The type of people complaining about this are usually the people you don't want in your community to begin with, so I doubt Gleam is missing out here.

Or the contrary, the kind of people finding this cool is usually the people you don't want in your community. Nice to have clarity about who doesn't want to even bother to deal with whom.

This is a perfect example of what your club understands as "friendly" and "inviting".

It always ends the same way, always.

A user friendly distribution would be something like Fedora or Ubuntu, not "Arch but with some optimizations that probably won't matter much"

Or Mint? Works flawlessly for me when I need a Linux, which is not so often these days, but if I was still doing cross-platform software development it's what I'd use. Minimal fuss.

Mint is one of the greatest distributions to get started with for users coming from Windows. I've been using Fedora full-time for more than four years now, but before that I used Linux Mint for about a year. It's a great, seamless experience.

Only problem I believe is the lack of customization options in Cinnamon compared to KDE and even Gnome with extensions. I guess that makes the user miss out on some of the cool parts of owning your software. Also, being stuck in X11 will start to become a problem in the next few years: I'm waiting to see what they come up with on that front.

For Linux this will vary between distributions and configurations. For example, based on some testing I did today using mkosi [1] (for reasons unrelated to this discussion), a bare-bones Fedora 43 installation uses about 130 MiB of RAM, while a Debian installation uses a little more than 100 MiB.

IIRC last time I tried a bare-bones FreeBSD installation it used about the same amount of memory, maybe a little more based on how ZFS is set up.

[1]: https://github.com/systemd/mkosi

ZFS will happilly (and intentionally) gobble up available RAM for ARC. On my 64GB system, ARC is using 42.4GB, but this memory is quickly reclaimable if it's needed. That said, I had very bad experiences trying to run ZFS on an underprovisioned system.

The Dutch train system is not privatised, the government owns 100% of both the tracks and the main carrier: the NS.

It's very much privatised in the sense that it's operating on a for-profit business model, rather than a for-benefit model.

Same in Germany and basically all of the EU.

Dutch trains aren't as perfect as the Swiss, but still far, far, better than German trains. I think it was about 20 years ago when NS was ridiculed because of nonsense delays caused by leaves on the track (who would possibly expect that in the autumn?). I think they're better now. And intercity trains leaving every 10 minutes (between Amsterdam and Utrecht) helps a lot.

What's the battery life you're getting out of the Ryzen AI 9?

TBH I haven't deeply tested it yet. Laptop is a few days old and I'm still "automating the install" (Ubuntu autoinstall + Ansible tasks for post-installation including BIOS upgrade and install Nix + Nix and home manager to install everything else; post(s) upcoming), so I haven't done "production use" yet.

Anyway, and while I love long battery life, it's not my main concern. Most of the time I have a power socket available and/or a nice portable battery pack that does the job. Laptop feels so much faster than my X1 Carbon that everything else seems to be a distant second feature.

P.S. Hi, Yorick, again, not the first time we cross paths ;)

  > I don't really know what the "creaking screen" is about though. IMO the F16 screen and hinges are a higher build quality than the F13. I had to upgrade my F13 hinges to the 4kg hinges to keep it from bouncing and moving.

I think the comment was referring to the noise of the spacers, unless the author also thought it was in relation to the display. So to clarify, the display makes no noise whatsoever and neither do the hinges. The noise shown in the video is specifically about the trackpad and keyboard spacers.

Did you miss the following parts?

    Given my past experiences with X1 Carbon laptops breaking outside of warranty and the frustration that comes with replacing their components, I decided it was time to look for a replacement.
    [...]
    There are also some other issues with the X1 line in general, such as poor CPU cooling and the absolute nightmare that is opening them up to replace parts or clean them properly.

Maintaining an X1 is certainly possible, but it's incredibly frustrating and based on my past experiences with this series I strongly suspect other components will also fail in the near future.

> The author doesnt know what he wants and doesn't know what framework provides.

Indeed, I just pressed a "Buy now" button without a moment's thought. Clearly the fault is all mine.

So basically this article is 50/50 insightful and helpful feedback from a Framework customer, mixed with gripes by someone who bought the wrong laptop for them. Part of the reason this is getting a sour response is that most laptop companies don't even offer the choice of a larger, more expandable model. Framework does, and you bought it despite not actually wanting that, then dinged it for the compromises inherent in the design you chose. It seems like the 13.5" Framework was the obvious fit for your needs?

To use a silly food analogy, imagine there's a popular salsa company. The customer base has been clamoring for them to release an extra-hot salsa that also has corn in it, though that's a polarizing combination. A purchaser gives it a bad review because, in addition to some very legitimate critiques of the spice flavors, it's too hot and corn doesn't belong in salsa. People who wanted the extra-hot salsa with corn have a point when they say that person should have reviewed the medium salsa without corn.

All of the complaints you had are extremely reasonable reasons to not want the Framework 16 (or any Framework). While I personally am quite happy with mine, I very much believe that it is not for everyone, and in fact has quite a niche audience. That being said, most of your complaints should have been obvious from viewing images or reading any of the numerous reviews. So yes, I agree with the GP comment that you seem to have bought the computer without knowing what you wanted and/or what the Framework offered/was.

Being more expensive, heavier, and worse "fit and finish" is pretty much the tradeoff for upgradeability and repairability. Not everyone values those things to the same degree, and deciding that those tradeoffs are not worth it is completely reasonable. I just don't understand how you could get wind up buying one without knowing those were the tradeoffs you were making. I've read almost every one of these complaints in previous reviews. It's not exactly a secret.

The photos are just meant to illustrate the difference to the reader, not to be anything scientific. Of course manual calibration is ideal, but having a somewhat sensible default calibration isn't much to ask for and is in fact something many other laptops do just fine.

Problem is, display profile support for Wayland has been, at best, spotty until recently - and, there should be multiple accurate targets available on any good display panel.

My factory-seconds F13 (using 11th-gen Intel, still the best in terms of power savings) shipped with the older glossy display, which had a known, disclosed-as-cheaper LUT issue at lower brightness settings. After a couple of calibration rounds, it is spot-on and my go-to PC laptop.

Decent keyboard, too.

Of course, things are often more expensive in Europe (compared to the US) for zero good reason, so the F16 will always be at a proportional disadvantage compared to the F13. You may find that a much better fit.

I am aware that most people don't have any idea of what "display calibration" is actually about (which is primarily about display profiling), but the observation that the "The colors of the display are overly saturated, with reds in particular looking more intense than they should." seems to be to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening here.

The framework 16 has a screen that is more capable of displaying reds than either of your two comparison screens (X1 Carbon 2019 seems to have a sub-sRGB gamut, while the Eizo CS2740 seems to be designed to match AdobeRGB [which has a red primary that matches sRGB]). This is by design, as framework claims 100% DCI-P3 gamut coverage (which has a more saturated red primary than sRGB/AdobeRGB).

In terms of red saturation, the framework monitor is literally displaying superiority over the other two by demonstrating the capability to show more colours, yet it is being framed in a negative light here as being something that is "over saturated".

The responsibility to dictate how much of the display's capabilities (i.e. red saturation) to use to lies squarely in the software (and their associated colour-management systems), which require a display profile (ICC) that accurately models the display's capabilities (profiling), and thus allows colour-managed applications to appropriately scale their source colourspace values into the target display colourspace values. These display profiles are generated via colorimeters or spectrophotometers using specialized software.

Once an appropriate profile is loaded (for each screen), the output image should look identical on all screens that are capable of displaying the colours in the image (e.g. in an sRGB case, all three screens show show the same image, save for maybe the X1 Carbon being slightly desaturated). Correspondingly, attempting to display an image with a DCI-P3 space (that fully utilizes that space) will cause undersaturation on both your X1 Carbon and the Eizo CS2740 (i.e. the ability to show more red saturation is strictly a plus).

If your critique lies in the fact that framework laptop does not ship an appropriate ICC profile for their monitor, then fair enough. But I don't agreement with the statement that "somewhat sensible default calibration isn't much to ask for and is in fact something many other laptops do just fine." I don't believe many laptop manufacturer's ship reasonable ICC profiles at all, and mostly just rely on either the consumer liking the oversaturated look or by having their panels only be rated for around sRGB where implicit colour management (i.e. doing absolutely no colour management and having it work merely because the source and the target are the same space).

It is entirely possible that you do understand all of this and I'm making assumptions about potential misconceptions where none exist. However, you seem to have alluded to using Firefox as your main browser (which is not colour-managed by default) and your Eizo CS2740 being "properly calibrated (at the hardware level at least)," which to be suggests that you might be susceptible the misconception that I have pointed out. If this is not the case, then I deeply apologize.

Thank you for mansplaining what color calibration and accuracy means, but I'm well aware of how it works due to my background in photography and having spent plenty of time calibration displays in the past.

In particular, there's a big difference between "can show more colors" and "shows the same colors but overly saturated".

The Framework 16 suffers from this by default, something that's quite obvious when comparing it by looking at photos for which you know what the actual colors look like, something I did do but didn't cover in the article.

Whether this is because the display operates in a different colorspace by default (e.g AdobeRGB) or not I don't know, but there's at least no option for it anywhere in the BIOS that I could find.

Claiming the Framework is superior over a monitor literally meant for color grading and photography is laughable to be honest, and seems to suggest you interpret display quality as "more intense is better".

I may be wrong here but IIRC at least with the 7th generation you have to disassemble the whole thing to get to the keyboard. I'll have to take a look though, because if it's really that simple then I may be able to make my life a bit easier. Thanks for the suggestion :)