Purism should not use/recommend Etcher for installs

The PureOS installation says to use Etcher for installs: https://pureos.net/download/

This means handing complete trust of both your old and new system to a third-party for-profit company which collects usage data etc. This goes against the Purism ethos of privacy, security, and trust.

Most users could just use cp or dd or diskutil (mac) to accomplish the same thing.


This tool is free software since it has Apache License 2.0

…which means @pum can point out what data they collect.

1 Like

What else is there? A simple search with DDG on “write iso linux” turns up the other than Etcher the following and I’m sure there are more:

  • DD
  • UNetbootin
  • Rufus
  • Balena
  • Ventoy

(linux added to the search string to weed out windoze results.)

My guess is the minimum data they collect is the number of installs. Like the Counting Count.

1 install, ha, ha, ha …
2 installs, ha, ha, ha …
3 installs, ha, ha, ha …


To those who don’t get the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_von_Count . Don’t watch the censored song.

1 Like

Well it’s not like it has a great history of earning user trust:


Seems weird that Librem wouldn’t recommend an alternative, given that complete control and authority of your “secure” “trusted” PureOS system will be given to this third-party, if you follow PureOS’ install instructions. They could at least mention / link to some alternatives. Right?


i’ll just drop this here in case anybody is in a mood for a TL;DR :

OP has a point. the Apache License is a permissive license. this means that the ‘legal-team’ wanted the possibility of ‘a-way-out’ … nuttin’ wrong with that. it’s the freedom to choose but it ain’t as ‘decided’ as the GPL license for example …

everybody is free to choose in ‘the-spectrum’ but i would urge people to not FORCE anybody into anything …

1 Like