>>42685133
Possibly it's just that they've committed to supporting those distros if you report issues to FW, so if some bugs happen they might forward them to those distros/help triage and prepare fix/etc instead of telling you to do that yourself. It's just an x86 computer, thankfully you don't need to cook a dedicated OS image for each model. I'd just check TLP vs power-profiles-daemon, they recommend not using the former on Ryzen boards for some reason, and iirc that's about it. Firmware updates are delivered via LVFS mostly, and that works on most distros I guess. I should fix EFI capsule updates on my setup, I use efistub without a bootloader so I need to do UEFI upgrades manually from a pendrive, because LVFS doesn't expect that configuration.
I run Arch with KDE on both of mine, the only things I'd complain about and consider Framework related is screen brightness sensor not working in KDE (not implemented, Gnome has that) and some issues with inner screen sometimes turning off or freezing on Zen4 boards. I'm not sure if Ubuntu or Fedora are free from those issues, they both ship recent kernels and this is considered to be some bug in amdgpu driver. It's just that - support from manufacturer when things go wrong, vs support from community of random nerds. I'm okay with the latter, if I was in enterprise IT I'd prefer the former.
Coreboot/libreboot/canoeboot/IWTBIRD are not available, except for that 12 gen Chromebook variant, and some prototype for Zen4 someone did. I suppose openSIL on consumer Zen6 will make that more feasible.
>usecase for alternate boots or are they just a meme?
Well, there's certain degrees of proprietary software one can accept. I appreciate Stallman and the like for being the living examples of how things should be, but personally I reluctantly accept living with some blobs with current hardware.