Linux vs Windows 11: 3 underrated and common features that make the open-source software superior

[NotDelusional]

ChromeOS is Linux. Linux isn't really even an OS, it is the kernel and ChromeOS is on the Linux kernel.
MacOS is on the XNU kernel which is based of FreeBSD. Both Linux and FreeBSD are brothers that came from Unix. Which is why they are referred to *nix.

This argument is like saying a Rolls-Royce is a BMW because they're both owned by BMW Group. Or Chrome, Edge, Opera, and Brave are all just Chromium even though all are maintained individually and none are open source. You also negate your argument by bringing up package managers and desktop environments, none of which apply to ChromeOS and MacOS in their intended use case. When people talk about Linux, they are referring to Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, etc. Google "Linux distros" and you will not find ChromeOS or MacOS listed. Redhat has none of them listed as "popular Linux distros" because no one considers them as such except for diehard Linux fans who are trying to inflate the Linux userbase.

ChromeOS, MacOS, Android, and iOS all work because they are containerized. Yes, you can hack your way around that, but the average user isn't going to be able to install a *nix app on ChromeOS or MacOS. They will be limited to the app stores. I wouldn't be surprised of Apple restricts ALL applications to the app store at some point in the future, but that is a different conversation.

A lot has changed over the years. For one package managers became better and many will warn you if your dependencies change or etc.

It was just last year that I was able to hose my Ubuntu environment by attempting to install a new version of Python. This is akin to a BSOD in Windows because you install the latest version of .NET. As far as FlatPak goes... now I have to troubleshoot within a container when the app developer fails to include a dependency in their FlatPak package.

For those who are worried of breaking things but have tech knowledge, I suggest trying NixOS. No more breaking things as you can always go between states. It prevents any package from interfering with others and you can always replicate states or go back and forth.

Exactly my point. Users shouldn't need to worry about breaking things in the first place. I haven't needed to use system restore on a Windows box since the early 2000's. And yet every time I install an application on Linux I need to worry if it will actually work. If I have all the needed prereqs. If installing those prereqs won't hose the rest of the system. Regular users would give up and go back to their PC or Mac.

You clearly have not been using linux that long if you think it is the same as it was 20 years ago.

I guess I should rephrase this to "most Linux desktop environments look like they were designed 20 years ago." Microsoft, Apple, and Google are consistently adding quality of life improvements to their OSes. I supposed I can watch dozens of YouTube videos to see if there is a Linux desktop environment that comes anywhere close. The average user would give up and go back to their PC or Mac.

If that is the case, explain why Android and iOS are beating Windows? Despite being *nix based.

Because Ballmer dropped the ball on Windows Mobile. And I still stand by my argument that although Android and iOS are *nix based, they are not Linux and 99% of the tech world agrees with this.

[A]

ChromeOS is Linux. Linux isn't really even an OS, it is the kernel and ChromeOS is on the Linux kernel.
MacOS is on the XNU kernel which is based of FreeBSD. Both Linux and FreeBSD are brothers that came from Unix. Which is why they are referred to *nix.

This argument is like saying a Rolls-Royce is a BMW because they're both owned by BMW Group. Or Chrome, Edge, Opera, and Brave are all just Chromium even though all are maintained individually and none are open source. You also negate your argument by bringing up package managers and desktop environments, none of which apply to ChromeOS and MacOS in their intended use case. When people talk about Linux, they are referring to Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, etc. Google "Linux distros" and you will not find ChromeOS or MacOS listed. Redhat has none of them listed as "popular Linux distros" because no one considers them as such except for diehard Linux fans who are trying to inflate the Linux userbase.

ChromeOS, MacOS, Android, and iOS all work because they are containerized. Yes, you can hack your way around that, but the average user isn't going to be able to install a *nix app on ChromeOS or MacOS. They will be limited to the app stores. I wouldn't be surprised of Apple restricts ALL applications to the app store at some point in the future, but that is a different conversation.

The are all *nix though, the reality is there isn't any actual difference between Linux distros. Even more so to the average user. The average user just interacts with the Desktop Environment and whatever apps come pre-installed. Linux distros are effectively premade choices of package managers, apps, DEs and etc. It is also why Mint can give a different experience(to the average user) based on which DE you choose despite being the same distro.

Trying to argue ChromeOS and Android are not Linux or MacOS and iOS is not BSD is like arguing that lions aren't felines cause they are so different from cats.

You do not find ChromeOS as a linux "distro" because it isn't "distroed". You can't officially install ChromeOS on a laptop.(You can unofficially). Your argument is like saying if BMW made limited production founder cars they gave out to select people. Trying to argue they aren't BMW cars because you can't find them on BMW dealer's website.

A lot has changed over the years. For one package managers became better and many will warn you if your dependencies change or etc.

It was just last year that I was able to hose my Ubuntu environment by attempting to install a new version of Python. This is akin to a BSOD in Windows because you install the latest version of .NET. As far as FlatPak goes... now I have to troubleshoot within a container when the app developer fails to include a dependency in their FlatPak package.

Ubuntu package manager isn't that great (unless you stick to Snaps), try OpenSuse's Yast or Nix package manager.

As for flatpak not including dependency, that is a packaging problem. It happens on windows too when they don't package a dll or running older/newer programs made for different versions of windows

For those who are worried of breaking things but have tech knowledge, I suggest trying NixOS. No more breaking things as you can always go between states. It prevents any package from interfering with others and you can always replicate states or go back and forth.

Exactly my point. Users shouldn't need to worry about breaking things in the first place. I haven't needed to use system restore on a Windows box since the early 2000's. And yet every time I install an application on Linux I need to worry if it will actually work. If I have all the needed prereqs. If installing those prereqs won't hose the rest of the system. Regular users would give up and go back to their PC or Mac.

Your example was a bit more than simply installing an app. Your example was installing python which is something a programmer would do. Since python is tied down to the OS dependency, breaking the version can cause problems. This is precisely why I like OpenSuse and Nix over ubuntu, because they let you have multiple versions with little issue of things breaking. But for regular users, Ubuntu is perfectly fine. They aren't going to break anything.

You clearly have not been using linux that long if you think it is the same as it was 20 years ago.

I guess I should rephrase this to "most Linux desktop environments look like they were designed 20 years ago." Microsoft, Apple, and Google are consistently adding quality of life improvements to their OSes. I supposed I can watch dozens of YouTube videos to see if there is a Linux desktop environment that comes anywhere close. The average user would give up and go back to their PC or Mac.

Many Linux desktop environments are sticking to older designs to capture the crowd that is swapping from Windows 7 as they don't like windows 8+

Now that is shifting more towards designs more closer to mobile with recent Gnome upgrade.

I suggest trying OpenSuse Tumbledweed with KDE Plasma 5.27 (Mix of modern and classic) and PopOS Cosmos (more mobile chromeos like feel). You can load it up in a virtualbox and play around. They are much more modern takes than Cinemon/Mate/XFCE that you get on Mint.

If that is the case, explain why Android and iOS are beating Windows? Despite being *nix based.

Because Ballmer dropped the ball on Windows Mobile. And I still stand by my argument that although Android and iOS are *nix based, they are not Linux and 99% of the tech world agrees with this.

They are all *nix, Android and ChromeOS are linux. Don't speak for the tech world. They are just not considered "Linux Desktop" though ChromeOS can fit into Linux Desktop. It can even run Linux apps, no hacking needed (as long as you are on x86)

[Adam393]

Have you installed Windows 11 recently? It asks you a lot of yes/no questions during the initial startup of a clean install, which gives you the opportunity to turn off most of the data Windows sends back to Microsoft, and only keep the data that's genuinely required for Windows to operate. None of these questions are defaulted to Yes, they have no default at all, and let the user decide.

Having said that, I personally don't mind enabling these options as (a) I don't have a problem with providing anonymized data to help Microsoft improve its products, and (b) it will help me see more personalized ads (if I'm going to see ads anyway, they may as well be personalized).

[Nightman]

Linux has sub-3% desktop market share, up a whopping 2% from where it was 10 years

Those are Steam player base numbers. Not total Linux desktop numbers.

The most accurate non_Steam stat puts it at just over 5% global desktop marketshare. But even that number isn't accurate due to the fact the Linux desktops usually don't have any telemetry, so those stats are built off of the browser user-agent from visitors to sites. So the real number is going to be higher.

And that puts Windows at about 82% for traditional OSes (Windows, macOS, and Linux) and that drops down to ~40% after you start considering newer systems like ChromeOS.

And that Steam Linux users count puts the raw number at just shy of 2 million players. And that's *monthly active* players, not total.

[Nightman]

which gives you the opportunity to turn off most of the data Windows sends back to Microsoft, and only keep the data that's genuinely required for Windows to operate.

Do you hear yourself when you write these things? There's nothing that can justify sending 15 bursts of data per hour back to Microsoft on my system when I'm writing a document or playing a game.

Having said that, I personally don't mind enabling these options as (a) I don't have a problem with providing anonymized data to help Microsoft improve its products, and (b) it will help me see more personalized ads (if I'm going to see ads anyway, they may as well be personalized).

"it will help me see more personalized ads"

"if I'm going to see ads anyway, they may as well be personalized"

I think... I think that just about says more than anyone can say here.

For your sake, I hope they at least put some sweet flavouring on their boots before you lick them.

[NikoB]

Most of all I am amused by amateurish statements about "open source code". Firstly, it is not 100% open - a lot of hardware only works with the manufacturer's binary drivers. Second, what % of the population is able to audit source code? And how many % of programmers on the planet? You don't need to answer. The question was rhetorical.

Linux is such a security hole from the moment you install it. But no one owes you anything.

And everyone who needs to raise their reputation in the resume in 99% of cases does it in order to get a better paying job. Those. novice developers, most often students (read amateurs). Nobody cares about security in Linux, because. no one cares about that.

Linux will never be able to significantly increase its market share, because it is not a commercial product where developers make money by creating it.

Has M$ been abusing its dominance for years? But this is not a question for its beneficiaries, this is a question for corrupt politicians and officials in the West and in general in the world.

[A]

Most of all I am amused by amateurish statements about "open source code". Firstly, it is not 100% open - a lot of hardware only works with the manufacturer's binary drivers. Second, what % of the population is able to audit source code? And how many % of programmers on the planet? You don't need to answer. The question was rhetorical.

A lot of hardware does not mean all hardware. Actually, many distros do offer open source only by default with proprietary drivers as optional. Most common hardware has open source versions these days.

Linux is such a security hole from the moment you install it. But no one owes you anything.

And everyone who needs to raise their reputation in the resume in 99% of cases does it in order to get a better paying job. Those. novice developers, most often students (read amateurs). Nobody cares about security in Linux, because. no one cares about that.

Not sure where you get this nonsense, security in linux is taken fairly seriously. And you aren't going to get a raise for knowing linux either, in many tech spaces knowing linux is just the bare minimum.

Linux will never be able to significantly increase its market share, because it is not a commercial product where developers make money by creating it.

It most definitely is a commercial product. It simply has a different model. Red Hat and Suse keep commercial versions of their OS, and have forks upstream for non-commercial. They along with Canonical sell extended security upgrades as well and support. Google also offers ChromeOS and Android.

Linux already owns the majority of marketshare in pretty much everything except the Desktop. Servers? Linux. Electronics with operating systems(like routers)? Linux. Mobile phones? Linux

[Lorinc]

There is one thing missing from most Linux distros, and what is also the ever-present issue of most open-source software: central direction.
Customizable, sure, but at what price? You have 5 different ways to change a simple setting, and 4 of them are only available from the Terminal. Vim is also customizable, and there is a reason why it's dying out (thank God).
As long as people are using operating systems, there must be human-centric design involved in the process of making software. Most Linux distros, even though secure, free and customizable, basic usability principles like visibility of state and discoverability are basically non-existent.

[A]

There is one thing missing from most Linux distros, and what is also the ever-present issue of most open-source software: central direction.
Customizable, sure, but at what price? You have 5 different ways to change a simple setting, and 4 of them are only available from the Terminal. Vim is also customizable, and there is a reason why it's dying out (thank God).
As long as people are using operating systems, there must be human-centric design involved in the process of making software. Most Linux distros, even though secure, free and customizable, basic usability principles like visibility of state and discoverability are basically non-existent.

That is dated view of linux, the issue you speak of is less an issue of distros and more of DEs. but many DEs have come a long way for streamlined experience, KDE and GNOME come to mind or COSMIC. You can run those DE's without going into console once. Or if you want ones closer to older windows, Cinemon and Mate give you a basic experience.

KDE especially has been working to make not just the DE but software more streamlined.

PS having 5 different ways to change a simple setting and 4 of them being from the terminal just means that you have 1 way to change things with is through GUI. Just cause you can change it also through other ways isn't really a problem unless they conflict with one another. Usually though they just all do the same thing. Just using different cli tools vs gui tool.

[NikoB]

A lot of holes found in the Linux kernel and uncorrected for 10-20 years, suggests otherwise. And my rhetorical question about the possibility of auditing the Linux code immediately nullifies the stupid propaganda that you have the source code. Who can test it in practice after each release? The answer is no one on the planet at its volume of change.

Pointing out that Linux is a commercial product is generally stupid, because it's about business. What should the average person do? For him, Linux "out of the box" is 100% insecure, prohibitively difficult to set up and use compared to Windows. There, by default, as in Windows, all network settings are made to allow any application and OS requests to the network. And this is unthinkable! The correct policy should initially be in all OS - "everything is prohibited" and then we only allow what we need, and not by corporations and authorities.

That is why Windows has been reigning on the market for more than 30 years, and "free" Linux still drags out a miserable share among individuals of no more than 1-2% of the population.

You can formally call Android a fork of Linux, but this is precisely a commercial OS. But even in it, on smartphones, there is no question of the real security of the owner's data - Google deliberately made Android so that it does not have a "out of the box" firewall that is convenient in terms of settings and UI, which can suppress any activity of applications and OS, if the owner wishes. Why is this done? Of course, in order to collect user data by criminal covert methods and sell it to the market, as well as use it for your own purposes.

What prevented Android from making a complete firewall that crushes any activity, including wi-fi, with simple and flexible customizable methods available to anyone (if desired) in advanced mode?

To restrict any downloaded software by access rights, regardless of their installation requirements? And it's very simple - then the creators of these applications will not be able to show ads (you can easily suppress them) and will not be able to steal your data.

Both Google and Apple and all smartphone manufacturers only pretend to be cynical that they care about the security of customer data - in reality, they do not care about it at all - they have the exact opposite task - to steal and secretly collect all your personal data. Therefore, both Android and iOS are made in this way, and not as it should be according to common sense, if the goal was maximum client security.

The most interesting thing is that the American and other intelligence agencies / state / are persecuting all startups that are trying to make alternative firmware that just eliminate all these holes. Under a plausible pretext, allegedly fighting crime and drug dealers.

In reality, the officials and security forces of every country in a nightmare see a situation in which citizens outside their control secretly correspond and conduct business.

So leave hope in the "open" Linux - there is not and never will be any security for the average layman. For a bunch of super-experts, maybe. But what does it change?

[A]

A lot of holes found in the Linux kernel and uncorrected for 10-20 years, suggests otherwise. And my rhetorical question about the possibility of auditing the Linux code immediately nullifies the stupid propaganda that you have the source code. Who can test it in practice after each release? The answer is no one on the planet at its volume of change.

And what holes are those? And so you know how linux kernel works is there is stable LTS branch and mainline branch. Most use the stable LTS branch and backport security fixes to older LTS kernels. So there is no need to audit everything at once.

Pointing out that Linux is a commercial product is generally stupid, because it's about business. What should the average person do? For him, Linux "out of the box" is 100% insecure, prohibitively difficult to set up and use compared to Windows. There, by default, as in Windows, all network settings are made to allow any application and OS requests to the network. And this is unthinkable! The correct policy should initially be in all OS - "everything is prohibited" and then we only allow what we need, and not by corporations and authorities.

Linux is a kernel, Linux distros vary. Many are as easy if not easier than windows. What you are describing is configuration of a firewall.

That is why Windows has been reigning on the market for more than 30 years, and "free" Linux still drags out a miserable share among individuals of no more than 1-2% of the population.

The real reason is because most oems have never even offered linux in the first place. People just use wherever they are given.

You can formally call Android a fork of Linux, but this is precisely a commercial OS. But even in it, on smartphones, there is no question of the real security of the owner's data - Google deliberately made Android so that it does not have a "out of the box" firewall that is convenient in terms of settings and UI, which can suppress any activity of applications and OS, if the owner wishes. Why is this done? Of course, in order to collect user data by criminal covert methods and sell it to the market, as well as use it for your own purposes.

Android is no different than many forms of Linux distros. Android would be like RedHat and SUSE. And AOSP would be like Fedora/Centos and OpenSuse.

What prevented Android from making a complete firewall that crushes any activity, including wi-fi, with simple and flexible customizable methods available to anyone (if desired) in advanced mode?

To restrict any downloaded software by access rights, regardless of their installation requirements? And it's very simple - then the creators of these applications will not be able to show ads (you can easily suppress them) and will not be able to steal your data.

It is there, any app that access the internet needs network permission, it is just not configurable by default. But not sure how it is relevant.

Both Google and Apple and all smartphone manufacturers only pretend to be cynical that they care about the security of customer data - in reality, they do not care about it at all - they have the exact opposite task - to steal and secretly collect all your personal data. Therefore, both Android and iOS are made in this way, and not as it should be according to common sense, if the goal was maximum client security.

The most interesting thing is that the American and other intelligence agencies / state / are persecuting all startups that are trying to make alternative firmware that just eliminate all these holes. Under a plausible pretext, allegedly fighting crime and drug dealers.

In reality, the officials and security forces of every country in a nightmare see a situation in which citizens outside their control secretly correspond and conduct business.

Not sure how any of this is relevant to linux itself. Linux/BSD are open source, as long as you don't violate the license you are free to do whatever you wish with it. Be it make a secure distro or insecure one.

So leave hope in the "open" Linux - there is not and never will be any security for the average layman. For a bunch of super-experts, maybe. But what does it change?

Most linux distros actually give option to not include telemetry by default. And shift to microvms and containers actually will allow much easier control over what apps can do and make it simple enough for the average user.

But even without that, as long as you stick to open source apps you can insure nothing is sent. You don't even have to audit the entire code. Just see if there is out traffic and then search in the source code the connection point.

[NikoB]

And what holes are those?

Don't play dumb. There are no less holes in Linux than in Windows. Everything is on the Internet. Take the trouble to find - if you don't want to - these are your personal problems.

And so you know how linux kernel works is there is stable LTS branch and mainline branch. Most use the stable LTS branch and backport security fixes to older LTS kernels. So there is no need to audit everything at once.

There are no stable branches. This is all a scam.

Many are as easy if not easier than windows

Why hasn't "free" Linux conquered the market among individuals so far? =)

What you are describing is configuration of a firewall.

Again you pretend to be a simpleton and a fool, but this number will not work with me. Security is main key for any OS. There is no security in any version of Linux - this is a direct hole in the Internet into which any software climbs, by default, whatever it wants.

No flexibly customizable firewall with a convenient UI - no security. The goals of creating Linux were 100% - Not security.

The real reason is because most oems have never even offered linux in the first place. People just use wherever they are given.

Again lies of the sectarian of the Lynx camp.

I bought a Dell G5 with Ubuntu LTS. Despite the fact that I'm a IT pro, I killed it OS in the layman mode in exactly 3 hours of settings, moreover, with the setting that OS herself suggested to me as a hint... After that, just followed the format of the disk and the installation of W10. =)

Android is no different than many forms of Linux distros. Android would be like RedHat and SUSE. And AOSP would be like Fedora/Centos and OpenSuse.

And they are all full of holes. There can be no question of any security there for a private person. =)

It is there, any app that access the internet needs network permission, it is just not configurable by default. But not sure how it is relevant.

And now you are stupidly and brazenly lying, conducting a dialogue with a professional. There is no protection from Wi-Fi access, system component access, etc. There is no integrity checking and no permission to run components individually and no expert mode. Even over the cellular network, protection is not complete, which is clearly proven by traffic leaks on Android on the second SIM, on which the traffic is paid. In all versions without exception.

Everything is done intentionally so that smartphones are an ideal device for stealing owners' data and tracking them by TNCs and the state.

And small companies that, in the same USA, are trying to make really secure firmware with p2p traffic encryption - are illegally persecuted by bandits on behalf of the US state (stationary bandits and organized organized criminal groups) on far-fetched pretexts, which clearly proves the criminal state of affairs with the security of the owners of most smartphones in the world. All this is done in such a vein INTENTIONALLY.

Not sure how any of this is relevant to linux itself. Linux/BSD are open source, as long as you don't violate the license you are free to do whatever you wish with it. Be it make a secure distro or insecure one.

I already asked a rhetorical question earlier (the answer is obvious to an adequate person so that the sectarians do not try to object) - how many people in the world are able to conduct a full audit of each new release (this must be done MANDATORY) of the current Android kernel and all of its system software? How long will it take for an audit, even for someone who understands this at the highest level?

How many companies actually post the source code of their firmware without violating the terms of GPL2/3 by hiding part of the code?

How many hardware drivers are in the source code? In reality, a minority.

Why should I repeat this if I have to deal with inadequate sectarians?

But even without that, as long as you stick to open source apps you can insure nothing is sent. You don't even have to audit the entire code. Just see if there is out traffic and then search in the source code the connection point.

Why in this mean and dirty world should I trust anyone?

Most are simply forced to agree to the conditions that are imposed on them. In an alternative scenario - they just become outcasts (at best case). And at worst case, as shown above, if they try to fight, they are declared as criminals by scoundrels from TNCs and the goverments.


That is why Windows, despite the fact that it is paid (although more than 60% of the world's population did not formally buy the rights to it, but in reality the mark-up for it is skillfully included in the cost of final goods at all stages of development), continues to be used by the majority of the world's population. Strange right? For some reason, people stubbornly refuse "open source" and more "safe" software, as crazy sectarians will assure - most of which are not even able to assemble OS/Soft from part of the available source code and less than 0.0001% of them are able to conduct a full audit of the code even in older versions...

[A]

And what holes are those?

Don't play dumb. There are no less holes in Linux than in Windows. Everything is on the Internet. Take the trouble to find - if you don't want to - these are your personal problems.

Windows has way more holes than Linux. The reason is simple, far more eyes on linux to vet code.

And so you know how linux kernel works is there is stable LTS branch and mainline branch. Most use the stable LTS branch and backport security fixes to older LTS kernels. So there is no need to audit everything at once.

There are no stable branches. This is all a scam.

What nonsense are you talking about, just cause you have no clue how linux works does not mean there is no stable branches. Stable branches are old code that is maintained for long period of time where only security patches are backported. Many stable distributions run 10 years + extended maintenance.

Many are as easy if not easier than windows

Why hasn't "free" Linux conquered the market among individuals so far? =)

Because oems don't offer linux. Only recently did they start offering a few laptops with linux and even then they are hidden from users.

What you are describing is configuration of a firewall.

Again you pretend to be a simpleton and a fool, but this number will not work with me. Security is main key for any OS. There is no security in any version of Linux - this is a direct hole in the Internet into which any software climbs, by default, whatever it wants.


No flexibly customizable firewall with a convenient UI - no security. The goals of creating Linux were 100% - Not security.

Security is more complex than just giving apps internet access or not. And yes there are linux distributions which isolate everything, for example Qubes OS, it runs everything in a VM while giving easy access.

PS Configurable firewalls exist for all operating systems

The real reason is because most oems have never even offered linux in the first place. People just use wherever they are given.

Again lies of the sectarian of the Lynx camp.

I bought a Dell G5 with Ubuntu LTS. Despite the fact that I'm a IT pro, I killed it OS in the layman mode in exactly 3 hours of settings, moreover, with the setting that OS herself suggested to me as a hint... After that, just followed the format of the disk and the installation of W10. =)

You are speaking nonsense you know right? Most of 90s and 2000s, you had no linux option, only last few years some oems offer linux options. And only on a few laptops, not every laptop. And they are usually hidden from most people.

Android is no different than many forms of Linux distros. Android would be like RedHat and SUSE. And AOSP would be like Fedora/Centos and OpenSuse.

And they are all full of holes. There can be no question of any security there for a private person. =)

They are good enough for banks and government agencies to use for their security.

It is there, any app that access the internet needs network permission, it is just not configurable by default. But not sure how it is relevant.

And now you are stupidly and brazenly lying, conducting a dialogue with a professional. There is no protection from Wi-Fi access, system component access, etc. There is no integrity checking and no permission to run components individually and no expert mode. Even over the cellular network, protection is not complete, which is clearly proven by traffic leaks on Android on the second SIM, on which the traffic is paid. In all versions without exception.

You are clearly not a professional. There is protection from wifi access, even on android wifi isn't turned on by default. You are free to run your android or computer without using wifi. And all systems have integrity checking and signing. Android has a permissions for networking, if you ever developed an android app, you would know you have to request network access. The only difference is that out of box android does not let users configure that permission, you just only get a list saying "this app has internet access". Aka, you can download apps that do not have network access and be sure they don't access the internet.

Everything is done intentionally so that smartphones are an ideal device for stealing owners' data and tracking them by TNCs and the state.

I am not disagreeing with that.

And small companies that, in the same USA, are trying to make really secure firmware with p2p traffic encryption - are illegally persecuted by bandits on behalf of the US state (stationary bandits and organized organized criminal groups) on far-fetched pretexts, which clearly proves the criminal state of affairs with the security of the owners of most smartphones in the world. All this is done in such a vein INTENTIONALLY.

You are confusing security with anonymity. Not the same thing. Obviously anonimizer will face some prosecution is it is also often used by criminals. that doesn't mean that everyone using them is a criminal of course.

Not sure how any of this is relevant to linux itself. Linux/BSD are open source, as long as you don't violate the license you are free to do whatever you wish with it. Be it make a secure distro or insecure one.

I already asked a rhetorical question earlier (the answer is obvious to an adequate person so that the sectarians do not try to object) - how many people in the world are able to conduct a full audit of each new release (this must be done MANDATORY) of the current Android kernel and all of its system software? How long will it take for an audit, even for someone who understands this at the highest level?

Just because everyone doesn't audit the entire code doesn't mean people don't. All patches submitted are audited by first the reviewers, and then by downstream vendors. Be aware most servers and many electronics all run linux. Many companies even have policies that mandate auditing

How many companies actually post the source code of their firmware without violating the terms of GPL2/3 by hiding part of the code?

No one is forced to post source code under GPL. Only if you distribute the code, the ones you distribute to have right to ask for the source code. You can bundle proprietary components without releasing their source fyi

How many hardware drivers are in the source code? In reality, a minority.

Most. It is enough that many linux distros start you off with open source drivers only and you have option for also closed source "optionally".

Why should I repeat this if I have to deal with inadequate sectarians?

But even without that, as long as you stick to open source apps you can insure nothing is sent. You don't even have to audit the entire code. Just see if there is out traffic and then search in the source code the connection point.

Why in this mean and dirty world should I trust anyone?

Most are simply forced to agree to the conditions that are imposed on them. In an alternative scenario - they just become outcasts (at best case). And at worst case, as shown above, if they try to fight, they are declared as criminals by scoundrels from TNCs and the goverments.

In linux, nobody is forcing you to trust anyone. You can be as cautious or as not cautious as you want. I you don't trust anyone, feel free to audit the entire source.

That is why Windows, despite the fact that it is paid (although more than 60% of the world's population did not formally buy the rights to it, but in reality the mark-up for it is skillfully included in the cost of final goods at all stages of development), continues to be used by the majority of the world's population. Strange right? For some reason, people stubbornly refuse "open source" and more "safe" software, as crazy sectarians will assure - most of which are not even able to assemble OS/Soft from part of the available source code and less than 0.0001% of them are able to conduct a full audit of the code even in older versions...

Not strange at all, if I go to dell's website and my only option is windows unless I jump a lot of extra hoops your result is going to be that. In the server space or electronics space, there is a choice between windows or linux. Weird how linux dominates there. Even on Microsoft's own Azure cloud, almost half run linux.

[NikoB]

Sorry dude, but I can't continue arguing with a deranged Linux cultist who simply ignores direct facts and lies about everything, and prefers not to answer direct questions.

Linux is not good enough today to even just check out new hardware when buying.

As you sat with your 1% of the world market 20 years ago, you will continue to sit. Until you get smarter and do what people need.

[A]

Sorry dude, but I can't continue arguing with a deranged Linux cultist who simply ignores direct facts and lies about everything, and prefers not to answer direct questions.

Linux is not good enough today to even just check out new hardware when buying.

As you sat with your 1% of the world market 20 years ago, you will continue to sit. Until you get smarter and do what people need.

Just because I disagree with you makes me deranged? Since you can't win on facts you instead resort to personal insults?

The world is already running on linux, from phones, to routers, to servers. The only space it hasn't broke through much is the desktop, a lot of it is due to it simply not being offered.

Lets play a little game since you believe linux is so easily available by oems, lets go to dells website, click laptops. Now use the filter results that they give you to find a linux laptop. (Not counting chromebooks which they have a whopping 4 options of). I'll wait how you demonstrate how easy it is to get linux for an average person from Dell.