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

[Jean Louis]

Dear Jeff,

I am actually visiting your website. So, no, I am not looking what you
have done 2 years ago. I click on your pages. I think you should be
endorsed, even if you have tasks to do yet, to adopt the software, and
adopt the teaching on your websites (alternatives to proprietary,
FLOSS, FOSS, open source and similar).

And I am not going to repeat again which "words to avoid" you still
have there on the website.

Jean Louis

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:55:07PM -0500, Jeff F. wrote:
> Le jeudi 10 novembre 2016 à 10:26 +0200, Jean Louis a écrit :
> > > OK, to be really pure, when you change the page, that it does
> not promote your products, than simply say so.
> 
> Jean Louis, we've been incrementally revising and improving the website
> contents for months in preparation for this. Just over the past 30
> days, I have done over nine hundred edits to the website contents, and
> I'm not the only one. I am not going to send you a press release
> everytime we do a minute adjustment. You're asking for something that
> is unrealistic and irrelevant to the request for PureOS to be
> recognized as a Free Software GNU/Linux distribution.
> 
> The most notable change to the PureOS website is that we were able to
> remove the headers and footers in the last few days, because we just
> couldn't do that until now for technical reasons.
> 
> And, truly, on a much grander scale, the website terminology has been
> "clean" for weeks and months now, much longer than a few days. Run this
> search if you don't believe me:
> 
> https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site:https://puri.sm+-%22and+open
> %22+%22open+source%22+OR+%22open-source%22+-forums&filter=0
> 
> The only reference that Google still has not forgotten is a PDF that is
> not present on the website anymore (since it was replaced with new
> normal pages).
> 
> 
> 
> > To that, I do not agree yet, I will agree once it really is so.
> 
> It is compliant with the FSF terminology (especially the PureOS
> website), and has been for a while. The search query above illustrates
> that fairly well for the case of F/LOSS etc. Don't go fishing out two
> years old historical (or archeological) content to complain about what
> is being presented today.