Why do all CSS frameworks feel like they need to mimic Foundation/bootstrap so much? Things like colour scheme, form elements and typography are all so similar.
Personally if I'm looking for an alternative to Bootstrap, these are the things I'll be looking at.
Please expand, how would you see fit a framework that isn't like the rest? I'd love to know. Personally I don't see a lot of room for innovation in design. The early 2000s had its table-based designs, and micro designs with small bitmap fonts.. that only appealed to a niche audience. Websites then were much less accessible and had horrible UX. In today's modern design, you're either flat (Foundation, etc.) or you're Bootstrap. If Yahoo didn't mimic the aesthetics of the most popular frameworks, people would complain about it being too different, and it would not gain wide-spread adoption.
It may need a bit of adjustment, but the homepage looks clear enough. It's a lightweight framework on top of which to build your own style. Bootstrap is for quick prototyping with an opinionated design. Pure is a lot more like Foundation, but much much lighter.
And as someone else mentioned, it's a very young framework (literally a couple of days old) that can still take any direction.
Because the 'skin' of the base components is not the problem most of these frameworks are trying to solve.
This framework seems to have very little to do with the look and feel you are after. Hence it's light filesize, and it's advocacy for a less opinionated style.
"...provides layout and styling for native HTML elements, plus the most common UI components. It's what you need, without the cruft."
"...minimal styles and encourages you to write your application styles on top of it. It's designed to get out of your way and makes it easy to override styles."
Bootstrap on the other hand, has a fairly opinionated design. That is to say, it does a lot of the 'look and feel' for you, and overriding those styles to create your own skin takes a fair amount of work. Pure seems to aim at making a uniform base of elements, without designing a lot of the skin... encouraging you to extend base classes more than trying to override them. And I applaud these types of frameworks.
Lastly, IMHO the solution for grid systems is different in many of these frameworks, and a lot of it comes down to personal preference and your project's requirements. This is a pretty big differentiation point for some people. Many frameworks have opinionated grid systems -- box-sizing: border-box, fluid vs. adaptive, first/last class names required on columns within a row, etc.
Personally if I'm looking for an alternative to Bootstrap, these are the things I'll be looking at.