Here’s a few I was able to find:
There was also an in-depth post from one of their former employees a while ago that went rather in depth on the issues with the company.
If nothing else I’d recommend reading the post by the former employee.
Either way, they fell of my list pretty hard in favour of the Pine phone.
Yeah I think Librem is actually making the Linux phone situation worse by negative publicity.
Pinephone is more honest and transparent and doesnt sell a 2000USD barely functioning phone that is “Made in the USA”. Yes it’s a very cheap hardware from China and we give no promises that it is good daily driver.
Hmm, this was 18 months ago though; would be interesting to hear what has happened since then.
I agree they need to be scrutinized, but have they actually made any progress on these issues? In my mind, the great companies are not those that makes mistakes, but the ones that identify, respond to and clearly communicate their mistakes. At the end of the day we are all humans.
As it stands though, not a recommended buy. Oh well. 
I am curious then, what is your use case here where specifically gamma is of importance to you?
Personally, I am interested in accurate colour calibration, which uses profiles that have more detailed information than just gamma values.
I too would be interested, but also how similar Linux-device brands like System76, Sailfish, or Pinephone are operating internally. I would agree that Purism’s behaviour is suspicious: half-baked online services, weird quasi-non-profit status, over-promising; however, I get the impression Purism sees more scrutiny than the others I mentioned, maybe due to branding itself as more ideologically driven?
For comparison: Sailfish opponents will cite the failed product (tablet?) launch that (last I checked a few years ago), it was still trying to pay its backers back for; System76’s opponents will cite that many of its designs have been Sager or Clevo rebrands, questioning the value-added. Pinephone does seem to quite a beloved underdog, which as @regulareel mentioned, could be due to its lack of expense and understanding of its status as a development board.
One of @marelooke’s links had comments referencing a cursory late 2019 pinephone review by Drew Devault, that could be useful to peruse. I myself am a bit apprehensive about an ecosystem built on Allwinner SOCs designed in the PRC (mainland China), but some might not care.
Personally, I would look for a phone to run Lineage or GrapheneOS, rather than entertaining the non-Android Linux phone market as it is.
Without a major change of management I have some doubts things will have structurally changed, given what was published…
I just want to point out that of the ones you list Pine is, at least as far as I’m aware, the only one that’s really in the same market as Purism, which is producing as open a phone as possible, at the hardware level. The others “just” sell devices with Linux preloaded.
How they operate, well it’s hard to know, but at least the others have delivered solid products already and, at least as far as I’m aware, no disgruntled employees have surfaced yet, nor any articles calling out company bs. Which, if nothing else, means that their hitmen are better than Purism’s 
Sailfish did build phones at first, before its current software licensing model, but you are correct that open source was not its priority.
However, there is/was another open-source company that was building phones around NXP’s IMX.8 SOCs, Necuno, who worked with KDE for a time, but I have not heard much about it recently. If I am recalling correctly, its phone was wildly expensive as well.
Anyway, my main point with Purism is not that I have high hopes for immediate future of the phone project, but I am cautiously optimistic that its return to laptops (Librem 14) is a sign that the company might be turning a corner. As @wertigon mentioned, hardware killswitches are really a nice idea; I would love to see them take off.
I believe so. Windows had the same problem with font scaling once high DPI displays started to become widely available. Some apps were fine. Others, not so much.
As a guy who threw away USBs drives thinking they were dead only to realize I didn’t compile USB storage into my custom kernel, there are a lot of pain points with linux, especially with Gentoo.
idk, there’s probably more. I still love Linux and will probably use it until the day I die, but it is by NO MEANS perfect
What really grinds my gears is the tease of virtual GPU’s that loomed for several years.
AMD SR-IOV teased and teased with every new chip and kernel patch. I knoiw the last few years we are jaded.
general IO performance and the whole audio stack comes to mind .-.
bad graphics drivers should not be able to prevent USB polling, or freeze audio, or hang the entire system just because they feel like being slow.
I think we have to say that’s only Gentoo. Most linux users never custom configure/build their kernel. And I’ve created non-working Windows systems with customization tools like nLite, so the pain points are there with any system you insist on customizing to that degree.
Doesn’t matter. RAID-5 is dead. Don’t use it. Anywhere.
If you cant learn new things your stuck as a cave man.
If you want skekchy now try stratis. Redhat / IBM want u too 
And there rockin BTRFS 
Why hate grub? Too complicated? This is fine for me. I have used GRUB4DOS, which is more complicated, and grub2 supports more file systems. This allows me to easily boot Linux mirroring from a USB flash drive.
And as far as I know, even without UEFI boot manager, LINUX kernel can be directly booted by UEFI firmware, EFISTUB is faster than Systemd-boot.
Fine, then does BTRFS have a functioning RAID-Z2 (RAID-6) equivalent though?
Regardless, not everyone can afford to “mirror or nothing”, and if you have a filesystem like ZFS, even an unrecoverable sector during rebuild of a RAID-Z1 will leave you in a better spot than no-parity at all, if the following is to be believed:
Server Fault - ZFS - Is RAIDZ-1 really that bad?
… With ZFS, on the other hand, it will reconstruct all but the bad chunk, and let the administrator “clear” the errors. You’ll lose a file/portion of a file, but you won’t lose the entire array. …
It is not really an issue with learning if there is a sea of old warnings, old workarounds, and rumours; and there are no good reliably up-to-date sources to learn from. One could argue that is the tradeoff of a free operating system, or anything that is provided “as is” without “merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose”.
I agree that the lack of coherent and up-to-date documentation is a problem, but this is not only a symptom of Linux, Windows suffers from this too. The difference is that more often than not, an outdated fix for Win XP is often clearly labeled as “Win XP” while in Linux land you often only know the date posted. So it’s worse in Linux but in no way unique to it.
Remember - there are a lot of us who make a living on Linux. We are as dependent on good documentation as you are, which is why there is one person at my work working full time to create decent documentation for our parts. This trickle down to consumer level eventually but since consumers aren’t exactly a priority in embedded Linux, well…
So I take it you would never use BTRFS like fedora would ?
So I use Ubuntu, because of the vast wealth of information I can stumble across. But as it becomes more systemd’d I notice more and more how the current mechanics are diverging from what went before.
On the flip side, the devs are doing really well to make it as seamless as they can.
I hardly mess with my laptop, and it rarely encounters issues.
I constantly tinker with my desktop, and am constantly discovering different parts of the operating system or conf files or system services, as they fail, or I break them.
DDG has still pretty much covered the bits man pages don’t though…
But Yeah, guides a little frozen snapshots of a time when things worked that way
Only to experiment with, but not as a reliable storage medium — I have not done a thorough comparison of BTRFS vs ZFS documentation, but frankly the reputation and cross-platform support of ZFS is more important to me and I will happily tolerate a rougher learning curve for that if necessary.
Maybe I am wrong, but I suspect that decades on, OpenZFS will probably outlive BTRFS, and for any marginally-serious data, I would want to have the best chance of reading it in the future; even if cost constraints had driven me to a “suboptimal” RAID5/Z1 setup.
My mental model is roughly,
1-drive < RAIDZ < ZFS mirroring
So if BTRFS strips away that middle option, it is substantially less useful to me.
Here’s one for the suck book for Linux; specifically FEDORA 33.
This morning I run:
crontab -e
And it opened, by default in nano. Really… I am very disappointed.
On the bright side visudo still opens with vi. But for how much longer
What is your $VISUAL and $EDITOR ?
It would be really hilarious if one would be nano and other vim.