Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoraCodes | Hacker News Reader

I absolutely disagree. If anything, this is a total validation of the idea that security does not require a locked-down device.

View on HN

But it is locked down, in a way. It doesn't ship with a regular UEFI bios so you can't just install an alternative OS.

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

Agreed. Consumer choice isn't a bad thing!

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com