Did you see the criteria of laptop inclusion in the list? Show me two independent, appropriate HCL reports and I will add the laptops.
Yes. I think at least these 2 are bad:
- Qubes OS installs without any workarounds
- 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 ārecommendedā 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 ānow thinking with Qubesā, when outcome is. The way I see current situation is - todayās 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. (Iāve no doubt youāve noticed.)
As my two cents: I find the āhow to checkā 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.
I agree. I do not have guide how to check it properly, but, I hope, I will be able to do it for my laptop and will make a straightforward instruction.
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.
Anyway, I just did submit mine finally for the 11th Gen Framework: Framework Laptop - #34 by moonlitOrca
I donāt have any stake in Framework other than being a user, but I do think itās a great option for recommending to the community, and so I have just checked on the Framework 13th gen HCL page and it seems there are now at least 2 successful HCL reports: Framework Laptop 13th Gen, Intel - #3 by b34
and
Framework Laptop 13th Gen, Intel - #17 by leee
Both require a kernel argument for S3 sleep, and it seems there is a workaround for brightness hotkeys (my 11th gen doesnāt 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 doesnāt 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 ājust worksā.
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 ā by design. I get that some people donāt like that, but thatās just what it is. The forum is full of threads examining why that is.
-
Iāve not had any time in the last year to actively search the HCL for candidates. Itās 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 hasnāt occurred to anyone to invest a few hours to do research and maybe update the list. I canāt find the time for that right now myself, but then again thatās why itās the community recommend list and not the Sven recommended list
Both require a kernel argument for S3 sleep
Iām 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, Iām happy to advocate Framework for inclusion as a community-recommended computer.
But as far as Iām 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.
Thereās also the matter of USB GBASE-T adapters not working, but Iām not sure if thatās 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 āmem_sleep_default=deepā to default to S3 on standby for any machine. If it works for you out of the box then I am mistaken.
I actually did not know the Community list was a wikiā¦I probably should have looked firstā¦ Thank you for popping in to clarify
I think job #1 should be doing what Flavio said - this business of āinstall Qubes to get an HCL report to find out if your computer can install Qubesā is unproductive. There should be a simple thing - maybe an Alpine based ISO - that does nothing but boot and inspect a machineās hardware. There would need to be some way to forward the report, maybe by saving it to the thumb drive used to boot?
How would that be useful?
Pretty much every system works with Linux, but that doesnāt mean it works with Qubes OS, which is why the HCL exists.
If you have a computer in front of you and you are not a hardware wiz, how do you know if itāll run Qubes? Wading through the HCL and trying to work out if you can use it? Or a simple tool that gives you a yes/no answer in short order.
Saying that people should just use the āsimple tool that gives you yes or noā sound like you havenāt even spend 2 secs reading the support forum.
There are a wide range of issues from UEFI to Xen compatibility, itās clearly not as simple as Yes or No.
And itās not simple for a non-technical person to wade through all that and decide if the hardware they have will work. āEvaluate your machine for Qubes useā would be a useful tool to have.
I didnāt see this yesterday, but realized this was indeed the case when I poked a little more at the laptop yesterday, and updated the thread. Thanks for the catch!
Well, I see your point, but do we really need non-technical person to do this in the first place? Why not accept reports only from advanced users? It is not like we do need as many as possible. The quality of reports, being reliable and detailed is way more important, to my opinion.