The thing I most object to about that operation is its name and the name of
the OS they include. Purism and PureOS.
If there's one thing the Free Software Foundation, RMS, Trisquel, et al have
been accused of it's "Purism" and fair enough. There are many defensible,
desirable, worthwhile goals to pursue in software development and hardware
design: low price, high profitability, ease of use, attractive design, user
freedom, open source, privacy, high security, fast performance, lots of
storage, many features, widespread compatibility, domestic manufacture,
minimizing environmental footprint, high wages and benefits for employees,
etc. Many times, these goals are not in conflict but sometimes they are, and
that's where your true priorities come forward. What wins? FSF et al
advocate freedom first; whenever some other goal comes into conflict with
freedom, freedom must always, ALWAYS win.
Now most companies, including pro-"Linux" companies such as ZaReason,
System76, Entroware, etc., do not advertise themselves as putting freedom as
their highest priority. So while they might be criticized for putting other
goals such as latest-and-greatest tech specs, or broad hardware
compatibility, before user freedom, at least they're not trying to get the
benefit of putting freedom first (ethical halo, pre-orders, etc) while not
actually doing so.
But Purism does. Not only by its very name, but by its repeated statements.
It's trying to have it both ways. Look, if you're going to put the
latest-and-greatest tech specs first, if you COULD give your customers
COMPLETE freedom NOW (with hardware that supports Libreboot NOW) but you
choose instead to give them unfree hardfware and software with a promise that
someday in the sweet by and by they MIGHT be given freedom if it's not too
much trouble, fine. Just don't call yourself Purists!
