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.
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?
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.
> 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.
> 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.
The formed top covers are thick aluminium foils that are folded by machines.
They did show signs of lack of rigidity in the usage of the laptops (it was shipped with the first Framework laptops, and later replaced by CNC for this very reason).
Can you elaborate what you mean with improved audio quality?
My headphone jack on the 12th gen. (batch 1) model has a constant loud static/white noise which is very audible when listening to music even at max volume.
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.
In case of doubt you can always replace the OS with whatever Linux distribution you choose, which only leaves closed-source driver/fw blobs - but that problem is shared with every other general-purpose computer these days.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
I think it is more complex than that. AMD uses TSMC foundaries to make their chips and has to compete with nVidia and Apple for capacity. Intel can guarentee their yields because they own their foundaries.
This is old news. AMD has since cancelled orders because of GPU sales falling off a cliff. They have enough for Framework, if Framework wants to jump on to make something
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!
> 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.)
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.
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.
One thing worth noting is that basically, even now (almost 10 months post announcement), almost no one has a 6000U laptop outs (a search on Amazon and Best Buy shows two 6800U laptop models total, one Asus and one Lenovo). Two niche vendors, XMG and Star Labs, have both publicly stated that they would have loved to have offered Ryzen 6000 laptops, but couldn't get any allotments. There are were also well documented chipset issues - even into the summer Lenovo and Asus talked about requiring firmware updates to enable their USB4 ports.
That being said, starting w/ Rembrandt, AMD now has full 40Gbps USB4 controllers built on-chip. I'm really looking forward to Ryzen 7040 because Phoenix looks great (Zen4 + RDNA3 on TSMC N4 - yes please) and hopefully USB4 support has matured enough on the AMD side that Framework is able to release something.
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)
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?
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.
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...
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!
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.
Google employees have been switching to HP Dragonfly chromebooks but that may be back ordered now, so I could see many of us requesting the framework if it's made available internally. I'm going to see if I can get Google to allocate me one of these framework Chromebooks, and if not, I will purchase one on my own.
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.
There are some other premium Chromebooks. Google started things off with the Pixelbook, which it appears they are now discontinuing. HP and Samsung have produced some high end Chromebooks.
They're a niche market: C-level executives at companies that use Chromebooks, developers at those companies, Linux fans who will mostly use the Chromebook to run Linux apps. They make more economic sense as an adaptation of a laptop that is already being sold for other markets rather than as a dedicated product.
The Pixelbook line never did enough volume for Google to make money on it. It was a proof of concept, a way of showing that a Chromebook didn't have to just mean a low end and cheaply built Acer or the like, but could be something that higher end users would happily use and not be ashamed to be seen with when they do a presentation. Now that other companies are making premium Chromebooks, there is no longer a need for Google to produce them.
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..."
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.
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!
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
Hi, I saw your comment about Bluetooth issues with your AirPods, and I wanted to let you know that I have been having great success using my AirPods after I swapped out Pulseaudio for Pipewire on my System76 lemur pro laptop running PopOS. I think Ubuntu is planning to migrate from Pulseaudio to Pipewire as the default sound server, but maybe they haven’t done it yet. Anyway, this might be something you want to try. I use them for zoom meetings 1-2 hours every day, and they are extremely reliable.
I see! It appears Ubuntu 22 has both Pulseaudio and Pipewire installed, and Pulseaudio is set to the default, with Pipewire just not enabled. Will poke around at it. Maybe they're making some incremental transition still.
Some people have been getting hard graphics lockups (seems to be an Intel 12th-gen GPU / GNOME issue that may be affecting more than just the Frameworks). I'm running Sway and have yet to have any lockups over a month and a half of usage, though. Here's the community discussion thread: https://community.frame.work/t/hard-freezing-on-fedora-36-wi...
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.?
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
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.
> 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.
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...
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?
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.
Does it have another key in its place? The Windows key is one of my favorite things about Linux in a desktop/laptop machine: a key that isn't used by any applications, which I can dedicate entirely towards window management, without worrying that it will conflict with any application key bindings.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Looks like a yes: "...you can multitask with ease on top of running heavy Chrome workloads. ChromeOS supports downloading Android™ apps from the Google Play Store, developing on Linux with Crostini, playing PC games with Steam on ChromeOS Alpha, and more."
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?
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).
> 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.
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 :)
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!
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.
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.
With Coreboot and the ChromeOS Linux kernel running well on the device, how much would it take to release a Framework Laptop Linux Edition based on the Chromebook mainboard, but with a standard keyboard and somewhat optimized for a pre-installed Linux distribution?
I would imagine that regular Linux won't do as well as ChromeOS in terms of battery life, but perhaps still considerably better than the Windows mainboard+firmware.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
I think he means one where all the components are selected because they are well supported by Linux drivers, and dispensing with x86 only components. That would indeed be useful. I would even pre-install Ubuntu on it and then users can replace with ____ (insert favorite distro here). You can be sure that the vast majority of people using a distro other than Ubuntu know how to install it.
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?)
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?
Unless Intel is helping them with the reference designs, I don't see how an AMD motherboard for their frame.work laptop is more difficult to design than an Intel one. Can you clarify why you think so?
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.
I know, and understand that Intel offers better deals to undercut their competitors. But just search for all discussions on frame.work on Reddit or HN and you'll find that top most requested feature is an AMD CPU. Most of us know that AMD today makes slightly better CPU than Intel. And it's cheaper too! And AMD always has offered better support to upgrade their CPUs - upgrade-ability is one of the key features of frame.work.
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).
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.
"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 :-)
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.
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)
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
An enterprise chromeos device (usually the higher end ones fall into this category) can run windows via parallels, web pages via the chrome browser, linux CLI and GUI apps via crostini, and android apps with google play support. Out of the box without any major modifications. Which Linux distribution offers that amount of functionality out of the box?
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.
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)
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.
I concur! I have a few ChromeOS devices at home and, more often than not, it's a simple pleasure. And now with ChromeOS Flex, even more hardware can become more pleasurable. Yes, I know there are some downsides with Flex, but, in this case, I simply feel more ChromeOS, in either form, is, well, better.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
Apple, Microsoft and Google are all data harvesting companies. And any other OS, including Linux, can have spyware, rootkits or other malicious software installed all the way down to the BIOS. If you want privacy when around an internet-connected camera and microphone there is no substitute for a hardware switch.
Again, the discussion is about camera security at all times, not just when you're not using it.
I think regardless of the fact that it is technically possible with any hardware and any operating system, it is difficult to argue that the risk is the same on Linux as it is on windows or ChromeOS.
I doubt ChromeOS or windows are spying on you through your camera either when you are or are not using it, but people can be sure their Linux distro isn't.
Never transmit onto the internet anything that would ruin your life if it became public, that's my motto. Regardless of how safe the transmission is in theory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd just like to put a vote of confidence in for That Guy, I think we should absolutely have an option for them.
Which is a roundabout way of saying; it's critically important that we don't over-optimize for the central, happy path (just wanna browse securely on whatever hardware ya got). The most interesting things (and the most valuable) frequently come from the edge cases, which are absolutely supported by keeping an eye on the needs of "That One Guy". Unix interoperability has given us a bounty of awesome shit and I anticipate it will continue to do so.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
Maybe we're not talking about the same scenarios/alternatives? If I've set up whole-disk encryption with a security level I trust for my persistent storage, how is that not appropriate for the persisted hibernation state? To me, hibernation state is a subset of persistent storage needs, not some categorically different thing. The coupling between running system and persistent state seems so strong to me that I consider them one equivalence class of data and requiring one consistent protection standard.
I adopted the conveniently offered, software-based whole disk encryption mode when installing Fedora. A luks-encrypted LVM PV is the only luks mapping at runtime, and a naked /boot volume is the only volume not allocated as an LVM LV in that encrypted volume group. Thus, I have selected my storage security posture. I expect the cold or detached storage device to be resistant to inspection. Due to the unencrypted /boot, I have doubts that there is tamper-protection of the future running software, should I temporarily lose control of the physical device. I have no illusion that the running kernel lacks access to the plaintext content.
My swap is an LV in that encrypted volume group. Why is hibernation disabled on Fedora? This is where I feel like there is a poorly communicated threat model or some other unstated assumption that I do not appreciate. (But see my last paragraph below for a possible answer!)
Are people concerned about the written hibernation state using the same key as the filesystem volumes? I.e. that knowing how to unlock the whole-disk encryption means you can reconstruct the hibernated image too? I don't see why I, as a user, should care to protect the hibernation image even more than all my regular data. Similarly, if I have the key I can potentially attack the root volume (while offline) to inject all sorts of malware, such that I could exfiltrate RAM state from the running system in the future. Swap isn't required to open me to that attack.
Are people concerned about regular swap state being available on disk during system operation? I.e. the running Linux luks mappings can be abused to inspect swap state? I am not sure I can appreciate this angle, since I think it is farfetched that the swap mapping can somehow be more resistant to attack than the filesystem mappings in the same running kernel.
Are people concerned about regular swap state being left on disk during a non-hibernated shutdown? If so, I would suggest that the swap crypto should not be conflated with the hibernation crypto. Add an ephemeral cipher to swap if you must, but use framing/metadata to reliably distinguish the ephemeral swap "noise" image from a valid hibernation image. I'm OK saying that hibernate must write an entire image and not assuming that regular swapping can opportunistically prepare any hibernation state prior to a hibernation event actually commencing.
While writing all this, I have thought up another possible angle. Maybe this is the actual Fedora issue? I can see that control of an offline hibernation image means control of a future running system image, and this might violate some secure boot agenda? I.e. I can tinker with the hibernated state to introduce a "hacked kernel" and ask the system to restart with that. I can see why secure boot might prevent return from hibernation. This requires some integrity-protection chain to enable the trusted bootloader and kernel to verify a hibernation image before opting to load and restart it. I can see how a variation on your "sealed state" approach could address this. But note, it only requires integrity protection and does not actually need another layer of confidentiality protection.
> Maybe we're not talking about the same scenarios/alternatives? If I've set up whole-disk encryption with a security level I trust for my persistent storage, how is that not appropriate for the persisted hibernation state? To me, hibernation state is a subset of persistent storage needs, not some categorically different thing. The coupling between running system and persistent state seems so strong to me that I consider them one equivalence class of data and requiring one consistent protection standard.
Yes, we are talking about different scenarios. As I said, you can absolutely set up your swap to use a fixed password and then it will work fine as you describe.
> Are people concerned about the written hibernation state using the same key as the filesystem volumes?
That might be part of the concern, but it's more that it is possible to recover previous memory/swap state with a key that can reasonably be subsequently recovered.
Let's imagine a scenario where I have a secure password, that I enter into my browser, to say, access my bank's website. That's stored in memory by my browser & the GUI, but it is not normally allowed to be put on disk for security reasons. Then I hibernate my laptop and it gets written to the encrypted hibernate volume that uses a fixed password. I restore my laptop and go about my business. I might even reboot the laptop several time subsequently without thinking much about it. Then, someone finds a way to compromise the password used for swap encryption using any number of possible attacks (some you described). Now, not only do they have access to all the stuff on my computer, but they also have access to the contents of the encrypted swap volume, which unless I was lucky and the particular swap page was overwritten, the compromise goes back to the memory of the runtime from long before the machine was compromised. This would include this password that was very intentionally NOT stored on that computer, in order to avert precisely this kind of threat.
> If so, I would suggest that the swap crypto should not be conflated with the hibernation crypto.
That's another possible avenue, not that unlike what I was suggesting. It's worth noting though that these days there may not be much value in having separate passwords for swap vs. hibernate, since swap is rarely used on laptops.
They are all different security trade-offs, and it is debatable which is the right one. I don't think the current default is the right one for most users, but I do understand it.
Ah of course, I haven't thought about it that way, thanks for your explanation.
I guess it depends if you're willing to put all eggs in one basket so to speak. But instead of disabling hibernation outright maybe distros can find a compromise there.
My anecdotal experience with friends that tried Linux is that it left such a bad impression when they opened they're laptop the next morning and it's lost most of its battery life that some actually went back to Windows.
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.
I just went through this process with Gentoo on a framework laptop. Here are some random, likely incomplete notes to make this work. It uses a swap file on an encrypted filesystem
1. Create a swap file. Our rule of thumb is ram + sqrt(ram) for hibernate
fallocate -l 72GiB swapfile
chmod 600 swapfile
mkswap swapfile
swapon swapfile
swapon --show
2. emerge suspend
3. Get the number to use with resume_offset later. In the current case, it was 125798400
swap-offset /swapfile
emerge sys-boot/grub
grub-install --target=x86_64-efi --efi-directory=/boot
vim /boot/grub/grub.cfg
timeout=5
menuentry 'Gentoo Linux 5.18.19' {
root=hd0,1
insmod all_video
linux /kernel-5.18.19 root=/dev/mapper/root resume=/dev/mapper/root resume_offset=125798400
}
4. Fix suspend.conf
vim /etc/suspend.conf
resume device = /dev/mapper/root
resume offset = 125798400
5. Setup an initramfs
cd /usr/src
mkdir initramfs
cd initramfs
mkdir -p bin dev etc proc sys new-root
cp -a /dev/{null,console,tty} /usr/src/initramfs/dev/
cp -a /bin/busybox ./bin
cd bin
for i in `./busybox --list`
do
ln -s ./busybox $i
done
cd ..
cp -a /sbin/cryptsetup ./bin
mkdir -p ./run/cryptsetup
lddtree -l /sbin/cryptsetup
Copy in all of those files until the local cryptsetup works appropriately
vim init
#!/bin/sh
# Define a rescue shell
rescue_shell() {
echo "Error in boot process, dropping to a shell"
exec /bin/sh
}·
# Mount our devices. We sleep prior to dev to hopefully finish loading.
mount -t proc none /proc
mount -t sysfs none /sys
sleep 2 && mount -t devtmpfs none /dev ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.)
> 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.
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.
The T- and X-series is what people usually refer to as the "real" Thinkpads, which existed before this Lenovo nonsense. Lenovo labels widely varying hardware under the Thinkpad brand, but that's not what you want as a Linux user.
I don't know about the E-series specifically, sorry.
As I wrote before, I have observed similar issues reported by many T series owners when I was desperately scouring the Internet for a fix for months. Of course, I haven't used a T series ThinkPad so I can't say if these issues got resolved or not. I gave up long ago and now keep my laptop on 24x7 when I'm not traveling.
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.
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.
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.
Well, as long as we're sharing personal anecdotes as absolute judgements, then allow me to throw my own hat into the ring.
I have never had a problem with suspend, hibernate, nor excessive battery drain (beyond what the hardware should do) on any of linux laptop setups.
Thats starting from a thinkpad in 1998 (yes), all the way to my current amd 4800 tongfeng (generic chinese oem laptop maker).
Along with quite a few chromebooks thrown in along the way (all of which were developer-mode enabled, WITH secure verified boot turned back on, so had full access to linux apps WITHOUT using crostini vm's).
But, seeing as how chromebooks are essentially machines running GENTOO LINUX with a custom google ebuild overlay, then perhaps their reliability should be another plus checkmark for "linux on laptops", and not somehow a ding against that.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
> 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..
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.
But the marketing departement isn’t the firefighters. They’re the marketing of the parks departement. Once the firefighters put the fire out (Google engineering stops haphazardly killing products), marketing can attract people to the parks again (Google marketing attracts people to their services).
I feel like I'm missing some information here. Is it the engineering team that kills projects? I would think whoever's controlling the funding has their hand on the plug...
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?
After spending £2k 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.
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.
Not going to comment much on how much of a risk it is to use a Google product in this way. Just going to say that ChromeOS is pretty much designed to work with Google's primary apps: GMail, Drive, Hangouts (or whatever it's called these days), etc. So my point is that if you want to stay out of the Google ecosystem, it wouldn't make sense to use ChromeOS in any case.
A willingness to selectively use the Google ecosystem, versus signing over your bare ability to even use a purchased general-purpose computing device entirely to Google's pleasure, are two distinctly different things though.
I'm not making a 'Google is evil' argument (that would be a different conversation). I just couldn't bear to trust any corporation with that degree of arbitrary power over physical objects in my possession, regardless of whether or not I'd use their webapps. The power imbalance is just too great. Google (or Microsoft or Apple) is, in practise if not in theory, above any law that can be wielded by individuals.
I'm with you. We're driving into the world of Snow Crash like Tina Belcher, and all I hear when folks talk about how marginally better for browsing these devices are is: "ehhhhhhhhhhhhh".
On a more specific (read: paranoid) note, these security chips give me the heebie jeebies. How long until I need to register a program hash with the FAANG-that-be just to run my own software?
There is a single "desktop" user on chrome os - 'chronos'. Even when you login with different accounts, everything is still running as chronos (id 1000).
What happens is that there are separate loopback filesystems, 1 per each "google account", all stored under /mnt/stateful_partition. These filesystems are encrypted (ecryptfs). When you login, the relevant filesystem is decrypted and bind mounted over /home/chronos.
All of this is done locally, no network queries involved. I don't think that you lose your local files if your google account is somehow borked. You just lose the online aspects of that.
But as a general rule, your overall point about not being too reliant on googlopoly is one which should be well taken.
Interesting, thanks. That's something then - I don't know much about ChromeOS. I've considered it for parents, but in the end have opted for something modest running one Linux or another.
A true laptop-appliance with an immutable-ish OS, decent security and fast/easy updates is actually a quite compelling notion. I'd be pretty uncomfortable with it not being local-first for user data though.
> A true laptop-appliance with an immutable-ish OS, decent security and fast/easy updates is actually a quite compelling notion. I'd be pretty uncomfortable with it not being local-first for user data though.
I was thinking more for the sort of non-technical users a Chromebook would suit, which at a minimum means pre-installed with little or no admin needed. Chromebooks are a great idea, it's just a pity they're so deeply intertwined with Google services (though given way the consumer market has developed, some such corporate entanglement is I suppose inevitable).
Ah, yeah. I don't think anyone sells laptops with Silverblue pre-installed, so that would be a hurdle. After that though, IMO Silverblue fits the bill very well, and may surprise you with how polished its update/upgrade flow is, especially compared to Debian-family distros.
Regular Fedora Workstation is my standard OS these days, so I suspect Silverblue may be in my own future. I look forward to giving it a try when time allows & curiosity overwhelms!
Aside from Linux distros per se though, I think there's a need for something like ChromeOS (preinstalled, appliance-like, as foolproof as possible), but without the deep single-corp dependence. Unfortunately I don't think the market in its current state is capable of filling this need.
Actually, in many ways, what you're asking for in your 2nd paragraph is pretty much what chrome os is.
BTW, chrome os is actually gentoo linux under the hood (with the portage pkg manager stripped out at the end). At one time, there was even a shell script doing the rounds which put portage back on it.
Your larger point re: Google reliance is still a valid one, but one which holds true even if you run chrome on another linux distro. If you really look at it, I'm not sure if a chromebook is less private than that.
> Actually, in many ways, what you're asking for in your 2nd paragraph is pretty much what chrome os is.
Indeed, that was my point. Something like ChromeOS is a great idea.
> Your larger point re: Google reliance is still a valid one, but one which holds true even if you run chrome on another linux distro. If you really look at it, I'm not sure if a chromebook is less private than that.
Privacy's not my main emphasis. The world is in a state of gradual physical collapse. My (wealthy) region has had infrastructure destroyed by successive waves of fire and flood, and it will never recover (eg. we'll never again have year-round roads or always-on internet). We're the vanguard of what is coming to all. Entirely network-dependent devices aren't appropriate technology for our time. a fortiori for single-corporation-dependent devices.
Coincidentally, I've been doing a deep dive into offline-first, mesh & p2p related projects (nncp, yggdrasil, etc).
Would be interesting to see a linux distro with builtin plumbing for such things. Eg: constant snapshots, cached locally and then forwarded on to your other devices (once they are network reachable), all within a local mesh network that you define, which sits on top of the public internet (and bypasses NAT and firewalls)
They added it about 4-5 years ago, and really it just keeps getting better and better. I'm really in awe of the tech chops of the team that did this, especially around security. You'll often hear it referred to as crostini: https://chromeos.dev/en/linux
To be clear on what you're getting: It runs a (Linux) VM and you get root on (a container on) that VM. Not trying to rain on your parade (because it's really quite useful!) but it's limited in what it can do. (eg it can't change the host's wifi MAC address.)
Chromebooks have easy access to developer mode which gives you root access to the host OS though, so it's kinda moot.
Thanks for the detailed description. Might still consider it, or at least look for a cheaper Chromebook just to play around with and get a feel first.
At any rate, Chromebooks sound more capable than I previously gave them credit for, enough so that they will now be part of my evaluation next time I upgrade.
Between the Framework Laptop now supporting Chrome OS and some of the info in this thread, Chromebooks and Chrome OS no longer seem like just the cheap Google Docs appliances for schools that I originally thought they were, which is pretty cool.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah. Maybe this will turn out to be a genius strategic move, but it just seems weird.
It's the same sort of cognitive dissonance as if a Michelin-starred sushi restaurant just announced they're adding a Subway Footlong sandwich to their menu.
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.
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.
> the Cr50 provides a controlled and user-controlled
The Cr50 is as far from user-controlled as you can get. It can MITM your keyboard, reflash your firmware, and obeys only the holder of the private key corresponding to `LOADERKEY_A`:
Thanks for taking the quote of context. It's not like the sentence as a whole could ever have any more meaning than a snippet of it.
As I clearly stated, what is user-controlled is the sideband channel to debug the system on consumer hardware. The sideband channel under the current implementation of Cr50 is entirely user-controlled. This is a fact, as the end-user of the machine has control over the sideband channel.
I did not state any judgement about the GSC itself and its firmware.
And please don't start spreading FUD around hypotheticals of updates changing that. Yes it is possible. But a lot else and worse is possible under that scenario, so it serves no purpose but to spread FUD. And is still irrelevant to the content of the previous comment.
I am asking you, please do not ever derail what I say with FUD or out-of-context quotes ever again.
475 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 339 ms ] threadThere 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.
Would any collaboration with them regarding CoreBoot be helpful/desirable/possible/planned/etc. ?
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.
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.
The formed top covers are thick aluminium foils that are folded by machines.
They did show signs of lack of rigidity in the usage of the laptops (it was shipped with the first Framework laptops, and later replaced by CNC for this very reason).
In the Markeplace I can see the new speakers but not the new audio board (or is the codec actually on the motherboard?).
They pointed me to this /gb/en/ url, which has the same chromebook slug but seems to just describe the regular 12th gen laptop: https://frame.work/gb/en/laptop-chromebook-12-gen-intel
So to be clear, no fingerprint reader for the Chromebook? Any chance of adding that in the future?
Edit: the article says “receives automatic updates for up to eight years” but an upper bound isn’t so helpful here.
https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/6220366?visit_id=...
If you purchase a brand new chromebook whose model has been sold for 3 years already you won't get 8 years of support.
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.
I'd also love to learn more about the motivation to create this laptop and the target audiences!
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.
- 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?
> 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.
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!
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.)
Here's the segmentation:
* Mendocino (Ryzen 7020 Series) - Everyday Computing
* Barcelo-R (Ryzen 7030 Series) - Mainstream Thin & Light
* Rembrandt-R (Ryzen 7035 Series) - Premium Thin & Light
* Phoenix Point (Ryzen 7040 Series) - Elite Ultrathin
* Dragon Range (Ryzen 7045 Series) - Extreme Gaming & Creator
But the product "launch" will, as you mention, likely take place at CES next year.
That being said, starting w/ Rembrandt, AMD now has full 40Gbps USB4 controllers built on-chip. I'm really looking forward to Ryzen 7040 because Phoenix looks great (Zen4 + RDNA3 on TSMC N4 - yes please) and hopefully USB4 support has matured enough on the AMD side that Framework is able to release something.
My understanding is that the I/O limitation is in the re-timers - currently the Framework uses 4X JHL8040R's (labeled as Burnside Bridge) directly connected to the iTBT: https://github.com/FrameworkComputer/Mainboard/blob/main/Ele... Apple used these for their first M1 MBAs as well: https://github.com/ThomasKaiser/Knowledge/blob/master/articl...
But both Apple and AMD are now using Kandou retimers:
* https://www.gizchina.com/2022/07/25/apple-completely-got-rid...
* https://kandou.com/matterhorn.html
* https://kandou.com/assets/downloads/product-briefs/KB8001-Pr...
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)
There really isn't any other performant ARM chip that has more ports, enough to work in a framework 4 port type situation.
If we want to go beyond DP alt mode into USB 4 you could forget it.
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?
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...
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.
[1] https://www.johnlewis.com/google-pixelbook-go-ga00526-uk-lap...
There was a lot of love for the original Pixelbook, so I'm sure it will be an exciting prospect for many.
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.
They're a niche market: C-level executives at companies that use Chromebooks, developers at those companies, Linux fans who will mostly use the Chromebook to run Linux apps. They make more economic sense as an adaptation of a laptop that is already being sold for other markets rather than as a dedicated product.
The Pixelbook line never did enough volume for Google to make money on it. It was a proof of concept, a way of showing that a Chromebook didn't have to just mean a low end and cheaply built Acer or the like, but could be something that higher end users would happily use and not be ashamed to be seen with when they do a presentation. Now that other companies are making premium Chromebooks, there is no longer a need for Google to produce them.
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..."
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!
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
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...
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...
Thanks for the tip
Some people have been getting hard graphics lockups (seems to be an Intel 12th-gen GPU / GNOME issue that may be affecting more than just the Frameworks). I'm running Sway and have yet to have any lockups over a month and a half of usage, though. Here's the community discussion thread: https://community.frame.work/t/hard-freezing-on-fedora-36-wi...
* Getting out of sleep (deep RAM sleep, not hibernate)
* Handling password/fingerprint authentication once out of sleep
* Wifi rescan frequency
* Occasionally, plugging/unplugging external screens
And I've got no idea why. Once woken up and plugged to whatever I need to use, it's a really good laptop.
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
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.
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?
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?
Is there any roadmap for wider distribution in Europe? Especially eastern part.
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!
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.
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...
source: https://community.frame.work/t/introducing-the-framework-lap...
Maybe the support sites will get updated to include Frame.Work
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
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?
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).
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.
I understand if you can't make promises here, I'm also on a product team :)
How did you see the niche and do you still see it the same way now it is here?
What do you consider to be the value proposition for potential customers of this product?
What is your assessment of the TAM?
Do you have limits on how many differentiated products you are willing to pursue simultaneously in the market?
1. do you have any plans to provide expansion cards for ltr/5g connectivity?
2. do you have any plans to provide more memory for chromebook edition?
I work in metal fabrication (tradesperson) and run a laser cutter as my full time job, and have an interest in most things metallurgical.
Are you able to talk about the 50% post-consumer recycled aluminium. What were the pros / cons of 50% rather than higher or lower percentages.
Do you honestly believe Google respects people?
What measures have you put in place to mitigate Google's surveillance of its users?
I would imagine that regular Linux won't do as well as ChromeOS in terms of battery life, but perhaps still considerably better than the Windows mainboard+firmware.
> 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...
Not sure there's a market for thousand-dollar chromebooks, but calling it anti-DIY is just inaccurate.
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!
Is there really a market for a $999 Chromebook? Didn’t google try this several years ago and flop?
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
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.
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.
Yup, you're right, this could be a very tough sell.
You think those IT people don't read here too? Its a budget thing sweetie, once you get a real job you understand.
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.
I think we all have different demands. Hopefully with the modularish system they can gradually make us all happy.
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.
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."
The actual important thing is that all their hardware has Linux drivers.
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.
Edit: It looks like they did indeed put it together with Linux in mind: https://frame.work/nl/en/linux
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.
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 :-)
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.
Is that a misplaced "can't"? (Something like "there's nothing I can't do that I can do on another computer, somewhere else"?)
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)
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.
Would you pay more to have a dumb phone that only does calls, than a smart phone?
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.
Displays wider color range, CPUs faster, that's pretty much it on the positives side.
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).
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.
Strangely, its easier to get money for purchases than have a repair budget, but that US government funding for you.
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.
I can trust a Linux system.
A system running Google adware (some even call it spyware), not so much.
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?
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.
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.
I think regardless of the fact that it is technically possible with any hardware and any operating system, it is difficult to argue that the risk is the same on Linux as it is on windows or ChromeOS.
I doubt ChromeOS or windows are spying on you through your camera either when you are or are not using it, but people can be sure their Linux distro isn't.
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.
[0]: https://linrunner.de/tlp/
Can you expand on this? Perhaps a URL with more detail?
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.
Which is a roundabout way of saying; it's critically important that we don't over-optimize for the central, happy path (just wanna browse securely on whatever hardware ya got). The most interesting things (and the most valuable) frequently come from the edge cases, which are absolutely supported by keeping an eye on the needs of "That One Guy". Unix interoperability has given us a bounty of awesome shit and I anticipate it will continue to do so.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I adopted the conveniently offered, software-based whole disk encryption mode when installing Fedora. A luks-encrypted LVM PV is the only luks mapping at runtime, and a naked /boot volume is the only volume not allocated as an LVM LV in that encrypted volume group. Thus, I have selected my storage security posture. I expect the cold or detached storage device to be resistant to inspection. Due to the unencrypted /boot, I have doubts that there is tamper-protection of the future running software, should I temporarily lose control of the physical device. I have no illusion that the running kernel lacks access to the plaintext content.
My swap is an LV in that encrypted volume group. Why is hibernation disabled on Fedora? This is where I feel like there is a poorly communicated threat model or some other unstated assumption that I do not appreciate. (But see my last paragraph below for a possible answer!)
Are people concerned about the written hibernation state using the same key as the filesystem volumes? I.e. that knowing how to unlock the whole-disk encryption means you can reconstruct the hibernated image too? I don't see why I, as a user, should care to protect the hibernation image even more than all my regular data. Similarly, if I have the key I can potentially attack the root volume (while offline) to inject all sorts of malware, such that I could exfiltrate RAM state from the running system in the future. Swap isn't required to open me to that attack.
Are people concerned about regular swap state being available on disk during system operation? I.e. the running Linux luks mappings can be abused to inspect swap state? I am not sure I can appreciate this angle, since I think it is farfetched that the swap mapping can somehow be more resistant to attack than the filesystem mappings in the same running kernel.
Are people concerned about regular swap state being left on disk during a non-hibernated shutdown? If so, I would suggest that the swap crypto should not be conflated with the hibernation crypto. Add an ephemeral cipher to swap if you must, but use framing/metadata to reliably distinguish the ephemeral swap "noise" image from a valid hibernation image. I'm OK saying that hibernate must write an entire image and not assuming that regular swapping can opportunistically prepare any hibernation state prior to a hibernation event actually commencing.
While writing all this, I have thought up another possible angle. Maybe this is the actual Fedora issue? I can see that control of an offline hibernation image means control of a future running system image, and this might violate some secure boot agenda? I.e. I can tinker with the hibernated state to introduce a "hacked kernel" and ask the system to restart with that. I can see why secure boot might prevent return from hibernation. This requires some integrity-protection chain to enable the trusted bootloader and kernel to verify a hibernation image before opting to load and restart it. I can see how a variation on your "sealed state" approach could address this. But note, it only requires integrity protection and does not actually need another layer of confidentiality protection.
Yes, we are talking about different scenarios. As I said, you can absolutely set up your swap to use a fixed password and then it will work fine as you describe.
> Are people concerned about the written hibernation state using the same key as the filesystem volumes?
That might be part of the concern, but it's more that it is possible to recover previous memory/swap state with a key that can reasonably be subsequently recovered.
Let's imagine a scenario where I have a secure password, that I enter into my browser, to say, access my bank's website. That's stored in memory by my browser & the GUI, but it is not normally allowed to be put on disk for security reasons. Then I hibernate my laptop and it gets written to the encrypted hibernate volume that uses a fixed password. I restore my laptop and go about my business. I might even reboot the laptop several time subsequently without thinking much about it. Then, someone finds a way to compromise the password used for swap encryption using any number of possible attacks (some you described). Now, not only do they have access to all the stuff on my computer, but they also have access to the contents of the encrypted swap volume, which unless I was lucky and the particular swap page was overwritten, the compromise goes back to the memory of the runtime from long before the machine was compromised. This would include this password that was very intentionally NOT stored on that computer, in order to avert precisely this kind of threat.
> If so, I would suggest that the swap crypto should not be conflated with the hibernation crypto.
That's another possible avenue, not that unlike what I was suggesting. It's worth noting though that these days there may not be much value in having separate passwords for swap vs. hibernate, since swap is rarely used on laptops.
They are all different security trade-offs, and it is debatable which is the right one. I don't think the current default is the right one for most users, but I do understand it.
My anecdotal experience with friends that tried Linux is that it left such a bad impression when they opened they're laptop the next morning and it's lost most of its battery life that some actually went back to Windows.
[1]: https://gist.github.com/RobFisher/abd9b2b9fca4194ac8df112715...
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.
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.
This is something that jumps out to me - over how many years and why did you replace them?
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.
don't they already support this on the existing framework?
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.
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?
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Crostini/comments/b680wa/external_d...
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.
I am really waiting for a linux laptop, which is truly mobile. I also rather went with chromebooks so far.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't know about the E-series specifically, sorry.
I will say I agree, you can't use a Linux laptop and take a video call without being tethered to power.
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.
I have never had a problem with suspend, hibernate, nor excessive battery drain (beyond what the hardware should do) on any of linux laptop setups.
Thats starting from a thinkpad in 1998 (yes), all the way to my current amd 4800 tongfeng (generic chinese oem laptop maker).
Along with quite a few chromebooks thrown in along the way (all of which were developer-mode enabled, WITH secure verified boot turned back on, so had full access to linux apps WITHOUT using crostini vm's).
But, seeing as how chromebooks are essentially machines running GENTOO LINUX with a custom google ebuild overlay, then perhaps their reliability should be another plus checkmark for "linux on laptops", and not somehow a ding against that.
Anyway, take that for what its worth ...
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.
You provide IT support, eg for school kids, and somehow they grok Linux just as well as a browser? That is not my experience.
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...
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)
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.
1. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/97461/i...
2. https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/95441/i...
(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)
Sometimes it's better to be paranoid (c).
Guess Google isn't a bad case for.
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.
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..
> As long as ‘killed by Google’ continues to be a well-known meme
However, I don't think this can be used until the Chromebook has been initially setup using some Google account.
I'm not making a 'Google is evil' argument (that would be a different conversation). I just couldn't bear to trust any corporation with that degree of arbitrary power over physical objects in my possession, regardless of whether or not I'd use their webapps. The power imbalance is just too great. Google (or Microsoft or Apple) is, in practise if not in theory, above any law that can be wielded by individuals.
On a more specific (read: paranoid) note, these security chips give me the heebie jeebies. How long until I need to register a program hash with the FAANG-that-be just to run my own software?
There is a single "desktop" user on chrome os - 'chronos'. Even when you login with different accounts, everything is still running as chronos (id 1000).
What happens is that there are separate loopback filesystems, 1 per each "google account", all stored under /mnt/stateful_partition. These filesystems are encrypted (ecryptfs). When you login, the relevant filesystem is decrypted and bind mounted over /home/chronos.
All of this is done locally, no network queries involved. I don't think that you lose your local files if your google account is somehow borked. You just lose the online aspects of that.
But as a general rule, your overall point about not being too reliant on googlopoly is one which should be well taken.
A true laptop-appliance with an immutable-ish OS, decent security and fast/easy updates is actually a quite compelling notion. I'd be pretty uncomfortable with it not being local-first for user data though.
Fedora Silverblue may suit your needs.
Aside from Linux distros per se though, I think there's a need for something like ChromeOS (preinstalled, appliance-like, as foolproof as possible), but without the deep single-corp dependence. Unfortunately I don't think the market in its current state is capable of filling this need.
BTW, chrome os is actually gentoo linux under the hood (with the portage pkg manager stripped out at the end). At one time, there was even a shell script doing the rounds which put portage back on it.
Your larger point re: Google reliance is still a valid one, but one which holds true even if you run chrome on another linux distro. If you really look at it, I'm not sure if a chromebook is less private than that.
Indeed, that was my point. Something like ChromeOS is a great idea.
> Your larger point re: Google reliance is still a valid one, but one which holds true even if you run chrome on another linux distro. If you really look at it, I'm not sure if a chromebook is less private than that.
Privacy's not my main emphasis. The world is in a state of gradual physical collapse. My (wealthy) region has had infrastructure destroyed by successive waves of fire and flood, and it will never recover (eg. we'll never again have year-round roads or always-on internet). We're the vanguard of what is coming to all. Entirely network-dependent devices aren't appropriate technology for our time. a fortiori for single-corporation-dependent devices.
Coincidentally, I've been doing a deep dive into offline-first, mesh & p2p related projects (nncp, yggdrasil, etc).
Would be interesting to see a linux distro with builtin plumbing for such things. Eg: constant snapshots, cached locally and then forwarded on to your other devices (once they are network reachable), all within a local mesh network that you define, which sits on top of the public internet (and bypasses NAT and firewalls)
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.
Chromebooks have easy access to developer mode which gives you root access to the host OS though, so it's kinda moot.
At any rate, Chromebooks sound more capable than I previously gave them credit for, enough so that they will now be part of my evaluation next time I upgrade.
Between the Framework Laptop now supporting Chrome OS and some of the info in this thread, Chromebooks and Chrome OS no longer seem like just the cheap Google Docs appliances for schools that I originally thought they were, which is pretty cool.
Perhaps the next iteration, though that means replacing the whole chassis/screen (those seem harder to repurpose than the mainboard)
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.
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?
Hopefully someone can take that fear away.
It's the same sort of cognitive dissonance as if a Michelin-starred sushi restaurant just announced they're adding a Subway Footlong sandwich to their menu.
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...
The Cr50 is as far from user-controlled as you can get. It can MITM your keyboard, reflash your firmware, and obeys only the holder of the private key corresponding to `LOADERKEY_A`:
http://www.loper-os.org/?p=2433
If the Chromebook is Google's take on laptops, then Cr50 is Google's take on the IME.
As I clearly stated, what is user-controlled is the sideband channel to debug the system on consumer hardware. The sideband channel under the current implementation of Cr50 is entirely user-controlled. This is a fact, as the end-user of the machine has control over the sideband channel.
I did not state any judgement about the GSC itself and its firmware.
And please don't start spreading FUD around hypotheticals of updates changing that. Yes it is possible. But a lot else and worse is possible under that scenario, so it serves no purpose but to spread FUD. And is still irrelevant to the content of the previous comment.
I am asking you, please do not ever derail what I say with FUD or out-of-context quotes ever again.
Thank you.