Framework puts a lot of effort into making its hardware easy to fix and upgrade and into making sure that hardware can stay useful down the line when it’s been replaced by something newer. But supporting that kind of reuse and recycling works best when paired with long-term software and firmware support, and on that front, Framework has been falling short.
Framework will need to step up its game, especially if it wants to sell more laptops to businesses—a lucrative slice of the PC industry that Framework is actively courting. By this summer or fall, we’ll have some idea of whether its efforts are succeeding.
↫ Andrew Cunningham at Ars Technica
A very painful read, and I’m disappointed to learn that the software support from Framework has been so lacklustre – or non-existent, to be more accurate. Leaving severel security vulnerabilities in firmware unpatched is a disgrace, and puts users at risk, while promising but not delivering updates that will unlock faster Thunderbolt speeds is just shitty. They have to do better, especially since their pitch is all about repairability and longevity.
This article has made me more weary of spending any money on Framework – not that I have the money for a new laptop, because reasons – and I feel more people will feel this way after reading this.
Very timely article. Was considering framework for next laptop, Sad to hear of the issues.
It’s a tiny company. So I am not surprised they haven’t had much support for these sorts of issues, sadly.
Pretty much. I’m not sure what people were expecting. Startups are 5 raccoons in a trench coat doing their best to not fail.
Yeah, I mean it makes all kinds of sense that they would be having these kinds of issues. I’d heard some good things from friends that did have them, but I haven’t really followed up. I don’t need another project thing to try to make work or that needs work from others to work as expected. I just want a tool that can be fixed/upgraded when needed with minimal fuss.
Software is hard. Especially software which powers hardware.
There’s a reason Linux vendors rebrand Clevo machines and focus on the software. It’s very hard to do hardware and software at the same time unless the company is at the level of Dell or HP. Young companies should pick one because they aren’t going to have the cash to do both. Early Dell focused on hardware and outsourced the software portion, for example.
Flatland_Spider,
I agree with your premise. However in my view not doing both is actually a plus. The ideal is for hardware companies to stay focused on making hardware great and ditto for software companies focusing on software. Consumer interests are best served when we are free to buy whatever hardware appeals to us and then to go distro hopping to see which environment works best for us independently of whatever mediocre software the hardware vendor puts out.
However, in practice the software+hardware bundling model is difficult to break apart once they are welded together. Obviously we’ve all seen this in the mobile and SBC markets, so I’ll bring up a new example: I’ve been eyeing some usb oscilloscopes that I’d like to buy. There’s tons of hardware options and it’s exciting to go through hardware specs and reviews to see which would be best for me. However the problem is that it isn’t just hardware qualities that matter since the vast majority of hardware is tethered to specific oscilloscope software. A buyer is not free to choose hardware and software independently. For example right off the bat many of them are windows-only. Others, like picoscope, have official linux support, which is what I want but the software is still proprietary. Over the years I’ve hit many barriers caused by proprietary software where the hardware vendor wasn’t interested in supporting me, rendering both the hardware and software less useful.
In the case of FOSS oscilloscopes, projects like sigrok exist and work, I am happy to use them, but the hardware support is limited since manufacturers won’t support the FOSS software.
https://sigrok.org/wiki/Supported_hardware
I’d like higher specs than the Hantek 6022BE and DSO-2090 and newer affordable models do exist with better specs but I can’t use them if I go the FOSS route. So do I go with an ancient scope supported by FOSS? Do I go with a one that has proprietary linux software? I haven’t decided yet, but how I wish I could buy products without having to make these compromises. Perhaps it’s unattainable, but how much better things would be if the manufacturers contributed to great FOSS projects that supported all the hardware. Not only would it be beneficial for consumers but it would cost less to sponsor FOSS development as well. Alas this is one of the FOSS selling points that never took off despite the huge potential for optimization. Companies would rather not work together even though it could be mutually beneficial.
I agree. It would be great if people could install alternate firmware packages or buy an empty board and fill it with their choice of firmware. That would solve the problem of negligent hardware companies.
In the case of Framework, people are buying a completed widget. It would be one thing if this was a project, like the PineBook, but that’s not what they’re selling. They’re saying they’re on the same level as the OEMs, like Dell, HP, or Lenovo, and they aren’t because those OEMs have a lot more experience with software part of hardware.
For the longest time, people didn’t care about the firmware running on the hardware, and most still don’t. It’s getting better though. The purists don’t get laughed at quite as much, and people are figuring out binary blobs of firmware aren’t the best idea.
Lots of hardware isn’t particularly special aside from the software running on it. You know, a hamburger is a hamburger unless it has thousand island dressing then it’s a Big Mac (TM).
The companies also figured out they could charge for maintaining the firmware and software. FOSS would be giving away billable hours.
In the case of Framework, I’m not sure how much FOSS firmware would help since it’s their own board rather then a commodity board.
Flatland_Spider,
I acknowledge this point, hardware companies want to be involved in the software loop for various reasons. Sometimes that’s warranted but even so, it would be so nice if they all joined resources working together rather than having everyone roll their own incompatible software. I think nearly all IT staff would be in favor of truly unified FOSS software solutions that worked regardless of brand (especially if it worked well 🙂 ), but it comes back to companies being willing to work together. This is usually not the case and the resulting discombobulation of stacks remains a source of perpetual frustration for us.
As a user I find it is empowering to be free from the vendor’s grasp.
Are you talking about missing drivers or something else? If drivers, then yes I agree it’s critical for the hardware manufacturer to provide these.
The non-stable linux ABI adds challenges of it’s own. Assuming the drivers can be mainlined in time for popular distros to incorporate them before customers posses the hardware, then it can be smooth sailing. otherwise due to linux’s inability to load drivers with a stable ABI you typically end up requiring custom kernels, which is a real disappointment if your goal is to not be bound to the manufacturer’s own OS. Yes, I know the linux ABI is an eternal debate, haha.
I agree with this. Financial incentives in business can go against broader public interests. Even if FOSS is a net good for everyone, individual entities may opt to prioritize their own greed. I’m sure there’s a “tragedy of the commons” argument there somewhere.
Risks on long term support is exact why I have not bought a Framework laptop yet. If I buy a laptop, I want at least 5 years of timely software and hardware support. I want spare parts to be easy to buy, even if it’s on ebay.
So this was a tough read, but within the article, AZ well as now posted here https://community.frame.work/t/enabling-software-longevity/49041 by FW, is what they have done in recent weeks, and are doing going forward.
We’ll see how it pans out, but I’m cautiously hopeful.