your view on pureos?
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
https://pureos.net/
puri.sm claimed they could build phones and new notebooks getting respect
your freedom certified. The impossibility of that goal was known. And puri.sm has not delivered. It made puri.sm liars and if buyers did not know better, puri.sm a skinner. How does pureos sail in regards of security and privacy? Have they thoroughly made sure puruos does not come
with software inflicting on peoples privacy? How does pureos stand about
security and privacy compared to trisquel? Any reservations about
using pureos? Thanks.
I think that's better answered on a Purism forum.
I am a translator!
Pureos is listed at https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.fr.html so I assume it is following the GNU FSDG.
I have heard some say that PureOS still uses a vanilla kernel. I am not sure if this is the case or not.
That being said, even if everything was freely licensable even their computers, they supposedly are not very good at their job. quite a few people reported hardware failures using purism's hardware and in some cases software.
So its likely that it wouldn't mean much even then due to reliability and other failures.
Although, its even more likely still that you shouldn't trust them no matter what at this point. They have been deceptive in many ways... so yeah.
I have heard some say that PureOS still uses a vanilla kernel. I am not sure if this is the case or not.
Then you had better not write that. According to https://docs.puri.sm/Software/PureOS/Overview.html "PureOS does NOT include any non-free proprietary software or firmware (aka binary blobs)" and, apparently, the FSF has not been given any reason to believe otherwise: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
> I have heard some say that PureOS still uses a vanilla kernel. I am not sure if this is the case or not.
My understanding is that it's not "vanilla" but nor is it Linux-libre. For one my understanding is that they leave the request_firmware calls in place. For various reasons I believe this was an oversight during the evaluation process.
That must be what the people who told me PureOS uses the vanilla kernel were seeing that made them believe this. Very strange, but not a sign that its non-libre. Someone would have to check who has better knowledge, such as yourself.
That only means PureOS' kernel recommends the "missing" proprietary firmware in error messages, doesn't it? PureOS' developers seem to care about that: I found https://tracker.pureos.net/T362 where they fixed such an issue. So, if somebody using/testing PureOS confirms the presence of such messages in the journal, it would be good if she could file a bug report with that tag: https://tracker.pureos.net/tag/freedom-harm_suggests_nonfree_package/
Well as long as it is fixed, its fine probably.
I never said it was true when it wasn't.
I said it was something I heard from some people. Meaning its inconclusive. Its possible though, that I heard this from someone who checked before this happened. Another words the problem for all I know could have been solved.
The only people who could know are the people who use PureOS or look at their source code and inspect it.
I don't have the experience to tell by looking so I won't to save myself and others irritation from getting things wrong
"Although, its even more likely still that you shouldn't trust them no matter what at this point. They have been deceptive in many ways... so yeah."
What does that mean? What deception?
More than anything, their crowdfunding hardware development.
Their hardware also has run into giant problems for users and at one point they tried to pass very new nvidia graphics cards in their hardware as libre.
Its... not great.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios