[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)