I think there will be no issue with that, the community is great, people are ready to spend time and provide information valuable for others:
I myself filled the HCL with similar level of details, including instructions for other users: HCL - Apple MacBook Pro (11,1)
Other users also provided a lot of details in their HCLs and forum posts in the recommended list topic (but still failed to get to the list for too strict criteria that should be lifted).
And users that are new to Qubes OS and not advanced enough to check the list, or ones who are not willing to proceed, can send HCL reports in usual way without additional info. These HCL reports are almost useless to my opinion for the community.
The result should be present as a big table that shows that almost everything works for recommended models. It is not a problem that something is not working or requires script/workaround if user knows it in advanced. Not all laptops work perfectly well even with GNU/Linux.
Models, that are not meet basic criteria of having something essential (like having VT-d, or sufficient memory) will not present int he recommended list at all.
About touchpad: user can decide themselves. You maybe do not value it that much but maybe some users choose the device based on how good touchpad is. So, it simply should be in the table to choose.
I think we should consider to direct users first to confirm if their computer works with Linux at all, for example here:
If they can’t find their specific model there, they should search for each specific part of it on the same site:
And then, and only then to come to our Qubes OS HCL, because previous lists are basically Linux HCLs. Experienced user here can confirm that not that rarely some devices weren’t working with Qubes because they actually never worked with Linux at all in the first place (no driver, or whatever). Sometime later, we should consider to encourage whoever to post their HCL reports to the site above, or maintainers to export whole QUbes OS HCL there. That could be a way to further promote Qubes.
At least that’s how I researched for my eventual choices.
I don’t really understand the core criticism of the Community Recommended Computers. Are you saying that there are many laptops working well with Qubes that are not on the list? Do you have data to confirm that? If yes, those computers will be included. Asking too much (like flawless support of multiple displays) may result in almost zero candidates AFAIK.
Not many, but some. And none of them are on the recommended list.
In fact, there are ZERO laptops on this list that can be bought in the usual (offline) shop or even online shop without cross-country or cross-continent delivery. No mass market means the list is almost empty from this perspective.
Yes, at least several Lenovo models work quite well, including S3 sleep. New user will never know about such cases with the current recommended list, which is almost a copy of certified list with online-delivery-available laptops only.
Nobody is asking that. It is just something that user should know in advance. About asking much: the demands of the current list are so strict that the list is almost empty (no mass market).
Graphics, networking, audio & suspend work without troubleshooting
Workarounds and troubleshooting are fine for users if there is information how to solve the problem. I believe there are/were some issues with the certified laptops (like NV41 required installation with kernel-latest only), intel graphics workarounds also apply and etc. It is all solvable, it is all almost the same as some of modern Thinkpads.
First of all, I do not think it is a good idea, to add something without proper details and listing all available and working/not working features. Even certified laptops lacks such information, so I do not consider it to be a great list.
Secondly, what do you think about this laptop (proposal by @moonlitOrca:
How can laptop like that not be on the recommended list? It looks to me million times better than any other option from the “recommended” list, because people can (could) actually go to the shop and buy it.
Add some kernel options, change some config and have great Qubes OS laptop. Users do this for GNU/Linux all the time, why it should not be the case for Qubes OS.
Well, I think we all are basically “now thinking with Qubes”, when outcome is. The way I see current situation is - today’s computers are immensely more compatible with Qubes than before. So I imagine we should encourage users towards that direction.
I bought my last laptop with multiple minor issues regarding either by design (no external display via iGPU, or is it Linux actually? This info you can get only by try-n-tell, no company will get you this info), or regarding Qubes, but I adjusted it (and myself in terms of habits) so I could virtually flawlessly using it with Qubes, never thinking some other OS could be on it.
If nothing has been done at this point for this issue, you may as well create your own database, table and HCL report script, then share it with the Qubes community to prove your implementation works.
@balko I believe that the difference between USB controllers and ports is (still) a difficulty. (I’ve no doubt you’ve noticed.)
As my two cents: I find the “how to check” that you did for checking if the touchpad/keyboad are connected over PS/2 very straightforward, if you know how to do a similar one for USB controllers, I believe that would help getting more data on this section.
Quick question: with the HCL reports, I never submitted one because one already existed for my laptop. Are users meant to submit a HCL report for machines that already exist to double-confirm the functionality? That seems reasonable to me, but I never realized.
Both require a kernel argument for S3 sleep, and it seems there is a workaround for brightness hotkeys (my 11th gen doesn’t need that), but everything else seems fully working. Does that help with recommendations?
Everyone, the idea behind the community recommended list was to have a list of computers that doesn’t require any workarounds or troubleshooting to run Qubes OS. That this list ended up having certified machines on it is kind of obvious as those must by definition be “just works”.
However there are other non-certified machines (P51, Librem and some more). That the list is short and contains older machines has two reasons:
Qubes OS will always work best on machines that are 2+ years old – by design. I get that some people don’t like that, but that’s just what it is. The forum is full of threads examining why that is.
I’ve not had any time in the last year to actively search the HCL for candidates. It’s quite possible that there are several computers that fulfill all the requirements but are not yet added to the list, which by the way is a Wiki.
To me once again this is one of those threads filled by well intentioned people that love to complain and through out ideas but it hasn’t occurred to anyone to invest a few hours to do research and maybe update the list. I can’t find the time for that right now myself, but then again that’s why it’s the community recommend list and not the Sven recommended list
I’m not sure where you got that idea from my report, @moonlitOrca. All I mentioned was suspend seems to work at first glance out of the box.
The criteria for community-recommended computers seem clear to me. The device should be able to install Qubes without any workarounds and the installation work out of the box. There should be multiple reports of such.
Coreboot plans being vaporware aside, I’m happy to advocate Framework for inclusion as a community-recommended computer.
But as far as I’m aware, clean Qubes installs only started working for Framework devices since one of the 4.2 release candidates. My report is the only one for 4.2.0, and there needs to be more of the same before you can nominate for inclusion.
There’s also the matter of USB GBASE-T adapters not working, but I’m not sure if that’s part of the criteria or not, as built-in wireless works fine out of the box.
@leee I am happy to hear that S3 works without any kernel arguments on the new hardware! I actually did not get the kernel argument from your report anywhere; it was my understanding that fedora always requires “mem_sleep_default=deep” to default to S3 on standby for any machine. If it works for you out of the box then I am mistaken.
I think job #1 should be doing what Flavio said - this business of “install Qubes to get an HCL report to find out if your computer can install Qubes” is unproductive. There should be a simple thing - maybe an Alpine based ISO - that does nothing but boot and inspect a machine’s hardware. There would need to be some way to forward the report, maybe by saving it to the thumb drive used to boot?
Thank you for popping in to clarify 