There are already far too many distros (and DEs) out there. Working with the commons would be a far better approach.
Once you start getting into specific hardware optimizations you are basically throwing up your hands on the interoperable approach that is a strength of Linux. There is no reason why those changes can't be upstreamed.
Please don't ask for their own Linux distro. Upstreamimg their hardware drivers is enough. Their resources are better spent innovating at the hardware level. And upstream support for frame.work hardware means frame.work users can take advantage of all the innovation happening in the linux ecosystem because all distros would run on it.
Yes, I can see some partnership with an existing distro (something like « merge our drivers asap and you get preinstalled ») but IMO, the company behind Framework should focus on its strengths on the hardware design. I think they are on a hard market and it would make me sad to throw money into making another distribution.
Furthermore, I think that, atm, their target market may be 95% of power users who will flash a usb stick with their favorite OS even before receiving the computer.
I think that have a working/unofficial? relationship with some people from Fedora. I remember announcements some time ago that everything is working with it. Also given Fedora's upstream first approach that was a very good choice of them.
Apple always had the advantage of controlling both the hardware and the software.
Also, in the Linux space, I had amazing experience with Raspberry Pi OS. Not only that it works well out of the box, but being the OS most people use on that specific hardware makes searching for answers to any issues much easier.
Ideally though it would be as close as possible to an existing distro and only include patches needed for good Framework support.
> Apple always had the advantage of controlling both the hardware and the software.
And this is exactly why anyone who likes that approach can & will buy an Apple laptop. Framework is clearly going for the opposite of that market. Instead of being a (necessarily) worse clone of Apple, I think it makes sense for them to cater to the market they are clearly aimed at, which is not people who are happy with a walled-garden system.
How is having the option, besides Windows, to order the laptop preinstalled with a default, well tuned and well supported Linux distro a "walled garden"? Also, most patches in this distro would presumably end up merged upstream anyway.
I was referring to the prospect of their spending time working on their own distro, at the expense (considering the finitude of human lifespans etc) of supporting others. As with so many arguments, your point makes total sense until you consider that human effort is a finite resource.
1) When are you planning to launch in India?
2) Have you thought about launching your own Linux distro optimized for Framework? You could upgrade Linux desktop experience. That would be awesome.