Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Jean Louis]

Dear Zlatan,

I was using uzbl browser, and have just made few checks. I guess you
will not like it, according to your last response to me.

So, let us review the Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG)
in regards to the section Commitment to Correct Mistakes -- I just
recommend it to you, as a maker of free software distribution (to
become endorsed).

I am fully supporting your efforts, and only making an analysis based
on Free System Distribution Guidelines, by reading the guidelines, and
reviewing your website and information.

And let us review the section: Please Avoid Repeating Propaganda and
Confusion on
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

So, there is a link to words to avoid:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

FOSS:

For example FOSS, you are presenting your people as being members of
FOSS community. I am not against that, I just point out, maybe you
should not be so neutral.

FLOSS:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Apuri.sm+consumer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=site:puri.sm+FLOSS

And: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#FLOSS

I quote RMS: "The term “FLOSS,” meaning “Free/Libre and Open Source
Software,” was coined as a way to be neutral between free software and
open source. If neutrality is your goal, “FLOSS” is the best way to be
neutral. But if you want to show you stand for freedom, don't use a
neutral term."



Consumer:

Commenting on this boon to consumer freedom, Dr. Richard M. Stallman,
president of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), states,

“Getting rid of the signature checking is an important step. While it
doesn’t give us free code for the firmware, it means that users will
really have control of the firmware once we get free code for it.”

I don't know what Richard Stallman said. However, I don't need a
freedom as consumer, as I am not consuming your PureOS neither any
software.

While PureOS, may be "consumer-friendly Linux-based OS built using
entirely Free/Libre Open Source software (F/LOSS)" -- I am not willing
to step into the shoes of being a consumer.

Reference for above: https://puri.sm/posts/librem13-protects-privacy/

"Security and privacy-centric features come built-in with every
product Purism makes, making security and privacy the simpler, logical
choice for consumers."

Reference for above: https://puri.sm/posts/



“For free”:

If you want to say that a program is free software, please don't say
that it is available “for free.” That term specifically means “for
zero price.” Free software is a matter of freedom, not price.

Reference for above: https://puri.sm/pureos/ and "We believe that when
you own a laptop, you own it. You will not have to pay monthly charges
or recurring payments to keep your software up to date. All the
software is included for free when you purchase any Librem product."



"Alternative":

Zlatan, should I laugh or cry?

Reference:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Alternative

and on your page:
https://puri.sm/posts/alternative-free-and-open-source-software/

from your page:

"A common request for anybody using free and open source software is
“What would be equivalent to <insert_branded_software_name_here />?”
So we wanted to make a simple table that shows common branded
proprietary software and what free and open source software replaces
or is an acceptable alternative to it."

Other examples:

https://puri.sm/faq/how-to-find-alternative-programs-to-common-windows-or-mac-software/

"How to find alternative programs to common Windows or Mac software? "
-- "A lot of users are unaware of what alternative programs are
available for certain proprietary Windows or Mac software they would
like to use. The easiest way to determine what alternative programs
there are is to open up ‘Add/Remove Applications’, where you can type
the software you are familiar with by name to see a list of
alternatives." - by Todd Weaver



Closed:

Reference:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Closed

Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to the term
“open source.” In the free software movement, we do not want to be
confused with the open source camp, so we are careful to avoid saying
things that would encourage people to lump us in with them. For
instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as “closed.” We call it
“nonfree” or “proprietary”.

Reference of your site in relation to above:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Apuri.sm+consumer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=site:puri.sm++%22closed+source%22



The above comments are there for you to improve. It makes all the
sense to teach the users about free software and free software
movement, as a political movement.

Teaching others requires proper terminology. Otherwise users are going
to misunderstand it. You don't want that, right?

Proper terminology is asked in the Free System Distribution
Guidelines. 

The comments are not there to offend you. I am fully with you, and
just pointing out those sections, which you may improve in the
future.

Jean Louis
Geita, Tanzania