3 ms·
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
by NoraCodes 4y ago
Right, absolutely. That's a choice that people get to make - they can either buy a Framework laptop that does have the ability to change out the OS, or if their threat model requires it, one that doesn't. Either way, they get upgradable components and future-proofing. I don't see how that's a negative for freedom.
- seabrookmx 4y agoI'm not opposed to this device and actually think it's kind of cool. I use a Lenovo Duet as a secondary device and generally enjoy ChromeOS. But I see your statements as a little contradictory.. unless I'm missing something. > this is a total validation of the idea that security does not require a locked-down device > but the device is locked down in a way.. > Right, absolutely Maybe we are using different definitions of "locked down." I just wanted to point out that there is a trade-off here. You are giving up some freedom that most DIY'ers would expect (arbitrary OS choice) by choosing the ChromeOS version. > they get upgradable components and future-proofing. I don't see how that's a negative for freedom Agreed. Consumer choice isn't a bad thing!
- NoraCodes 4y agoOh, 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.