Talk:Purism (company)

Pre-order info - encyclopedic or advertising?
See Talk:Librem and please continue discussion there. Boud (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

minor borderline vandalism
The user has been warned for claiming that Purism will distribute Windows and Microsoft software. (Apparently Microsoft has started free-licensing some of its software, so sooner or later some of that may make its way into the free software ecosystem. But the source does not state anything at all like that.) Boud (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

advert tag
This article was tagged as an advertisement in with the not-very-detailed explanation sheesh. To avoid the claim that this is a flyby tag, the specific problems, apart from a vague feeling, should be listed here. The word "flagship" was an advertising buzzword, but overall, the present state of this article, in terms of being NPOV and factual based on sources, doesn't seem to differ so much from e.g. Intel Core or any of many other Wikipedia articles which effectively advertise a company's products, but are accepted as satisfying encyclopedic style and standards.

Please either list the concerns here or fix them. The article is short enough that fixing them would probably be faster than listing them.

If no specific claims are given within a reasonable delay (one week? it's already nearly a month since the tag was posted without further explanation), then the tag can safely be removed as per Help:Maintenance_template_removal. Boud (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Rename page to "Purism, SPC" instead of "Purism (company)"
"Purism, SPC" is the formal name of the company and therefore should be preferred over "Purism (company)" which was created to distinguish the company from other meanings on Purism (disambiguation). Anton.bersh (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know I'm almost a year late to this, but currently Purism, SPC redirects to this page. Would it be better if the article was on Purism, SPC and Purism (company) redirected there? SebastianTalk - 22:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Questionable information in History section
"...an attempt to manufacture an Intel-based high-end laptop for Linux with "almost no proprietary software"." To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), the laptop doesn't contain "almost" no proprietary software — it contains none at all. I looked through the citations for this statement and they all seem to suggest that the intent was for the laptop to be 100% free software. The quotation is no-where to be found. Is there a better citation for this, or should this be re-worded? SebastianTalk - 22:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I looked through the history of the page and through the cited sources. The exact wording "almost no proprietary software" comes from the first referenced source. Does it help?--Roman Riabenko (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added that as a citation there for now, because it wasn't a reference on the current revision for some reason. Although I may modify that section's wording, because that source also says "Want a laptop that runs free and open source software, and only open source software?" contradicting with the "almost". It's also a strange thing to quote in my opinion. I'll have to do a bit more research though to ensure that it actually has no proprietary software. SebastianTalk - 23:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the "almost" refers to the fact that the laptops still a partly proprietary BIOS, which Intel makes really difficult to avoid apparently . I added a clarification to this article; the intro of Librem already dances around this a bit. By the way, this is the reason why the FSF's list of recommended laptops still doesn't contain Purism products. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's good to know. Is this only true for the laptops, or is it also true of the Librem 5 smartphone? If this only applies to the laptops, it may be better to move that to the "Laptops: Librem 13 and 15" section. SebastianTalk - 22:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The processor of Librem 5 is not Intel and the processor's firmware is free, but the firmware of the cellular modem is proprietary 12. Roman Riabenko (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've also just added that into the article (and moved HaeB's addition into the laptops section), though admittedly it fits a bit awkwardly in at the moment. I may do some clean-up later. SebastianTalk - 21:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)