12 ms·

"There's a lot of "don't blame Framework, blame Intel" sentiment in that thread, and while it's absolutely true that it's a flaw in Intel's driver for Intel's h

by curt15 4y ago

"There's a lot of "don't blame Framework, blame Intel" sentiment in that thread, and while it's absolutely true that it's a flaw in Intel's driver for Intel's hardware, that doesn't matter a whole lot to someone who's just spent a thousand dollars on a laptop that advertises strong Linux support. Framework is both lifted up and brought down by the many contributing parts of the Linux ecosystem, credit can't only be given for the positives." This. When my Mac has GPU problems, I don't complain to NVIDIA or AMD; I complain to Apple. Since Apple is the final integrator, it has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all parts work well together. Similarly, whenever a laptop is advertised by its manufacturer as "linux compatible" or "linux certified", it is their job to ensure that linux actually works out of the box.

caboteria 4y ago
"don't blame Framework, blame Intel" is a false dichotomy: it's OK to blame both at the same time.
- otikik 4y ago
  Indeed. Few things in life are free. Blaming others is free and free of consequences.
- nomel 4y ago
  > it's OK to blame both at the same time. You either do compatibility testing, and frame the marketing around the truth, or you have pissed off customers. There's not really an alternative in the hardware world. The logo on the exterior of the product is who they'll, rightfully, blame.
- pmontra 4y ago
  People usually blame the manufacturer they paid the money to. In this case Framework could have chosen AMD or tested with Linux or stated that Linux is unsupported on 12th gen Intel or... There are so many possibilities.
akvadrako 4y ago
> Advertised strong Linux support ? I looked at framework laptops and as far as I could see there is zero official Linux support. There are some community forums for it, but no warranty if something doesn't work or officially support distributions or anything.
- awinter-py 4y ago
  https://frame.work/laptop-12-gen-intel https://frame.work/laptop-12-gen-intel > Available in configurations with Windows 11 Home and Pro, we’ve also tested for compatibility with the most popular Linux distributions and written step-by-step setup guides for them. that links to https://frame.work/linux https://frame.work/linux > We designed the Framework Laptop from the outset to be a great Linux laptop > We deliberately selected components and modules that didn’t require new kernel driver development and have been providing distro maintainers with pre-release hardware to test to improve compatibility > We and members of the Framework Community Linux sub-forum have been testing a range of Linux distributions for compatibility with the Framework Laptop to highlight the ones that work best in fairness, 'tested' doesn't mean passed, and re 'highlight the ones that work best', none of the distros on the list appear to be highlighted
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
> When my Mac has GPU problems, I don't complain to NVIDIA or AMD; I complain to Apple. Does Apple actually do anything? I see plenty of people complain to Apple and it falls on deaf ears.
- selectodude 4y ago
  Enough people complained where they started making their own GPUs, I suppose.
  - majormajor 4y ago
    Apple did a recall back when this happened, too - https://gizmodo.com/apple-confirms-failing-nvidia-graphics-cards-in-macbook-5061605 https://gizmodo.com/apple-confirms-failing-nvidia-graphics-c...
- kiawe_fire 4y ago
  Sometimes, and it depends, but far more so than others in my experience. Perhaps most famously, when Nvidia manufactured defective GPUs, Apple launched a repair program at their own expense [1], and IIRC the fallout from this is what (at least somewhat) led to the severance of ties between Apple and NVIDIA. I’ve had multiple cases of bad GPUs, bad batteries and the like, and while Apple has denied me service before, they’ve repaired or replaced far more as a percentage than any other computer manufacturer I’ve dealt with. [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2015/02/19/2011-macbook-pro-repair-program-apple/ https://www.macrumors.com/2015/02/19/2011-macbook-pro-repair...
- vegai_ 4y ago
  Yes, they frequently fix bugs that have been reported. However, they do this pretty much completely in-house with no communication outside.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    It's funny because when using Fedora Linux I've encountered a bug, reported it on their bugzilla, saw it get assigned to an engineer and resolved. Fedora cost me $0
Zak 4y ago
Framework did choose Intel even though AMD's offerings in the low-voltage laptop CPU space perform better (and perhaps don't have the problems we're hearing about here). Maybe there were good reasons for that. Maybe it was parts availability or engineering support. The reasons aren't all that important to the end user though; Framework made that choice and bears responsibility for its consequences.
- p1necone 4y ago
  (repeating second hand knowledge from a past HN thread here) I believe Intel provides a lot more support to third parties around motherboard design and overall hardware integration - it's possible that this is the reason that AMD wasn't a practical choice.
  - philliphaydon 4y ago
    As far as we are aware they have never spoken to AMD. They avoid every question in relation to AMD. I'm convinced they are just Intel fanboys over at framework now and have lost any desire to buy a laptop from them. Initially I was super excited. Dies off when they don't want to answer questions when they say 'ill answer any questions...'
    - ruscurdotau 4y ago
      Linus "Tech Tips" Sebastian introduced the Framework team to the highest level people at AMD he knew last year after his investment in Framework but as of his update video a couple of months ago, nothing really went anywhere. I highly doubt it's a fanboying issue, they're a small company with big challenges and supporting multiple platforms is not easy at any scale. They also wouldn't want to say anything positive or negative that could sour relations with AMD or other partners in future.
      - wmf 4y ago
        supporting multiple platforms is not easy at any scale Indeed, but considering that Ryzen 5000 was better than 11th gen and Ryzen 6000 is better than 12th gen the solution is obvious: AMD only.
TheDong 4y ago
> This. When my Mac has GPU problems, I don't complain to NVIDIA or AMD; I complain to Apple. Since Apple is the final integrator, it has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all parts work well together. This is a significantly different situation than Framework's situation. Apple controls the hardware and the operating system. Framework only controls the hardware, not the software. Let's look at a totally hypothetical example: Let's say the Framework laptop ships with Ubuntu 22.04 running the 5.15 kernel, and the Framework folks test it carefully, it works great, all is well. Ubuntu then decides to ship an over-the-air software update automatically to the 5.17 kernel, which has a driver bug causing the laptop to freeze every minute. Ubuntu does this without consulting Framework, Framework has no chance to test it. Who's fault is the above? Is it Framework for not building their own operating system too, like apple did, and putting the software experience of their hardware in someone else's hands? Is it the linux kernel for breaking something? Is it ubuntu for shipping an update to a laptop the distro developers may not even own?
- opportune 4y ago
  Framework can pay a company like Canonical for testing and integration, run a fork of a common distro that they maintain, or make their own.
  - resonious 4y ago
    Yes. I was also going to mention that the entire point of Linux being open is that anyone else can modify it to fit their needs. If Framework wants to actually ensure support, they can create their own patches or hacks. Since it's popular, they'll probably get upstreamed and then everyone's happy.
- sanderjd 4y ago
  The answer to whose fault it is is: Whoever the customer thinks is at fault. Having a strong brand cuts both ways. If Framework develops a strong brand of "buy our stuff, it works great" (as I think they have!) and people buy the machines largely based on that brand, then that's obviously really great for Framework in lots of ways. But this is the other edge of that sword: they're going to be the one lots of people blame when there are issues. This is no different than the situation for decades with Windows and PC vendors. When I built a PC from commodity hardware and installed Windows on it, if something went wrong, I'd blame Microsoft, or the manufacturers of the components I used, or myself. But when I would buy an HP laptop, if something went wrong, that was HP's fault.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
asdajksah2123 4y ago
This is an ironic example because Apple fans (and Apple execs themselves!) spent years blaming IBM, and then years blaming Intel. The good thing is they found a solution. But despite being a hundred billion dollar plus company it took then anywhere from 5-10 years to find solutions in both cases. That a new startup hasn't been able to resolve it in less than a couple of years is significantly less worse than the blaming Apple and its fans have done. Edit: I was looking up some supporting articles and I completely forgot that before Intel and IBM, Apple was blaming Motorola: https://www.theregister.com/2004/07/15/apple_cpu_grumbles/ https://www.theregister.com/2004/07/15/apple_cpu_grumbles/
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  That's totally different in my opinion. It's not like Apple shipped something to your door that didn't work and said "Oh, that's IBM's fault". Complaining that IBM wasn't able to meet their demand seems utterly fair to me, though I don't know what the root cause of the delay was. But regardless, Apple was still standing by the products that they actually sent out.
- Terretta 4y ago
  Ironic because it only took a "consumer luxury brand" company 5-10 years to "find a solution" by making their own chip that runs circles around the top name brand CPU at a fraction of wattage? "If you're so unhappy why don't you try it?" may be a less popular rejoinder from future monopolists like Intel.* Meanwhile, how many assemblies of PC components in the shape of a laptop get a unique part number each year? Surely someone knows how to meld kit into a SKU and make sure important bits have drivers for the OSes you market. * If Apple starts grumbling about your chips, check your calendar. Not long till your lunch is gone. Every time.
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    Apple only just started making chips when they became a company earning $200+Bn revenues. They’ve been complaining about their chip makers since 1999 at least. The example is ironic. Apple’s behavior isn’t. They conveyed the truth. Just like Framework is conveying the truth. Is that a valid excuse for Framework? Not for their customers at least. Just like it wasn’t a valid excuse for Apple when it was selling absolute lemons with Motorola chips in them and then absolute lemons with IBM G4 chips in them towards the end of their IBM relationship, or absolute lemons which couldn’t support 32GB of memory when their much smaller competitors using the same chips had been doing so for years.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> Similarly, whenever a laptop is advertised by its manufacturer as "linux compatible" or "linux certified", it is their job to ensure that linux actually works out of the box. I disagree, given that there are a bajillion different Linux distros. To be clear, if Framework shipped a version of their laptop with Linux pre-installed, that to me would say they have tested everything together with that version of Linux, and I would expect it all to work, and if it didn't I would call up Framework. But (at least looking at their website right now), Framework only offers a "bring your own OS" version for Linux. The answer to the "Can I install Linux?" FAQ says "Yes! We have installation guides for Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint, Manjaro, and Pop!_OS. In the Framework Community, there are even more community-edited setup guides for additional Linux distributions." Perhaps I'm just jaded by all my experience over the years installing Linux on my own, but I'm never surprised when there are driver issues, etc. when I'm installing OS on hardware where it wasn't pre-installed.
- trelane 4y ago
  > Perhaps I'm just jaded by all my experience over the years installing Linux on my own, but I'm never surprised when there are driver issues, etc. when I'm installing OS on hardware where it wasn't pre-installed. and > To be clear, if Framework shipped a version of their laptop with Linux pre-installed, that to me would say they have tested everything together with that version of Linux, and I would expect it all to work, and if it didn't I would call up Framework. are exactly why I stopped doing that so long ago. I only buy from vendors that ship with Linux and which support it.
thefz 4y ago
Linux is not a whole, vertically integrated operating system but a kernel. Depending on which distribution you pick, there can be compatibility issues, related to the kernel used and corollary software. There's absolutely no comparison with Linux and OSX; maybe if such a laptop came out with BSD support, but it's still quite a stretch.
nrp 4y ago
Thanks for the feedback. As noted by folks elsewhere in the comments here, the lived experience with Linux on the Framework Laptop is highly dependent on which distribution you use, and specifically, the distros policy on taking on and delivering kernel updates. Our policy at Framework has been to publish setup guides for the most popular distros. Where we've been able to build bridges and get contacts in place with distro maintainers, we also deliver them hardware and reach out to them when folks in the community run into issues. The obvious issue with this is that when issues occur upstream, we end up reactive to them alongside Framework Laptop customers. There are several possible solutions to this (which are not mutually exclusive): 1. Building our own Linux distribution for the Framework Laptop. We don't believe this is a good business to get into, and we've seen strong distro preferences in the community that mean that even if we did this, we may not address a plurality of customers' needs. 2. Partner more deeply with specific Linux distributions to attempt to validate kernel updates on Framework hardware before they are accepted for release. We see this as much more viable than option 1, and it's something we are discussing with distros (and we would love to work with additional ones on this). 3. Provide more clarity in our recommended Linux distributions and setup guides around which ones have more conservative kernel policies that are unlikely to run into issues (Ubuntu LTS with an OEM kernel for example) vs ones that more aggressively update and have more risk of driver breakage as a result (basically all of the other distros we currently list). Also as noted in this thread, the risks here will be higher for newer platforms (Intel 12th Gen) than older platforms (Intel 11th Gen). This is something we are now going to prioritize based on feedback we've gotten in the community. We're always open to any and all additional feedback.
- ruscurdotau 4y ago
  Appreciate the response. My main advice would be to try and be as upstream-focused as possible. Partnering with distros is great, but if your hardware is well supported upstream, you cover everything anyone would ever want to use. If there's fixes that need to go into older distro kernel it's typically trivial to get them backported if they're already upstream. Making Ubuntu work fixes Ubuntu, making upstream work fixes everything - and you're gonna have a lot of users that like living on the edge with distros that follow upstream closely like Arch and Fedora anyway. Critically, the bulk of the resources on the distro side that would test your hardware as part of their regular testing are quite distant from upstream (Ubuntu is the closest, Fedora is largely community driven, RHEL and SLES aren't appealing desktop distros for most users), so having some upstream testing in-house would probably help a lot in getting ahead of problems. Maybe you could try and get boards into kernelci.org? They're mostly focused on ARM SoCs but they have x86 boards in there too, though I don't think there's much on the desktop side. The i915 driver which has caused me much pain and suffering over the last couple of weeks has some test automation that could be run too: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/ https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/ I'm sure there has to be more upstream automated testing initiatives for laptops but I'm not super familiar with that space. Oh and if anyone's interested I gave a talk back in 2020 about how Linux kernel testing is fundamentally boned here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fzd6MapG3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fzd6MapG3Y Good luck!

by curt15 4y ago

caboteria 4y ago

"don't blame Framework, blame Intel" is a false dichotomy: it's OK to blame both at the same time.

otikik 4y ago
Indeed. Few things in life are free. Blaming others is free and free of consequences.
nomel 4y ago
> it's OK to blame both at the same time. You either do compatibility testing, and frame the marketing around the truth, or you have pissed off customers. There's not really an alternative in the hardware world. The logo on the exterior of the product is who they'll, rightfully, blame.
pmontra 4y ago
People usually blame the manufacturer they paid the money to. In this case Framework could have chosen AMD or tested with Linux or stated that Linux is unsupported on 12th gen Intel or... There are so many possibilities.

akvadrako 4y ago

> Advertised strong Linux support ? I looked at framework laptops and as far as I could see there is zero official Linux support. There are some community forums for it, but no warranty if something doesn't work or officially support distributions or anything.

awinter-py 4y ago
https://frame.work/laptop-12-gen-intel https://frame.work/laptop-12-gen-intel > Available in configurations with Windows 11 Home and Pro, we’ve also tested for compatibility with the most popular Linux distributions and written step-by-step setup guides for them. that links to https://frame.work/linux https://frame.work/linux > We designed the Framework Laptop from the outset to be a great Linux laptop > We deliberately selected components and modules that didn’t require new kernel driver development and have been providing distro maintainers with pre-release hardware to test to improve compatibility > We and members of the Framework Community Linux sub-forum have been testing a range of Linux distributions for compatibility with the Framework Laptop to highlight the ones that work best in fairness, 'tested' doesn't mean passed, and re 'highlight the ones that work best', none of the distros on the list appear to be highlighted

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

> When my Mac has GPU problems, I don't complain to NVIDIA or AMD; I complain to Apple. Does Apple actually do anything? I see plenty of people complain to Apple and it falls on deaf ears.

selectodude 4y ago
Enough people complained where they started making their own GPUs, I suppose.
- majormajor 4y ago
  Apple did a recall back when this happened, too - https://gizmodo.com/apple-confirms-failing-nvidia-graphics-cards-in-macbook-5061605 https://gizmodo.com/apple-confirms-failing-nvidia-graphics-c...
kiawe_fire 4y ago
Sometimes, and it depends, but far more so than others in my experience. Perhaps most famously, when Nvidia manufactured defective GPUs, Apple launched a repair program at their own expense [1], and IIRC the fallout from this is what (at least somewhat) led to the severance of ties between Apple and NVIDIA. I’ve had multiple cases of bad GPUs, bad batteries and the like, and while Apple has denied me service before, they’ve repaired or replaced far more as a percentage than any other computer manufacturer I’ve dealt with. [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2015/02/19/2011-macbook-pro-repair-program-apple/ https://www.macrumors.com/2015/02/19/2011-macbook-pro-repair...
vegai_ 4y ago
Yes, they frequently fix bugs that have been reported. However, they do this pretty much completely in-house with no communication outside.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  It's funny because when using Fedora Linux I've encountered a bug, reported it on their bugzilla, saw it get assigned to an engineer and resolved. Fedora cost me $0

Zak 4y ago

Framework did choose Intel even though AMD's offerings in the low-voltage laptop CPU space perform better (and perhaps don't have the problems we're hearing about here). Maybe there were good reasons for that. Maybe it was parts availability or engineering support. The reasons aren't all that important to the end user though; Framework made that choice and bears responsibility for its consequences.

p1necone 4y ago
(repeating second hand knowledge from a past HN thread here) I believe Intel provides a lot more support to third parties around motherboard design and overall hardware integration - it's possible that this is the reason that AMD wasn't a practical choice.
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  As far as we are aware they have never spoken to AMD. They avoid every question in relation to AMD. I'm convinced they are just Intel fanboys over at framework now and have lost any desire to buy a laptop from them. Initially I was super excited. Dies off when they don't want to answer questions when they say 'ill answer any questions...'
  - ruscurdotau 4y ago
    Linus "Tech Tips" Sebastian introduced the Framework team to the highest level people at AMD he knew last year after his investment in Framework but as of his update video a couple of months ago, nothing really went anywhere. I highly doubt it's a fanboying issue, they're a small company with big challenges and supporting multiple platforms is not easy at any scale. They also wouldn't want to say anything positive or negative that could sour relations with AMD or other partners in future.
    - wmf 4y ago
      supporting multiple platforms is not easy at any scale Indeed, but considering that Ryzen 5000 was better than 11th gen and Ryzen 6000 is better than 12th gen the solution is obvious: AMD only.

TheDong 4y ago

> This. When my Mac has GPU problems, I don't complain to NVIDIA or AMD; I complain to Apple. Since Apple is the final integrator, it has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all parts work well together. This is a significantly different situation than Framework's situation. Apple controls the hardware and the operating system. Framework only controls the hardware, not the software. Let's look at a totally hypothetical example: Let's say the Framework laptop ships with Ubuntu 22.04 running the 5.15 kernel, and the Framework folks test it carefully, it works great, all is well. Ubuntu then decides to ship an over-the-air software update automatically to the 5.17 kernel, which has a driver bug causing the laptop to freeze every minute. Ubuntu does this without consulting Framework, Framework has no chance to test it. Who's fault is the above? Is it Framework for not building their own operating system too, like apple did, and putting the software experience of their hardware in someone else's hands? Is it the linux kernel for breaking something? Is it ubuntu for shipping an update to a laptop the distro developers may not even own?

opportune 4y ago
Framework can pay a company like Canonical for testing and integration, run a fork of a common distro that they maintain, or make their own.
- resonious 4y ago
  Yes. I was also going to mention that the entire point of Linux being open is that anyone else can modify it to fit their needs. If Framework wants to actually ensure support, they can create their own patches or hacks. Since it's popular, they'll probably get upstreamed and then everyone's happy.
sanderjd 4y ago
The answer to whose fault it is is: Whoever the customer thinks is at fault. Having a strong brand cuts both ways. If Framework develops a strong brand of "buy our stuff, it works great" (as I think they have!) and people buy the machines largely based on that brand, then that's obviously really great for Framework in lots of ways. But this is the other edge of that sword: they're going to be the one lots of people blame when there are issues. This is no different than the situation for decades with Windows and PC vendors. When I built a PC from commodity hardware and installed Windows on it, if something went wrong, I'd blame Microsoft, or the manufacturers of the components I used, or myself. But when I would buy an HP laptop, if something went wrong, that was HP's fault.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

asdajksah2123 4y ago

This is an ironic example because Apple fans (and Apple execs themselves!) spent years blaming IBM, and then years blaming Intel. The good thing is they found a solution. But despite being a hundred billion dollar plus company it took then anywhere from 5-10 years to find solutions in both cases. That a new startup hasn't been able to resolve it in less than a couple of years is significantly less worse than the blaming Apple and its fans have done. Edit: I was looking up some supporting articles and I completely forgot that before Intel and IBM, Apple was blaming Motorola: https://www.theregister.com/2004/07/15/apple_cpu_grumbles/ https://www.theregister.com/2004/07/15/apple_cpu_grumbles/

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
That's totally different in my opinion. It's not like Apple shipped something to your door that didn't work and said "Oh, that's IBM's fault". Complaining that IBM wasn't able to meet their demand seems utterly fair to me, though I don't know what the root cause of the delay was. But regardless, Apple was still standing by the products that they actually sent out.
Terretta 4y ago
Ironic because it only took a "consumer luxury brand" company 5-10 years to "find a solution" by making their own chip that runs circles around the top name brand CPU at a fraction of wattage? "If you're so unhappy why don't you try it?" may be a less popular rejoinder from future monopolists like Intel.* Meanwhile, how many assemblies of PC components in the shape of a laptop get a unique part number each year? Surely someone knows how to meld kit into a SKU and make sure important bits have drivers for the OSes you market. * If Apple starts grumbling about your chips, check your calendar. Not long till your lunch is gone. Every time.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  Apple only just started making chips when they became a company earning $200+Bn revenues. They’ve been complaining about their chip makers since 1999 at least. The example is ironic. Apple’s behavior isn’t. They conveyed the truth. Just like Framework is conveying the truth. Is that a valid excuse for Framework? Not for their customers at least. Just like it wasn’t a valid excuse for Apple when it was selling absolute lemons with Motorola chips in them and then absolute lemons with IBM G4 chips in them towards the end of their IBM relationship, or absolute lemons which couldn’t support 32GB of memory when their much smaller competitors using the same chips had been doing so for years.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> Similarly, whenever a laptop is advertised by its manufacturer as "linux compatible" or "linux certified", it is their job to ensure that linux actually works out of the box. I disagree, given that there are a bajillion different Linux distros. To be clear, if Framework shipped a version of their laptop with Linux pre-installed, that to me would say they have tested everything together with that version of Linux, and I would expect it all to work, and if it didn't I would call up Framework. But (at least looking at their website right now), Framework only offers a "bring your own OS" version for Linux. The answer to the "Can I install Linux?" FAQ says "Yes! We have installation guides for Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint, Manjaro, and Pop!_OS. In the Framework Community, there are even more community-edited setup guides for additional Linux distributions." Perhaps I'm just jaded by all my experience over the years installing Linux on my own, but I'm never surprised when there are driver issues, etc. when I'm installing OS on hardware where it wasn't pre-installed.

trelane 4y ago
> Perhaps I'm just jaded by all my experience over the years installing Linux on my own, but I'm never surprised when there are driver issues, etc. when I'm installing OS on hardware where it wasn't pre-installed. and > To be clear, if Framework shipped a version of their laptop with Linux pre-installed, that to me would say they have tested everything together with that version of Linux, and I would expect it all to work, and if it didn't I would call up Framework. are exactly why I stopped doing that so long ago. I only buy from vendors that ship with Linux and which support it.

thefz 4y ago

Linux is not a whole, vertically integrated operating system but a kernel. Depending on which distribution you pick, there can be compatibility issues, related to the kernel used and corollary software. There's absolutely no comparison with Linux and OSX; maybe if such a laptop came out with BSD support, but it's still quite a stretch.

nrp 4y ago

Thanks for the feedback. As noted by folks elsewhere in the comments here, the lived experience with Linux on the Framework Laptop is highly dependent on which distribution you use, and specifically, the distros policy on taking on and delivering kernel updates. Our policy at Framework has been to publish setup guides for the most popular distros. Where we've been able to build bridges and get contacts in place with distro maintainers, we also deliver them hardware and reach out to them when folks in the community run into issues. The obvious issue with this is that when issues occur upstream, we end up reactive to them alongside Framework Laptop customers. There are several possible solutions to this (which are not mutually exclusive): 1. Building our own Linux distribution for the Framework Laptop. We don't believe this is a good business to get into, and we've seen strong distro preferences in the community that mean that even if we did this, we may not address a plurality of customers' needs. 2. Partner more deeply with specific Linux distributions to attempt to validate kernel updates on Framework hardware before they are accepted for release. We see this as much more viable than option 1, and it's something we are discussing with distros (and we would love to work with additional ones on this). 3. Provide more clarity in our recommended Linux distributions and setup guides around which ones have more conservative kernel policies that are unlikely to run into issues (Ubuntu LTS with an OEM kernel for example) vs ones that more aggressively update and have more risk of driver breakage as a result (basically all of the other distros we currently list). Also as noted in this thread, the risks here will be higher for newer platforms (Intel 12th Gen) than older platforms (Intel 11th Gen). This is something we are now going to prioritize based on feedback we've gotten in the community. We're always open to any and all additional feedback.

ruscurdotau 4y ago
Appreciate the response. My main advice would be to try and be as upstream-focused as possible. Partnering with distros is great, but if your hardware is well supported upstream, you cover everything anyone would ever want to use. If there's fixes that need to go into older distro kernel it's typically trivial to get them backported if they're already upstream. Making Ubuntu work fixes Ubuntu, making upstream work fixes everything - and you're gonna have a lot of users that like living on the edge with distros that follow upstream closely like Arch and Fedora anyway. Critically, the bulk of the resources on the distro side that would test your hardware as part of their regular testing are quite distant from upstream (Ubuntu is the closest, Fedora is largely community driven, RHEL and SLES aren't appealing desktop distros for most users), so having some upstream testing in-house would probably help a lot in getting ahead of problems. Maybe you could try and get boards into kernelci.org? They're mostly focused on ARM SoCs but they have x86 boards in there too, though I don't think there's much on the desktop side. The i915 driver which has caused me much pain and suffering over the last couple of weeks has some test automation that could be run too: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/ https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/ I'm sure there has to be more upstream automated testing initiatives for laptops but I'm not super familiar with that space. Oh and if anyone's interested I gave a talk back in 2020 about how Linux kernel testing is fundamentally boned here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fzd6MapG3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fzd6MapG3Y Good luck!