a valid question. Since there are few to no current | products in this segment, we really are testing it. We get to | do tests like this much more efficiently than most because we | can leverage our existing modular product and build just new | modules needed for it. | the_duke wrote: | I am (personally) a bit disappointed that you'd work on a | Chromebook version first, before tackling AMD or a version | with a dedicated GPU. | | I'll need a new laptop soon, and would really love to see | either and ideally both of those. | | But for the company it's probably a good move. Get help | from Google on battery optimisations, open up a new market | and hopefully get a sizeable order from Google directly, | all without a crazy amount of re-engineering... | greenie_beans wrote: | how do you know they're not doing that behind the scenes? | anytime this issue comes up, a framework rep doesn't say | anything. | | you could gamble that they are and get the 11th gen intel | kit, then upgrade once (if) an amd kit is released. or | wait and see. | freedomben wrote: | I'm not GP, but tackling AMD or a dedicated GPU sounds | like a ton more work than Chromebook. Plus Google | partnered with them, so presumably helped with some of | the work. I would guess this effort didn't really take | all that much, but it allowed them to try a new bet that | might pay off, and establish a potentially useful | partnership. I too would rather a dedicated GPU and/or | AMD option, but I care as much for the health of the | company as I do for the product offering (since | frame.work failing or changing would be a tragic loss) so | this seems like a reasonable shot to take. I really hope | it works! | qzw wrote: | Exactly this. Offering AMD or dGPU is a whole other level | of engineering, supply chain, and support effort. Google | itself may also be good for a few thousand orders, just | from all their now orphaned Pixelbook users. And | presumably that's still a tangible amount of sales for a | company the size of Framework. Plus they apparently | already found some power management improvements that | will also apply to all their laptops, just by getting | their devices ChromeOS ready. Actually seems like an | excellent business decision. | washadjeffmad wrote: | I can only imagine how much fun it was for you all to build | and ship these :) | | There was a lot of love for the original Pixelbook, so I'm | sure it will be an exciting prospect for many. | michaelt wrote: | Did your partners at Google give you any indication of how | successful their ~PS1300 Pixelbook Go i7 [1] was? | | [1] https://www.johnlewis.com/google-pixelbook-go- | ga00526-uk-lap... | nightpool wrote: | It seems unlikely that they would be able to share that | information publicly, even if they did have it. | warent wrote: | Hey there, just wanted to share my experience with you. I've | used Macbooks for the past like 6 years for programming, after | several jobs in Silicon Valley required it. Apple has been | pretty much okay except for some key issues around memory | consumption and overheating. | | After they hit a supply line issue earlier this year, I decided | to try getting a Framework instead. | | Been using my Framework laptop for a month or so now | consistently for heavy programming work, and it is the best | machine I've ever had. Thank you! It also was the catalyst to | get me into using Linux (Ubuntu) which has been a huge blessing | beyond what I expected. | | I posted a photo of myself at a coffee shop to a Discord group, | and someone saw the corner of the laptop. They asked "Is that a | Macbook I see?" and I explained to them "Nah it's a Framework" | and shared the link. Didn't really expect much beyond that, but | actually they loved it. Several people looked at it and said | "Wow! This sounds amazing! Actually... going to save this for | later..." | stavros wrote: | Having just bought a Framework to replace my 5-year-old XPS, | I really hope I have the same experience as you. Do you run | Linux, by the way? I hope Linux support is good. | mixmastamyk wrote: | Same here, make sure you use a very recent distro/kernel | for 12th gen support. | warent wrote: | I'm using 12th gen processor, latest versions of Ubuntu and | Linux Ubuntu: Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS | Linux: 5.17.0-051700-generic | | The only problems I've had so far is the "brightness" fn | keys don't work, and bluetooth isn't great with certain | devices like Airpods. | | The brightness keys isn't a big deal, can still set | brightness in the OS. It's probably fixable through some | manual keymapping. | | Bluetooth is more annoying but I somehow doubt it's a | hardware issue. I just ended up getting Sony wireless | earbuds to complete my transition away from Apple. | | That being said, I also tried to dual boot Windows. Windows | really does not like the hardware, and the Framework driver | install package | (https://knowledgebase.frame.work/en_us/framework-laptop- | bios...) had limited effect in fixing the issues. Lots of | bugs with audio and graphics. | | So, for now I would say it is too premature for Windows, | but great for Linux! | nrp wrote: | I would be interested in understanding what issues you | are seeing on Windows. We do quite a bit of validation on | Windows. | | A sibling comment shared the fix for the brightness keys, | but you can also grab that information from our setup | guide for Ubuntu: https://guides.frame.work/Guide/Ubuntu+ | 22.04+LTS+Installatio... | warent wrote: | Thanks for the reply! Your own forums may be a great | place to start. There are some open issues for this, some | you have seen and some unanswered | | https://community.frame.work/t/audio-issues- | windows-11/11726 | | https://community.frame.work/t/windows-no-audio-output- | devic... | | https://community.frame.work/t/windows-11-audio-no- | longer-wo... | boldlybold wrote: | I had the same problem, the solution is here: | https://community.frame.work/t/12th-gen-not-sending- | xf86monb... | | You can enable the hotkey support by blacklisting the | hid-sensor-hub driver: vi /etc/modprobe.d/framework-als- | blacklist.conf Add the following: blacklist hid-sensor- | hub And then restart | | It worked, but it needed `hid_sensor_hub` with | underscores! and `sudo update-initramfs -u` before the | reboot | dimitar wrote: | Any chance of it getting sold in the EU? | skybrian wrote: | How long will Google support ChromeOS on this machine? What | alternative OSes will it run? | | Edit: the article says "receives automatic updates for up to | eight years" but an upper bound isn't so helpful here. | nrp wrote: | Google is committed to a minimum of 8 years of security | updates. We don't have currently have official support for | other OS's, but there is an active community of people | bringing other OS's to Chromebooks. | ISL wrote: | Is that after release or after the last sale of the model? | m-p-3 wrote: | With Chromebooks, that would be after release. | kilovoltaire wrote: | sounds like the page should say "at least eight years" | then, instead of "up to eight years" | beal wrote: | What's more likely, Google break their commitment or they | provide extra patches past their commitment. | skybrian wrote: | A specific date would be better, because otherwise it's | ambiguous. Eight years starting when? | washadjeffmad wrote: | Google provides specific support dates on its Pixel and | Chromebook devices. For instance, under "About ChromeOS", | mine says, "This device will get automatic software and | security updates until 2027." | | https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/6220366?visit_ | id=... | prmoustache wrote: | No because that is based on date of release not of | purchase. | | If you purchase a brand new chromebook whose model has | been sold for 3 years already you won't get 8 years of | support. | nrp wrote: | Correct. We've just updated the blog post with the proper | description from Google, which is "automatic updates | through June 2030." | dzikimarian wrote: | First of all I'm very much on board with ideas behind framework | laptop. Thanks for your work :-) | | Is there any roadmap for wider distribution in Europe? | Especially eastern part. | pa7ch wrote: | Can you set a battery charge limit on the chromeOS firmware? | binkHN wrote: | There is some effort here--see chrome://flags#adaptive- | charging at https://www.aboutchromebooks.com/news/chromeos-10 | 5-release-a.... | kelvie wrote: | Are there plans to develop a touchscreen and a tablet mode for | the the framework? And if so, can we at least re-use some of | the existing parts, other than the mainboard? | | I understand if you can't make promises here, I'm also on a | product team :) | bcjordan wrote: | Beyond laptops / more speculative - are there other hardware | devices you'd be curious about branching out to some day? AR/VR | headsets, robotics, servers for rendering/ML on the edge, etc.? | pa7ch wrote: | Would love to see | https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=980456 | get fixed on ChromeOS. Then I could use my e-reader and Calibre | via crostini. | CivBase wrote: | Are there plans to adopt the camera/mic switches for future | Windows/Linux laptops? | hiimkeks wrote: | They already have them. | CivBase wrote: | So they do! | | I couldn't find any marketing material pointing out the | switches on the originals, so I assumed this was a change | for the Chromebooks. But you're right, I managed to find an | image of a Framework laptop where the switches are visible. | nrp wrote: | They are there currently! All Framework Laptops have hardware | privacy switches for the camera and microphones. | zeta0134 wrote: | Traditional chromebooks are fairly locked down, and make it | difficult (and scary) to install an alternate operating system | alongside ChromeOS, for users that want a bit more power. What | is the situation like on the Framework edition? How open is the | bootloader, and how tricky is it to enter (and stay in) | developer mode? | nrp wrote: | The bootloader situation is the same as other Chromebooks. It | is totally possible to get into and stay in developer mode to | do what you would like with the system. In practice, doing | things outside of ChromeOS depends on how robust community- | driven development ends up around that. | cutierust wrote: | I wish you success and I hope the collaboration with google was | financially rewarding but end of the day everything that | doesn't work out would mentally hurt and thereby reduce chances | of future successes. I would request you to kindly focus! | skadamat wrote: | Curious if this will support Chromium OS or only Chrome OS? | | I'd also love to learn more about the motivation to create this | laptop and the target audiences! | bostonvaulter2 wrote: | What components from the main Framework laptop are compatible | with this version? i.e. keyboard/display | nrp wrote: | We have compatibility filters in the Marketplace to indicate | what is compatible. Technically, every module is compatible, | but some will turn it into not a Chromebook. For example, you | can drop a regular Framework Laptop Mainboard or Input Cover | into it. | | Keeping it as a Chromebook with ChromeOS, there are specific | firmwares required for the Touchpad and Webcam that required | us to create variants. The Fingerprint Module we have is also | not compatible with ChromeOS. | mkozlows wrote: | Are there any learnings from the touchpad work that will | come back to the regular laptop? | soulnothing wrote: | Is there a chance of a hinge offering 2 in 1 capabilities? I.E. | full fold back to tablet mode? | noveltyaccount wrote: | +1 for 360deg hinge and touch/stylus digitizer | travisby wrote: | I'm a huge chromebook fan actually -- but my current one is | looking a tad unsupported (pixel slate) | | I've been considering a framework as a replacement actually! | | One of the things I really care about is battery life + sleep | performance. | | The article mentions: | | > .* At the same time, the Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition | is our most power efficient product yet with optimizations from | Google and Intel that allow for long-lasting battery life. | | Can you provide some numbers around the battery life | improvements? Sounds exciting! (And are these going to be | backported to the normal 12th gen boards, or is it a feature of | the unique mainboard/not firmware?) | | Can you speak to the OS image as well? Is there any non- | upstream drivers that are relied on? I notice lots of | chromebooks have drivers that aren't in the regular upstream | kernel, but just in the chromiumos source. I'm hoping that I | could eventually swap OS' if needed w/o getting a new | mainboard, and want to see how viable that is. | | Thanks for the hard work, and in advance for the questions! | | (P.S. like everyone else, AMD would be exciting if you don't | know that :p) | | [edit] one of my biggest disappointments in my slate is that it | never received vm-in-vm support with the newer kernel. Is | /dev/kvm available in the linux container? I _think_ that goes | hand in hand with the steam supuport, but not sure | nrp wrote: | Google has fairly strict requirements around power | consumption. They have a standard test for 10 hours of active | use through common use cases, which we were able to meet. For | standby, the requirement is around 14 days. I have to double | check where we are on the current software and firmware, but | we are close to that number. | | We actually did learn some things about the Intel re-timers | through this product development that let us come up with | ways to improve the behavior on the regular 12th Gen | Framework Laptops. We are currently developing a firmware | update for that that will improve both active and standby | battery life. | pgray wrote: | This is awesome news. Excited the collaboration will have | some nice side effects. | hyperdimension wrote: | > We actually did learn some things about the Intel re- | timers through this product development that let us come up | with ways to improve the behavior on the regular 12th Gen | Framework Laptops. We are currently developing a firmware | update for that that will improve both active and standby | battery life. | | Is this specific to Intel's 12th gen or can it also be | ported to the 11th gen? I have an 11th gen Framework and am | delighted with everything about the laptop except for | battery life. If that could be improved, I would have | absolutely no complaints whatsoever about the laptop. | nrp wrote: | We do have some learnings that would apply back to 11th | Gen that are early in development. We also have a beta | firmware for DisplayPort Expansion Cards that improves | one area of active/standby power consumption, which | applies to both 11th Gen and 12th Gen: | https://community.frame.work/t/beta-displayport- | expansion-ca... | PascLeRasc wrote: | Thank you so much for making a keyboard without a Windows key | and for selling it separately as well. The product page says | it's only compatible with the Chromebook edition though, does | this just mean the function keys won't be mapped or that it | won't work at all? | nrp wrote: | The Chromebook Edition keyboard will work on a regular | Framework Laptop. It is just physically missing the fn and | Win/super keys and has fn row artwork that won't match. | nnm wrote: | What is the size of the screen? Can't find it on the page. | michael_j_ward wrote: | I'm very interested in the contours of this relationship with | Google. | | - What kind of commitments did each party make to each other? | | - Did Google request anything of Framework? What requests did | Framework agree to? Which did they deny? | | - What differentiates this product from the normal offering? | [deleted] | fulafel wrote: | Are other language kb variants planned? | nrp wrote: | We have "Register your interest" set up for other countries | currently. Depending on how much interest there is, this is | something we will consider as we go forward. | babypuncher wrote: | Is the hardware any different? If not, why sell this as a | separate machine instead of providing a ChromeOS image that can | be installed to a standard Framework? | wilsonnb3 wrote: | The Chromebook version has a different keyboard than the | regular one. Like most Chromebooks, it only has a large | control and alt key in the bottom left. Plus no caps lock, | you get a search key instead I think. | m-p-3 wrote: | I believe it comes with a lower-end CPU compared to the | standard Framework, and also includes a builtin Titan C | security chip. | NoraCodes wrote: | According to the article: | | > we've partnered with ChromeOS because of their commitment | to long-lasting speed and transparency. The Framework Laptop | Chromebook Edition is built with the Titan C security chip | and receives automatic updates for up to eight years, all to | keep your Chromebook fast and secure. | nrp wrote: | Sibling comment got it correct, but worth noting that you can | install ChromeOS Flex on a regular Framework Laptop. It won't | have the same level of optimization that the Chromebook | Edition has, and Google only has functionality like the | Android Play Store enabled on Chromebooks. | https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/chrome- | enterprise/chr... | philliphaydon wrote: | Why this over getting an AMD laptop? After the terrible | experience of going back to Intel, I doubt I'll ever bother | with an Intel laptop ever again. Is Intel giving benefits to | ensure you don't support AMD? | webmobdev wrote: | Yes. This is why I don't really buy all this talk of Intel is | "dead and finished" and will "fade away" in the next 5 year | ... Even though Intel has an inferior product to AMD, they | are really good at selling their product and don't mind | indulging in unethical (or even illegal) market practices to | do so. They still have a lot of money and they use it well to | undercut their competitors. AMD shines in technical | competence against both Intel and Apple, but is weaker than | both when it comes to marketing and selling their product. | smoldesu wrote: | I don't work for Framework, but my guess is that AMD doesn't | make a chip with powerful enough IO controllers to operate | the Framework. It's a shame, because I also like the Ryzen | mobile chipset, but even the M1 wouldn't have enough IO | bandwidth to drive 4x Thunderbolt 4 ports at full speed. Love | them or hate them, this is part of the Intel 'package' that | you're paying for. | | Besides, now is a terrible time to start offering AMD | laptops. You want them to drop a 6000-series laptop when the | next-gen mobile Ryzen chips were announced less than a month | ago? Have some patience! | neogodless wrote: | > next-gen mobile Ryzen chips were announced less than a | month ago | | Technically the only _mobile_ Ryzen chips announced so far | are based on Zen 2 which is about to become two generations | old. Expect "next-gen" mobile chip announcements in | January. | | (The recent Zen 4 announcements have been for _desktop_ | parts.) | kcb wrote: | 5000 and 6000 mobile chips are Zen 3 with some skus that | are Zen 2. The 6000 series mobile chips with Zen 3 and | RDNA 2 are available today and are excellent. | neogodless wrote: | Yes - to clarify, some mobile 7020 chips were recently | announced, but they are Zen 2 based (as evidenced by the | third digit.) I just wanted to be clear that no "next- | gen" (i.e. Zen 4) mobile 7000 chips have been announced. | smoldesu wrote: | You're right, I missed that. Still, my point stands :p | MrStonedOne wrote: | moondev wrote: | Will this support Android apps from Google play? If so, could | this ChromeOS build be installed on a normal framework? Reason | I ask is that ChromeOS flex doesn't support Android apps. | emptyparadise wrote: | Is it possible to get the Chrome OS version one of these with a | super/win key like on the standard version? | alexvoda wrote: | Or at the very least, can the normal keyboard part be | installed afterwards? | alexvoda wrote: | Can the motherboard be purchased separately in order to | transform an existing Framework laptop into a Framework | Chromebook? | nrp wrote: | Technically, yes! You may also need the Chromebook-specific | Input Cover and Webcam though for full functionality. | qzw wrote: | Are those the only hardware differences from a regular | Framework? | qzw wrote: | Didn't google make a version of ChromeOS that can be | installed on a lot of regular laptops? Seems to me it's | possible there may not be any hardware difference between the | Chromebook edition and other Framework laptops. | myelin wrote: | The Chromebook edition is based on the "brya" motherboard | design shared by other Chromebooks with 12th gen Intel | processors, so it won't be the same as the usual 12th gen | Framework board. You can install Chrome OS Flex on the | standard Framework mainboard, though; I think earlier | commenters have provided more detail. | pbronez wrote: | Will this support Linux on ChromeOS (Crostini)? | | The ChromeOS doc page "Set Up Linux on your Chromebook" [0] | links to a supported models list [1] which does NOT include | Framework. | | [0] https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/9145439?hl=en | | [1] https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/chromium- | os/chro... | odensc wrote: | I would suggest adding information about the display panel on | your website. I could not find anywhere whether it's IPS or | not. | e-Minguez wrote: | Meanwhile, folks in European countries such as Spain are not able | to buy a regular Framework laptop... | stewbrew wrote: | A Chromebook with no touchscreen? Seriously. | PointyFluff wrote: | Ick. | | No. | Halan wrote: | The words chromebook and privacy in the same marketing material | for a product that clearly targets power users is an audacious | choice | nrp wrote: | It is indeed. The intent of that is to communicate that no | matter what the OS is doing, the privacy switches for the | camera and microphone are yours to control. The switches | function at hardware level with no possibility of software | override. | jeroenhd wrote: | I hate "performance" Chromebooks but I very much appreciate | giving end users the choice to get their weird Google OS if | they want it. More consumer choice at no cost in other features | is only a good thing. | 0000011111 wrote: | This looks great! | | And a $300 Chromebook in and EDU environment will last 5-7 years. | I wonder if this laptop which is ~4x the price can last 15 years? | ElijahLynn wrote: | I've used a Chromebook a fair bit over many models. I even got a | beta CR-48 when they first launched. The best models are tent * | yoga style and touch enabled and also come with a stylus. | | I searched the Framework Chromebook page for "touch" and found 0 | results. I hope they are working towards a touch enabled | Chromebook. | ospzfmbbzr wrote: | smcn wrote: | I may be misunderstanding, but in what way is this not DIY? | | > Memory and storage are socketed, enabling you to load up | whenever you'd like. The pre-built configuration comes with 8GB | of DDR4 and 256GB NVMe storage and can be upgraded to up to | 64GB of DDR4 and 1TB of NVMe storage. You can also use 250GB | and 1TB Storage Expansion Cards to extend your space. | | This article also says that it's upgradeable and customizable: | https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/21/23363862/framework-laptop... | CivBase wrote: | How is ChromeOS any less "DIY" than Windows? | jackson1442 wrote: | Consumer choice is one of the core tenets of DIY, this adds | more choices. | | Not sure there's a market for thousand-dollar chromebooks, but | calling it anti-DIY is just inaccurate. | NoraCodes wrote: | I absolutely disagree. If anything, this is a total validation | of the idea that security does not require a locked-down | device. | seabrookmx wrote: | But it is locked down, in a way. It doesn't ship with a | regular UEFI bios so you can't just install an alternative | OS. | NoraCodes wrote: | Right, absolutely. That's a choice that people get to make | - they can either buy a Framework laptop that _does_ have | the ability to change out the OS, or if their threat model | requires it, one that _doesn 't_. Either way, they get | upgradable components and future-proofing. I don't see how | that's a negative for freedom. | seabrookmx wrote: | I'm not opposed to this device and actually think it's | kind of cool. I use a Lenovo Duet as a secondary device | and generally enjoy ChromeOS. | | But I see your statements as a little contradictory.. | unless I'm missing something. | | > this is a total validation of the idea that security | does not require a locked-down device | | > but the device is locked down in a way.. | | > Right, absolutely | | Maybe we are using different definitions of "locked | down." I just wanted to point out that there is a trade- | off here. You are giving up some freedom that most | DIY'ers would expect (arbitrary OS choice) by choosing | the ChromeOS version. | | > they get upgradable components and future-proofing. I | don't see how that's a negative for freedom | | Agreed. Consumer choice isn't a bad thing! | NoraCodes wrote: | Oh, I see what you mean. I'm referring to the argument | from Dell and Microsoft that a "secure" device requires | that there are no, or very few, user serviceable | components. "Locked down" is an overloaded term here. | gepardi wrote: | The brilliance is that framework doesn't have to ship anything, | unless customers pay a deposit, which would validate the demand. | I don't see how they could lose here. | nrp wrote: | Theoretically something like that could be possible, but that | is not how we operate. Hardware products have typically >12 | month development timelines. We opened pre-orders today with | shipments starting in a little over 2 months from now. Pre- | orders help us gauge production volume need, but not whether or | not we should make a product. | mrgalaxy wrote: | I'm reminded of this line in Bruce Almighty: "All this horsepower | and no room to gallup" | | Is there really a market for a $999 Chromebook? Didn't google try | this several years ago and flop? | washadjeffmad wrote: | This is a legitimate question, so I'm not entirely sure why | you're being faded. | | Chromebooks do have a reputation for being under-powered budget | mobile devices because they do serve that sector. They also do | a lot more that can't be done as easily on Linux, if you have | hardware that can support it. | | As others have said, Pixelbooks are still coveted devices, and | I've been tempted for years to buy one. I thought the original | Framework would serve that niche, but it ultimately didn't. | soared wrote: | People love google's pixelbook line, I think it just wasn't a | big enough commercial success to continue. I've used my | pixelbook every day for like 5 years and it's still incredible | - boots in <1 second. | jeffbee wrote: | This class of comment is pretty tired. Google Pixelbook did not | "flop" it proved the viability of the $1000+ Chromebook market | for serious users. There are Chromebooks on the market at all | price points. You can build-to-order a HP Elite Dragonfly with | a state-of-the-art CPU, 32GB of RAM, and 512GB of flash for | $3200 and these are back-ordered to March 2023 so clearly the | customers exist. | [deleted] | swores wrote: | > _these are back-ordered to March 2023 so clearly the | customers exist._ | | Worth remembering that "stock issues" / wait times etc. are | as dependant on the production plans of the product as they | are on demand. It can be a sign of lots or customers, or just | that hardly any demand was expected and so even a tiny amount | more takes a while to catch up on (especially if e.g. there | are high-demand components that they'd rather put in products | with a high profit margin), or... etc | pbronez wrote: | It's intriguing to me. First, it's a cheaper way to get started | with Framework. Second, it's a polished, secure thin client for | web stuff. I already have a powerful home server, this could be | my portable window to that device. | [deleted] | kiawe_fire wrote: | Interesting to see they have a super key-less keyboard for this. | | I'm really hoping they release a standard keyboard with a generic | "super" key instead of a Windows logo at some point. | linsomniac wrote: | I have a couple HP Chromebook 13 G1 laptops that I loved quite a | lot for ~5 years as my primary personal laptop. It worked really | well for 95% of my needs, especially once it got the Linux | container support (which was ~4 years in). | | The first one I got was $550 for the 8GB RAM model with i5 and | "retina" screen, that was a refurb from Woot, almost half off. | The second one I got around a year ago when Linux container | support landed, 16GB RAM, i7, "retina" screen. That one I got off | ebay for $120 landed. I also got my son one that he used until a | few days ago. Pretty decent little machine for that price. | | My son switched to a $120 Windows ASUS laptop this past weekend | because the Chromebook wouldn't run Windows games. I was half | expecting him to give up on the new laptop because 4GB isn't much | RAM, but he says it works great. | | My mother in law was recently asking for laptop advice for a | "ward of the court" she oversees that could do with a laptop to | do zoom meetings for the court appearances, and to use for | school. I went looking for Chromebooks and found: they are all | priced the same as a similarly speced Windows laptop. The things | I value about ChromeOS ("instant" updates, "nothing really on the | device", "security") aren't things the average person (let alone | teen) really care about... Kind of hard to recommend a Chromebook | for the average person these days, unless I'm missing something. | bubblethink wrote: | This is excellent. The last major missing piece was coreboot, and | this presumably delivers that. Also, could you please make/sell | suzyQ cables (https://www.sparkfun.com/products/retired/14746)? | They've been OOS since COVID. Edit: Is i5 the only option ? | There's no i7 option on the order page. | babypuncher wrote: | What we've been asking for is a Framework running AMD hardware. | | What we're getting is a Framework running a stripped down Linux | meant for schools and made by a spy company? | | I predict this thing not selling well, but I'm sure someone is | excited. | [deleted] | nmstoker wrote: | Companies can offer multiple products. If it fails to sell they | will discontinue it but if it does well it can help Framework | offer a broader range of products. | | I would think that the upgradability has significant | environmental upsides for schools (who otherwise end up | ditching computers fairly regularly) | | I suspect it also means laptops with minor damage can be fixed | more economically or at the very least can be cannibalised for | the working parts to fit to other school laptops. | michael_j_ward wrote: | I bet lots of schools would pay up for "sustainable" laptops, | actually. | 5436436347 wrote: | I'm going to bet the opposite - no school is so flush with | cash they can pay a 3x premium per laptop for students thet | offers the same functionality. This seems like a misguided | approach to obtain mass market appeal. | michael_j_ward wrote: | I think you underestimate the selling power of "Green" | options, particularly among those with dollars to spend. | warent wrote: | Many schools are already using Chromebooks. Framework is now | making it so they won't get ripped off. This is an incremental | improvement that I can see making Framework a lot of money | actually | babypuncher wrote: | Most schools are using $200-$300 Chromebooks, I don't think | this $999 high performance alternative is really targeting | that market. | gepardi wrote: | I wonder how often they have to replace those low priced | chrome books, however. Maybe there is a good value | proposition in buying a well powered machine that can be | updated by an IT department in an age where laptops are | never upgradable. | warent wrote: | This is a great point. Also, even if it is actually cheaper | in the long term because they can just upgrade parts from | the modularity of it, I somehow feel skeptical that a | school IT unit is going to have that level of foresight. | Even if they do, will they be able to successfully persuade | the suits that control the budget? | | Yup, you're right, this could be a very tough sell. | rejectfinite wrote: | >a school IT unit is going to have that level of | foresight | | You think those IT people don't read here too? Its a | budget thing sweetie, once you get a real job you | understand. | adamdusty wrote: | It would need to last 3 times longer before needing a | single replacement part for the cost to lifetime ratio to | even out. Each replacement part in that timeframe pushes | the value time out further. I'm not convinced it would be | cheaper in the long run. | cxr wrote: | Dell released a "business class" 13-inch Chromebook (the Lulu | platform) in 2015. It came with several options (e.g. Celeron | vs i3 vs i5, 4GB vs 8GB RAM, choice of SSD storage size, | touchscreen or not, etc). At the time it was released, the | retail price for a non-touchscreen i3 was over $900. Again, | that was not even the most expensive configuration, and | that's 2015 dollars, not 2022 post-COVID inflation dollars. | Many institutions went for the cheap Celeron-based models, | but plenty others apparently opted for pricier ones (e.g. | models with an i3 and a touchscreen, to give one example that | I'm personally familiar with). | hexo wrote: | But... why. Why would anyone get a chromebook? I still dont get | it. Whats the point of having one? | thebitstick wrote: | For the same reasons people buy iPads and use them as laptops. | | I get it, but good luck taking away my Mac from my cold dead | hands. | adriancr wrote: | when can i buy it in europe? | sahaskatta wrote: | Any way to configure this with 16GB or more of RAM so that I | don't need to upgrade later? | hoppyhoppy2 wrote: | There's only the one (8GB) configuration available for | purchase. RAM upgrades, while possible, will have to be done | yourself. | jawadch93 wrote: | staticassertion wrote: | So do I have to add more RAM to this later? I can't just buy it | with the max'd out RAM? | nrp wrote: | To keep inventory streamlined for this product, we only have a | single configuration of the product. It is super easy to open | up and add more memory to though. We include a screwdriver in | the box and encourage you to explore the inside. | zelphirkalt wrote: | I hope this does not backfire as a product without a target | audience. I want to see framework succeed in making modular | hardware, not at offering lock-in services from Google or even | promoting ChromeOS and other Google products. | slaw wrote: | I am disappointed, there is Chromebook edition, but still no | Linux edition only DIY. | CivBase wrote: | I don't think they could win with a "Linux Edition" laptop. | What distro would they ship with? Pop!_OS? Ubuntu? Debian? | Fedora? Alpine? Manjaro? No matter what they choose, I suspect | they'd just get accused of picking sides and the vast majority | of users would just re-install with their preferred distro. | slaw wrote: | I don't care which distro they ship as long as it works. My | company will not buy me a laptop without operating system and | I will not recommend to my friends laptop without operating | system. | nrp wrote: | Yep, this is indeed the main reason behind this. We polled | the community and found a pretty even split between several | major distros. Rather than having inventory explosion from a | large number of OS-specific SKUs, we optimized for shipping | without an OS and writing easy to follow install guides. | baybal2 wrote: | Linux _only_ editions nevertheless makes sense if you want | to cut down on the chipset cost. | | AMD chipsets have SoundWire, and MIPI CSI/DSI support, but | there are no way to use them in Windows. Intel is starting | to support them as well with Alder Lake mobile. | | SoundWire is way simpler than HDA, and availability/cost is | better. | | Connecting the whole suite of peripherals over i2c allows | to dispose of wide LIF cable from the front panel. No LPC | EC needed. | | MIPI CSI cameras are vastly superior to USB ones, and are | dirt chip for price/picture quality due to the size of | smartphone market. | | Tablet use MIPI DSI panels price/quality is superior to | LVDS panels, and you will never get such thin laptop-use | panels. | | Linux can use non-SMBus battery gauges, and PMICs. Again, | you can forego paying the x86 premium on SMBus vs. i2c | controlled PMICs. | ISL wrote: | The older I get, the less I care about which distribution | comes on a linux laptop. The fact that it exists at all is a | reason to consider the model. | | A production linux laptop is a clear statement, "All of our | hardware is immediately compatible with linux. Sure, our | distro has little warts, but you can either install your own | or `apt-get install fluxbox`, copy in your config files, and | get right to work, ISL." | TillE wrote: | I don't think it's a very big deal to say "yes, we're fully | compatible with Ubuntu" and let you spend ten minutes | installing it. I don't need someone else to install an OS | for me. | | The actual important thing is that all their hardware has | Linux drivers. | michaelt wrote: | Depends if the laptop manufacturer wants to make promises | like "Battery life: 20 hours of 1080p video streaming" | | Most laptops that achieve that require the hardware, OS | and browser working together. I've seen laptops that, | when running Linux, struggle to last through an hour-long | video call. | Tijdreiziger wrote: | They do have a clear statement on Linux compatibility: | https://frame.work/nl/en/linux | gepardi wrote: | There are several well supported Linux distros for framework. | Just order a diy and pick one! | skadamat wrote: | They will get there I'm sure! But they also need to build a | business along the way | Tijdreiziger wrote: | It looks like you can configure the DIY without an OS, and they | have official guides up on installing Fedora, Ubuntu, Manjaro | and Mint: https://frame.work/nl/en/linux | aesh2Xa1 wrote: | If Google partnered with Microsoft to bring the complete | Excel/Word/PowerPoint programs to ChromeOS, I would jump ship in | a heartbeat for our office fleet. | | I wonder if CodeWeavers CrossOver can run Office on ChromeOS | reliably. | water-your-self wrote: | That is a space they are quite directly trying to win with | their in browser suite of office tools, and chromeOS is, | partly, a vehicle for that. I would be surprised to hear that G | and MS partnered in that sort of a way. | Entinel wrote: | I hope this works out for them. The largest market for | Chromebooks are schools but are schools willing to pay Frameworks | price? I don't believe so but I hope I'm wrong. | protomyth wrote: | We bought refurb HP and Lenovo laptops for less than $400. | >$900 for student laptops is a big no-go. I guess if you were a | bigger University, but I cannot see it for the average school. | teawrecks wrote: | Though in theory, upgrading/repairing these over time would | be cheaper than spending $400 every few years or each time a | kid breaks one. | dubcanada wrote: | I don't think that math adds up correct, $400 is over half | the cost. If they last 2-3 years and a framework lasts 5-6 | years before needing repair, it's at about break even | (assuming we need to buy a brand new $400 laptop every 2-3 | years). | | Buying parts for a Framework will cost more than parts for | a $400 laptop of which there are thousands on ebay of every | single part. For example let's assume the screen is broken | and we have a $400 laptop which can be replaced on. A new | screen is about $100-150 (based on a quick ebay look of | $400 laptops). A new screen for a frame.work is $180. | | Your ONLY option with a frame.work is to buy through them | at the moment, there is no other part providers. You are at | the mercy of frame.work to provide support for parts and | supply. | | With a $400 Lenovo a quick ebay search can provide you | every single part from all over the world at a variety of | costs. As well as the normal companies that provide parts | for them (and Lenovo themselves). | teawrecks wrote: | Note: I started my comment with "in theory". | | I would be disappointed in framework if they locked out | 3rd parties from selling replacement parts. That's the | whole point of right to repair. | | My hope is that if people rally behind a platform like | this, it will drive the price down too. | | There's also the fact that we currently aren't pricing in | the cost of e-waste, much like how gas in the US doesn't | currently price in the cost of climate change related | damages. It could be that those $400 laptops are | artificially cheap for now, but once you start charging | companies for planned obsolescence, it doesn't make | financial sense anymore. | protomyth wrote: | Well, the thing is, because of COVID and some other | factors, we figured it was better just to give it to the | student and tell them if they break it, then its their | problem. Admittedly, a bit mercenary, but we are a | community college and students should lean to be careful. | Now, we'll help of course in odd circumstances and we did | purchase extended warranties. | | Strangely, its easier to get money for purchases than have | a repair budget, but that US government funding for you. | jds_bv wrote: | Combining hardware privacy switches with a Google chromebook is | like pasting a "vegan" sticker on a slab of meat. | LandStander wrote: | Concerns of spyware are precisely why those switches exist. | amelius wrote: | Switches won't do much if your photos and videos are on your | laptop through some other physical means (e.g. disk/network) | or if you put them there when the switch was not active. | paxys wrote: | Yes they also don't protect you from car accidents or heart | disease. What's your point? | | The purpose of a privacy switch is to make sure that Google | (or anyone else, including hackers) isn't spying on you | through your camera or microphone. This one accomplishes | exactly that. | hedora wrote: | And the vegan sticker isn't made of meat. | [deleted] | amelius wrote: | How will the switch protect me if I'm in a video call | with my SO? | | I can trust a Linux system. | | A system running Google adware (some even call it | spyware), not so much. | paxys wrote: | > How will the switch protect me if I'm in a video call | with my SO? | | The switch exists for when you are NOT on a video call. | It completely cuts the video feed going into the OS on | the hardware level. How is that so hard to understand for | people here? | adamdusty wrote: | It's not hard for anyone to understand. If you're worried | that the OS is hijacking your camera, why would you stop | being worried just because you're using the camera. | swores wrote: | Because when I'm using my camera I make sure not to do | things like walk naked in front of it forgetting that | there's a camera there? For other people the thing they | don't do while on a video call might be having an affair, | or using drugs, or... | | Your argument seems similar to "why would you care about | a microphone spying on you 24/7 if you're willing to | sometimes have conversations that might be overheard?" | | Yes obviously when you use your webcam you're aware that | it's not impossible you're being spied on, and some | people may choose to never have a webcam for that reason. | For those of us who are happy to take that risk for video | calls, we don't have to also accept that we can be spied | on any time the laptop is open. | adamdusty wrote: | The other guy is arguing that you don't have to accept | that risk at all if you don't use an OS from a data | harvesting company. | | I don't care who watches me through my camera, I was just | trying to point out that people aren't stupid about the | hardware switch. Some just find it ironic that there is a | hardware shut off for a camera on a computer operated by | Google. | leppr wrote: | I'm not sure if HN is a representative audience regarding | interest in ChromeOS, but personally all I hope is the money | Framework makes from this allows them to release a larger model | on which I can slap Linux on. Lightweight 15" laptops with great | Linux compatibility aren't so easy to find. | mixmastamyk wrote: | Got my hands on one. Because the screen is tall and keyboard a | bit larger it doesn't feel nearly as cramped as most 13" | notebooks. Believe it is 13.5 as well, helps a bit. | webmobdev wrote: | Congrats to frame.work for creating another decent product. But | disappointed that it's an Intel device yet again. Why no AMD? | (And can we replace ChromeOS with Linux or FreeBSD?) | loudmax wrote: | Actually, I was thinking I'd like to see a Framework laptop | with an ARM CPU. There are ARM based Chromebooks after all. | | Other than Apple's M1/M2 chips, there aren't any ARM CPUs that | can match the raw power of x86, but Apple has demonstrated | what's possible. And it would do a lot to resolve the battery | life. | skadamat wrote: | They will get there! But they need to build a sustainable | business | Entinel wrote: | Creating an AMD version of the Framework I assume takes a lot | more work than just hitting up AMD and asking for some CPUs. | Should they stop all other product development while waiting on | AMD? | binkHN wrote: | This is great news! Chromebooks don't have to be low spec | machines! I recent bought a machine off of the list at | https://support.google.com/chromeosflex/answer/11513094?hl=e... | just so that I could have a decent device with decent specs to | run ChromeOS Flex--and the more I use it, the more I enjoy a | machine that Just Works, requires little maintenance and runs | alongside the flexibility of a modern Debian Linux VM. | billsmithaustin wrote: | Will be interesting to read reviews on the battery life. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | This is awesome! I still use my Pixelbook, and I love it, and was | always dismayed that it seemed to be yet another great product | that Google lost interest in. | | For folks wondering "who's the market in this?", the Linux | container support in ChromeOS is awesome - my Pixelbook was | actually a great dev laptop (I ran postgres, VSCode, Node, etc on | it), just with age it's lack of upgrades is starting to show. So | for me, on the "ChromeOS side", for me it's a benefit that it's | basically just browser and android apps, and then on the Linux | side I have everything I need for development. | afandian wrote: | How well does it work if you don't have a Google account? | pleb_nz wrote: | And other browsers? | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | It doesn't. | afandian wrote: | Like iPhone "doesn't", i.e. you can use the main features | but can't install apps. or completely doesn't? | isp wrote: | There is "Browse as Guest": | https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/1057090 | | However, I don't think this can be used until the | Chromebook has been initially setup using some Google | account. | aussiesnack wrote: | Which means that Google can simply lock you out of your | Chromebook, for entirely arbitrary (and not even | necessarily disclosed) reasons, at any moment. There's no | practical avenue of appeal - Google is vast and even | governments have trouble keeping it to heel. Individuals | have no chance against these obdurate nation-sized | entities. I think any Chromebook purchase, beyond the most | cheap and cheerful throwaway, would be a crazy hostage to | fortune. | kiawe_fire wrote: | This is actually the first I'm hearing of Chrome OS supporting | Linux apps out of the box. | | I always dismissed Chrome OS as a glorified iPad or Android | tablet with a keyboard and desktop. | | I'm mostly happy with my Linux-based HP dev one, but this is | causing me to seriously consider a Chromebook (like this | Framework variant) next upgrade. | kyrra wrote: | Googler, opinions are my own. | | Google definitely has not lost interest. The Chromebook team at | Google is actually involved in almost (all?) Chromebooks made. | Since Google is responsible for all firmware/software updates | for the life of that Chromebook, they are involved in that way. | As well, the hardware/firmware teams here do a lot of the core | engineering to getting the core parts of the hardware working | (motherboard/cpu at a minimum). And all BSP's end up living in | the ChromeOS source tree I believe: | https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/external-bsp-hosting/ | | If you are looking for a spiritual successor to the Pixelbook, | I'd check out the HP Elite Dragonfly: | https://9to5google.com/2022/09/15/hp-elite-dragonfly-chromeb... | madeofpalk wrote: | Google just killed the Pixelbook division | https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/google-hardware- | repo... | nightpool wrote: | I think that makes sense though--partnering with companies | like Framework and HP to get the hardware right while | refocusing on the software experiencing in-house doesn't | mean they don't believe in the market fit for the Pixelbook | or the technologies that powered it, it just means that | there was enough interest externally that Google doesn't | need to take on the hardware complexity/supply chain | risk/etc. Partnering with other companies that are already | experts in that seems better then trying to get everything | right themselves from scratch | | (Disclaimer: I have not been following the Pixelbook news | or really even considered the device before today, but | people on this forum seem to like it) | jeffbee wrote: | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Your comment is exactly the kind of false dichotomy that | isn't really helpful in a discussion. | paulcarroty wrote: | > If you're a paranoid weirdo | | Sometimes it's better to be paranoid (c). | | Guess Google isn't a bad case for. | HereBeBeasties wrote: | After spending PS2k on a high end HP x360 only three years | ago, and suffering since from horrid thermal throttling, | crazy loud constant fans, terrible battery life (2.5 hours at | almost idle light web browsing usage) and a spicy pillow | battery, followed by being ghosted by their tech support | (three attempts to contact) and finally discovering via | YouTube that they don't even supply battery replacements for | this model, I can only recommend you stay as far away from HP | as possible. | intrasight wrote: | The Dragonfly is indeed a nice, albeit pricey, Chromebook. | Great to have what looks like a comparable machine for much | less. | sfvegandude wrote: | I'm seriously tempted by this. I'm not a chrome user today; I | have heard that when MV3 comes out, I won't be able to use | adblockers in Chrome. Is that right? | turtlebits wrote: | Sorry, I'm not sure I believe this. | | I have a Pixelbook that still gets ChromeOS updates | regularly- the Android and "Linux on ChromeOS" features are | still half baked. After wakeup - Android apps hang or show | empty windows, Terminal takes minutes to work, and a reboot | usually fixes everything. (This is after a powerwash and | being on the stable channel) | abawany wrote: | I agree - some of the updates I've received have been so | half baked, including the Android apps forever-hang, that I | wondered if anyone real was involved in this release. I | finally got rid of my chromebook for a pittance because I | just got tired of the mess. | kyrra wrote: | I think the hard thing here is that they want to keep the | Linux VMs totally isolated from ChromeOS itself, so that | they aren't opening up users to attacks. This is taking a | lot of effort to get right. | | I will say, the Pixelbook was super underpowered. They use | the ultra-portable Intel CPUs that have a TDP of 7W, which | makes them super slow with anything CPU intensive. The | Dragonfly chrombook has a 15W base power usage, and can | boost up to 55W, which allows for way more CPU intensive | operations. | | Yeah, they are half-baked in that they are trying to be a | VM for Android and Linux apps, and neither are perfect yet. | As far as I can tell, both are still receiving attention. | [deleted] | turtlebits wrote: | You might be thinking of the Pixelbook Go with the Intel | m3? My Pixelbook (from 2018) is an i5, and performs fine. | xd1936 wrote: | They're right. I loved my Pixelbook (non-Go), but the | Core i5[1] and i7[2] used pretty underpowered 7W CPUs. | | 1. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/9 | 7461/i... | | 2. https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/9 | 5441/i... | NavinF wrote: | Yep, this is why saying "an i5" is meaningless. It covers | everything from "weaker than a modern phone" to desktop | CPUs that pull 150W and perform as such. | toast0 wrote: | It also covers models introduced from 2009 through today. | It gives you an idea of how it was placed in the product | lineup when it was launched, but not which product | lineup, so... not very helpful. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Thanks for your response, it's very helpful. I'll check out | the HP Elite Dragonfly too. | | As the sibling commenter mentioned, though, Google _did_ just | shut down their Pixelbook division, which is what I was | referring to. And as a corollary, if you can forward this to | anyone that matters, _Google 's product marketing is the | absolute worst_. And I say this as a big fan of Google's | developer-focused products. Case in point, I'm a giant | Pixelbook fan. If Google is shutting down Pixelbook | development, why can't Google just put something on their | store to point to alternatives, like you have? | | As another example, I am heavily invested in GCP, and I'm a | big Firebase fan. Yet I can hardly think of _any_ other | company that sells to enterprises that is so loath to even | show a hint of what 's on their roadmap. I get it, priorities | can change, and you don't want to put something out there | that is (incorrectly) taken as a promise. But tons of other | companies have to deal with this problem, and with Google | it's almost impossible to get any status about important bug | fixes or feature requests. | jorvi wrote: | > Google's product marketing is the absolute worst | | As long as 'killed by Google' continues to be a well-known | meme, they could have the best marketing department in the | universe and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.. | spicybright wrote: | That's pretty silly. I know you're exaggerating a bit, | but marketing is in the business of public perception. If | google took steps to reverse the trend, and the marketing | department could highlight that, that would kill the | meme. | jorvi wrote: | Hence | | > As long as 'killed by Google' continues to be a well- | known meme | DoctorOW wrote: | As long as the fire continues to burn, the best | firefighters in the world couldn't extinguish it. | zitterbewegung wrote: | Honestly this is better because they need products to succeed | so they stay in business. | kelvie wrote: | As also a current pixelbook user (it's now mostly a tablet | replacement now that I bought a Framework), the only thing that | would make this a full pixelbook replacement is a touch screen | and a 360 hinge, so I can use it as a tablet. | | Perhaps the next iteration, though that means replacing the | whole chassis/screen (those seem harder to repurpose than the | mainboard) | duped wrote: | I think the question is, why ChromeOS instead of a Linux? | jrm4 wrote: | I appreciate the folks here being open about their biased | opinions, because they are _completely_ out of line with the | reality I 've seen. I teach IT in a college and I run a non- | profit the refurbishes computers. | | I have not seen a remotely significant difference between | ChromeOS and Linux (with Chrome Installed) for the vast | majority of users. | | It is true that Linux on ChromeOS is annoyingly fiddly and my | suspicion is that this is the Google mind (perhaps | subconsciously) not wanting to reveal how generally | unnecessary "ChromeOS" would be in a world that collectively | "knew that the Linux Desktop existed." And I do mean this | "without modification," i.e. most of your top 20ish | Distrowatch distros fare perfectly well here. | yunohn wrote: | > remotely significant difference between ChromeOS and | Linux (with Chrome Installed) for the vast majority of | users | | You provide IT support, eg for school kids, and somehow | they grok Linux just as well as a browser? That is not my | experience. | jrm4 wrote: | No, I mean they turn on computer, there's a Chrome icon, | and a start menu etc etc. It's pretty much the same | experience. I'm not sure if they literally can much tell | the difference. | Arainach wrote: | Biased opinion: I work on ChromeOS at Google | | Biased but informed opinion: I own a Framework Laptop running | Ubuntu 22.04. | | Linux on a server or a desktop isn't so bad. Linux on a | laptop is awful. Hibernation isn't supported. Battery life is | mediocre, and battery drain in sleep is significant. If I | close the lid on my Framework at 75% and come back the next | day, it will be at 25%. If I come back in 3 days, it will be | completely dead. Even on a device designed to support Linux | (Framework, Thinkpad, whatever) the Bluetooth experience | is....err......well, if you don't have anything nice to say | don't say anything? | | ChromeOS isn't perfect, but as a laptop I'd much rather run | it (with Crostini to get a Linux development environment) any | day. | duped wrote: | I've noticed this on my framework running Pop but my XPS | running Ubuntu has comparable battery life to the last | MacBook I owned (granted, these are now both "old" laptops | relative to the contemporary designs that have ludicrous | battery life). | | I will say I agree, you can't use a Linux laptop and take a | video call without being tethered to power. | xorcist wrote: | > Even on a device designed to support Linux (Framework, | Thinkpad, whatever) | | There's apparently a world of difference. Nothing about the | Framework suggests it was designed for Linux. | | A proper Thinkpad does not have issues with hibernation, or | losing battery, or graphics, or any of the other things you | mentioned. | | I just want something that works, and will receive updates | as long as there are users. I don't want to muck about with | VMs, or Crostini, or whatever it's called. Sounds like I | must never let go of my Thinkpad. | ayushnix wrote: | > A proper Thinkpad does not have issues with | hibernation, or losing battery, or graphics, or any of | the other things you mentioned. | | Not sure if my E495 would qualify as a "proper thinkpad", | although I've read about the same issues on T series | laptops, I've almost never managed to make my laptop | sleep in the 3 years I've owned this laptop starting from | kernel version 5.4.x to the present 5.19.x. Whenever I | try to 'systemctl suspend', one of the following things | happens | | - the laptop sleeps for a few seconds and wakes up | | - the laptop sleeps for a few seconds and wakes up | completely frozen and I have to perform a hard reboot | | - the laptop doesn't sleep and freezes and I have to | perform a hard reboot | | - the laptop sleeps successfully but when I wake it up, | the screen is messed up with green colors all over the | place, hard reboot needed | | My laptop also kept freezing randomly from 5.4.x to | 5.14.x. | flkiwi wrote: | Conversely, I have a ThinkPad X1 running Fedora 36 (and, | previously, 35), and it has never given me a problem ... | well, other than because I messed with one too many | things. The only thing I did was to disable the so-called | "modern suspend" in BIOS and it has run like an absolute | dream. | | Not trying to contradict you. Just noting how even within | one manufacturer's footprint (and "linux" however we | define that for the purposes of this conversation) YMMV. | Arainach wrote: | I'm glad you've had that experience, but it hasn't been | mine. I've owned other laptops running Linux and have had | plenty of coworkers with experiences as well. Heck, | there's an entire team at Google dedicated (full of | incredibly smart people who know way more about Linux | than I ever will) to trying to get Linux running well on | laptops. Plenty of people shared their experiences in | this thread: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32293541 | | The vast majority of people I know who tried running | Linux on their laptop switched to Mac/Windows/ChromeOS. | Containers and subsystems like WSLv2 or Crostini make it | mostly painless to do Linux development while having a | host operating system that has people paid to make the | experience great rather than volunteers who generally | want to work on shiny algorithms rather than fixing UX | bugs. | | More specifically: I've run Windows on the Framework and | it was generally great (I wished it was a touchscreen, | but that's about it). Maybe with the right magical device | I could get a great Linux experience, but it's not worth | having to search and compromise for me. I can install | Windows on anything and it will work. I can buy any of | the few Macbooks on sale and it will just work. I can buy | any Chromebook and it will largely work out of the box. | Linux is the only OS that makes me carefully check that | my exact set of chipsets and components will probably not | be a complete disaster. I buy laptops based on their | hardware specs (screen, keyboard, trackpad, weight, | ports) rather than their compatibility with an operating | system. | xorcist wrote: | Not to take anything away from your experience, but | drawing conclusions from threads like those is not the | whole picture. That will be skewed against people who use | problematic hardware, and say things like "the Linux way | is tweaking everything". | | But it's really not. Linux is mainly for users, by users. | You're going to a very diverse set of users and | experiences. For every tweaker out there you're going to | find someone like me who just wants a unix-like operating | system, with Perl and Python and everything else | available with a minimum of fuss. They just don't speak | up very often, because there's not much to something that | works. | | Of course it's important to mention the problematic bits | too, and there's been many. I've mostly run Debian for | over twenty years, and there has been several times where | I had to fix issues from migrations such as rootless, | utf8, python3 things, and file format migrations. For a | long time things like hot plugging monitors, projectors | and printers were a bit of a gamble. | | But for the most part it's given me an environment where | I can use a wide range of tools from emacs to nmap, from | git to latex without giving a second thought how to | configure paths, and how to fix some random missing | dependency for a package to build, or why nginx doesn't | pick up the changed file date. All those things have been | ironed out by someone who went before me. That's worth a | lot. | | > I buy laptops based on their hardware specs (screen, | keyboard, trackpad, weight, ports) rather than their | compatibility with an operating system | | Yes, that pretty much explains everything. | | That's a luxury available to users only of a completely | dominant software platform. | | A Mac user could never say that. If you want OSX you must | carefully buy supported hardware. You _can_ buy a | hackintosh, but don 't fill up threads with complaints | how bad the suspend works, and that the picture quality | of the webcam is subpar. | | Speaking for myself, I know what software I want to use. | I do not care about hardware specifications in any other | way than it runs my software reliably. Sometimes that | means you can pick any color you want, as long as it's | black. Black as my laptop. | flkiwi wrote: | The hackintosh world is fascinating, and a really useful | analogy. It makes the Linux experience (which, in the | last half decade, has been largely good) look utterly | seamless and polished, at least with the bigger distros. | I own a MBP and will continue to use Apple laptops, but | their excellence depends entirely on controlling the | entire end-to-end product. And there's nothing | particularly weird or objectionable about that. But it | makes what the Linux community has been able to do, | supporting an almost arbitrarily large set of hardware, | that much more impressive. (This, incidentally, is one | reason I don't get into OS wars: they're all doing | different things in wildly different ways, even if, for | the most part, they're capable of the same core tasks.) | outworlder wrote: | > I can install Windows on anything and it will work. | | Not necessarily. There's plenty of instances of devices | working poorly in Windows before the issues get patched | (if they are at all). | | If you want something that 'just works', you are indeed | better with the Apple ecosystem. They control the | hardware and software. | | The only way around these issues is to pressure vendors | to provide better Linux support. The only reason Windows | laptops tend to work better out of the box (or at least | with all hardware working to some extent) is because of | all the testing done by vendors. | caskstrength wrote: | Sounds more like a list of problems with Framework. Battery | life on my x1c is similar to Windows (TLP FTW!) and with | working S3 (what Lenovo calls "Sleep mode: Linux" in their | BIOS) battery drain during sleep is very low. Can't say | anything about quality of Bluetooth stack though since I | don't use it. | binkHN wrote: | I concur. While I know all the world is Linux, I run | OpenBSD on many of my hobby systems. I love OpenBSD's | simplicity, but, IMHO, it's missing too many things to be a | good laptop OS. With ChromeOS I get the support a laptop | environment requires, while still having the Debian VM to | take things further. | outworlder wrote: | > Linux on a laptop is awful. | | YMMV | | Sounds like something that Framework should fix. There's | nothing wrong with the Linux kernel per-se. | | I have an older Dell Chromebook (turned into a Linux | machine once Google stopped OS updates). Battery drain | during sleep is pretty significant with either ChromeOS or | Linux. | cbsmith wrote: | System76 seems to have finally gotten to the bottom of the | battery issues with their Lemur Pro. It's all about the | drivers, and getting drivers that do power management right | for devices that are miserly is surprisingly difficult. | hutzlibu wrote: | Can you confirm this for your own device? | | I am really waiting for a linux laptop, which is truly | mobile. I also rather went with chromebooks so far. | cbsmith wrote: | Note personally (all my laptops are provided by work, and | they don't do System76 :-(), but you don't have to look | far to see people talking about the battery life: https:/ | /www.reddit.com/r/System76/comments/n235vc/a_lemur_pr... | gausswho wrote: | Adding TLP (https://linrunner.de/tlp/index.html) | significantly improved sleep battery drain on my Manjaro | based Framework laptop. | jagrsw wrote: | Biased opinion here (working for Google). | | I love Linux and I would consider myself a power user | (understanding HW arch, working with kernel sources). | | Basic Chromebook apps (+ Play Store) are something that "just | work" for 80% of time for my use-cases (which is, browser and | ssh-ing into a power machine in ze cloud/DC). I also have | rather good understanding of threat models here, and the | quality of the sandboxes and HW roots-of-trust, hardening and | software isolation on a typical Chromebook, so it gives me a | relative piece of mind for specific use-cases | (personal/family files etc.). Supporting an extended family, | if they can get used to Chromebooks (it covers 99% of their | needs, esp. that Android apps can be installed here) is a | bliss. | | Customizing Linux is mental fun, but on a road you probably | something that just works, and typical Linux is rough at | edges - GFX support, hibernation, esp. if you don't want to | stick to some LTS distro, b/c you always need this newer | package for dev purposes or tinkering. | | The remaining 15% is covered by a VM, which seems really | nicely integrated (X11 proxy etc). The remaining remaining 5% | cannot be covered - custom kernels, custom USB drivers, | occasional need to use Windows, but that's fine, I can do | that on a desktop or on some random, cheap, low-power laptop. | | In essence, it's just a thin client on steroids, which almost | always works in its basic form. But if you want something | more interesting, there's always a VM with some Linux distro, | or Android apps via the Play Store. But these are optional | and don't affect stability of the core system, if you don't | use them. | kelvie wrote: | Less biased opinion here (don't work for google, don't hold | stock, am primarily a Linux user at home), but I use(d) a | Pixelbook for all the same reasons mentioned above, though | I now use a Framework as my primary laptop, but mostly | because I wanted to switch from Chrome -> Firefox for a | bunch of other reasons. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | I'm the poster of the original comment, and I _don 't_ work | for Google, but your comment pretty much summed up | perfectly my thoughts as well, and is a big reason why I'm | a ChromeOS fan. | mkozlows wrote: | I agree that there are tons of great use cases for | Chromebooks (I've owned like eight of them, including the | Chromebook Pixel, and love them), but I also think that | once you start getting into Android or Linux-heavy use | cases, native devices are better than Chromebooks. | | An Android tablet is a muuuuuch better experience for | running Android apps than the Pixel Slate. A Framework | running Fedora is a muuuuuch better experience for doing | dev work than a Chromebook. | | ChromeOS is great when used for what it is, and it's cool | that it can flex to handle edge casey things with VMs. But | if the VM stuff is most of what you want to do, just go a | different way. | duped wrote: | > I've owned like eight of them | | This is something that jumps out to me - over how many | years and why did you replace them? | mkozlows wrote: | 9 years, and I'm exaggerating a bit for effect; it's | actually five of them. (HP 11 G2 in 2013, bought because | it was tiny and worked well. Replaced with a Toshiba | something, because it had a better screen and was faster. | Replaced with a Chromebook Pixel 2015 because it was the | god tier amazing Chromebook of your dreams. Replaced with | an HP X2 because it was a convertible tablet and I wanted | a convertible tablet. Replaced with a Pixel Slate because | it was a faster and better-screened convertible tablet | and I like things that are better.) | | None of them were replaced because I strictly speaking | needed to replace them, and all got handed over to | someone else who happily used them. | hollerith wrote: | ChromeOS (especially when "pre-installed", as is the case | here) is much more secure than Linux, IMO. | staticassertion wrote: | I have a whole bunch of reasons. | | ChromeOS has a great separation of concerns and isolation of | environments. I have my work profile and my personal profile, | which are totally separate. I have my browser environment and | my dev VM, which are totally separate. Different activities | are cleanly partitioned. | | This has obvious security benefits but also is just a really | nice, simple way to manage the system. I can fuck up a dev VM | without impacting anything else, I can click random links on | my personal profile without impacting work, etc. | | It also just does what I want it to do. I browse the | internet, I program. It's good for those things. So... why | Linux? | paxys wrote: | You can actually recommend ChromeOS to your non technical | friends | nrp wrote: | In practice, full, stable hardware compatibility and battery | life. The Linux experience on the Framework Laptop on recent | distros (e.g. Ubuntu 22.04.1) is solid, but battery life will | still generally be better running Ubuntu on top of ChromeOS. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | The usual reason for a lot of those boil down to "poor | driver support", but this is the same hardware with what I | would presume is the same Linux kernel so same drivers, so | what's the difference? | duped wrote: | The usual reason is that you can't enable hibernate with | disk encryption | r2binx wrote: | You definitely can. Actually relatively simple if you | know your way around Linux. This is a good guide for Arch | [1]. I think there's a couple more steps on Fedora or if | you're using zram in general but it's definitely doable. | I've even got it working with secure boot using my own | keys. | | [1]: https://gist.github.com/RobFisher/abd9b2b9fca4194ac8 | df112715... | cbsmith wrote: | It tends to specifically be an issue with encrypted | _swap_ , because encrypted swap uses a random ephemeral | encryption key. Honestly, I think in a lot of cases it | makes sense to simply There are solutions for this: https | ://help.ubuntu.com/community/EnableHibernateWithEncrypt.. | . | | I think the real challenge here is for distro vendors to | figure out how to provide a better user experience around | this. There's no reason that the ephemeral key can't be | stored in a sealed state that can be recovered as the | machine wakes. There are obviously some security | implications to this, but I think it's fair to say that a | lot of users would prefer making that trade-off. | r2binx wrote: | Why use another encrypted partition instead of putting a | swap partition/file on the same with LVM/btrfs? | cbsmith wrote: | There's a lot of security models that rely on RAM being | more difficult for an attacker to access than disk (as | you can imagine it is much easier to ensure things stored | to disk are resistant to compromise than to ensure that | nothing in working memory is usable by an attacker). Swap | is that in between case where storage _is_ memory, so | that creates a unique challenge. | | What you want is that if someone steals your hibernated | laptop, that absent a way to securely authenticate | themselves as you, they can't restore the working memory | of your laptop. If you think about it, if they could, | much of the point of many security precautions would be | lost. | saltcured wrote: | I think you may have missed what was being asked? I think | they assume that an LVM PV is encrypted and could contain | the block filesystem and swap volumes as LVs. There is | already a boot-time process to unlock such an LVM setup. | Why should the swap require a separate encryption key? | | As a Fedora user, this is how my disks have been setup | for many years, and I don't understand why Fedora have | disabled hibernation. During wake from hibernation, the | kernel and boot ramdisk would need user input to unlock | the PV and to decode the LVs. Then, the hibernation state | would be visible at the same time as the other filesystem | state, and the kernel could decide whether to load the | hibernation image or continue a normal boot sequence. | | This seems to provide the protection of content needed | for theft of a hibernated machine. I don't know whether | there is some unhappy sequencing flaw in the dracut- | generated ramdisk (between when the wake-versus-boot | decision has to be made and the LVM decryption is done), | or, whether someone at Fedora has decided that the threat | model is different than we discuss above? | cbsmith wrote: | > I think they assume that an LVM PV is encrypted and | could contain the block filesystem and swap volumes as | LVs. There is already a boot-time process to unlock such | an LVM setup. Why should the swap require a separate | encryption key? | | Again, the reason why it's different is the security | model for memory is different from the filesystem. This | is exactly what I was getting at: the fixed key. | Encrypted swap volumes typically are set up to use | ephemeral keys that are "forgotten" when you power down. | The idea is that you only have access to that memory | while the computer is running. When you boot up again, | whatever data is in the swap partition is just noise. As | mentioned in the link I provided (https://help.ubuntu.com | /community/EnableHibernateWithEncrypt...), the current | solution is to switch to using a fixed key, much as you | described. That fundamentally changes the security model, | and not in a subtle way. | | I think there's a solution that _more closely_ | approximates the security model, with only a minor | compromise: when you boot up, you generate an ephemeral | key in the secure enclave, and use that to encrypt your | swap. When you hibernate, the secure enclave encrypts all | the metadata (including the ephemeral key) into a sealed | state that is stored on disk with the swap information. | When you restore, the sealed data is read back into the | secure enclave (and erased) and it can then decrypt swap | as needed. This still means the hibernated memory state | is fully recoverable by whomever is able to authenticate | with the enclave, but that 's what everyone wants. On the | upside, if you shut down the machine (rather than | hibernate), the ephemeral key is lost, so there's no way | anyone can recover what's on your swap, even if they have | access to whatever fixed key(s) you have used for your | LVM volumes. | | If you're really paranoid, you could even generate a new | ephemeral key on restore and reencrypt the entire swap | volume with the new ephemeral key, though I'd question | what realistic threat model that would really address. | r-w wrote: | Interesting. Do we have a concrete reason why, e.g., TLP[0] | falls short of the power management features offered on | other OSes? | | [0]: https://linrunner.de/tlp/ | caskstrength wrote: | We don't because it doesn't. | | Battery life of ThinkPad that supports Linux with TLP | installed and properly configured will be very similar to | Windows. And to address FUD from other reply to your | question: AFAIK official Firefox builds for Linux use PGO | as well, however PGO has quite less impact on battery | life than what another commenter suggests. | jeffbee wrote: | One reason is all the binary artifacts are peak-optimized | for the platform and this yields significant, often | 10-20% lower CPU usage than plain vanilla binaries | offered by all other Linux distributions. This includes | the kernel, which in ChromeOS is built with LLVM with | profile-guided optimization. Faster software translates | directly to longer battery life. Every other distribution | is years behind Google in terms of tooling. | binkHN wrote: | > Every other distribution is years behind Google in | terms of tooling. | | Can you expand on this? Perhaps a URL with more detail? | jeffbee wrote: | I'm not sure if there are any single good URLs I can give | you. The best way to learn is to read the chromiumos repo | and see how they build the image, how they collect and | deploy profiles, etc. You can also look at the mailing | list of clang-built-linux to see how their kernel is | built with clang and how they integrated that with their | profile pipeline. | | In the end though it is cultural and not technical. | Debian will bend over backwards to make sure That One Guy | can still install the latest version on his old Centaur | CPU, from floppies. ChromeOS is laser-targeted for | specific, allow-listed hardware platforms. If you are | philosophically committed to the eternal comfort of That | One Guy, the Debian way makes more sense. If you just | want software that's faster and more secure, ChromeOS has | the better way. | [deleted] | LegitShady wrote: | https://frame.work/ca/en/linux | | don't they already support this on the existing framework? | ufmace wrote: | Personally, I chose ChromeOS as the bare-metal OS for my | laptop because I think it's the best of both worlds: | | For web browser-based stuff, I have a constantly-updated | state of the art browser with full vendor-backed hardware | support for everything around graphics, sound, USB, | Bluetooth, etc, anything else I might want, plus probably the | best sandboxing you can get as far as protecting the core | system from any malicious web exploits. It also works rather | well in tablet mode with convertible devices. IME, getting | all of this on bare-metal Linux and having it stay working | for years is very hit-or-miss. | | For linuxy CLI stuff, I have a built-in Linux container with | a nice terminal. Everything I've wanted to do as far as CLI | stuff works great, including Vim + Tmux, developing and | compiling in any language, systemd services, docker and k8s | CLI support. I've opened at least a dozen or so PRs on | various open-source projects and maintained server clusters | working entirely on a Chromebook. All the driver and display | stuff is taken care of by ChromeOS so I never have to mess | with config for it. | cco wrote: | I'm also going to add, and this is a spicy take, for every day | browser tasks ChromeOS beats out both Windows and macOS. | | It took them awhile to get there, but with virtual desktops, | gesture support, the hardware back button, Chrome tab scrolling | (actually OP), I found that ChromeOS is the day-to-day best | operating system for browsing the web. | | As you note, the Linux support is great but requires a pretty | beefy processor, my Pixelbook was the i7 and it still chugged a | bit. But overall, amazing OS today, really miss that laptop. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Yeah I love my chromebook as a cheap, almost throwaway device, | for when I go on business trips. It's light, it keeps me away | from my favorite games, if I drop it no big financial loss. All | my work "work" is in the cloud. | smm11 wrote: | This is like that modular phone thing that I haven't heard about | in forever. I'm not sure how making a device appealing to 60K | folks, maybe, makes any sense. | choletentent wrote: | I use a Chromebook for development as well. It's $100 computer | and it is just fantastic. I throw it around with such peace of | mind, and the battery life is just incredible! | | It has only one issue for me, it does not have enough power to | run MS Teams on the brownser, and the Android app does not work | well. | | A native app from MS would be quite nice :) | samueldr wrote: | I wonder if it will have proper CCD (Case Closed Debugging)[0] | support. | | With CCD, you are pretty much free to mess around with the "BIOS" | of the machine, without fear of being put in a bad situation. | | It also provides a serial terminal to the "AP" (application | processor), e.g. available to the OS. | | In other words, the Cr50 provides a controlled and user- | controlled (but not user-owned) sideband channel to debug the | system, even on consumer hardware. | | Why user-controlled? Because it requires asserting presence to | "Open", which with the design of ChromeOS basically requires | being the owner of the device. Why not user-owned? For official | ChromeOS devices, AFAIK that firmware cannot be replaced by a | user with their own builds. | | [0]: | https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec/+/c... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-21 23:00 UTC)