On 2018年03月25日 13:26, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > While Purism did make claims it could not stand to it in timeframe it > wanted, Purism is still moving thing slowly forward and even has > constitution to defend such stand. Issues you have with Purism are not > part of PureOS and I mentioned Purism only in context that PureOS gets > bashed basically because Purism is behind it.
You can defend Purism or claim that PureOS is separate from Purism; either way, I have no problem with PureOS at this point. But it's a bit self-contradictory to try to defend Purism (and even use terms like "we" and "our" in relation to it) and yet say that complaints about Purism have nothing to do with PureOS. Regarding Purism and trust, I would suggest to Todd that he would regain trust a lot faster if the Purism website didn't have so many over-inflated propaganda articles. I understand that Purism is a for-profit company and some propaganda is to be expected, but this list of pages is just a bit absurd: https://puri.sm/why-purism/ Personally, I'm perfectly fine at this point with viewing Purism as a company with roughly the same standards as Think Penguin, and I would buy a product from them if it appealed to me the best out of all possible products in my price range. But not everyone is ready to accept Purism even that way, and what you're saying about Purism critics on this list isn't helping toward that end. As has already been said, you can easily destroy trust at the drop of a hat, but you can't just gain trust at a whim; it takes continual demonstration of trustworthiness over time through consistently good actions. -- Julie Marchant https://onpon4.github.io
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
