That being said, it's also pretty easy to get a full linux shell and even install gui apps via flatpak or whatever.
Even the one major 'windows' app that my mom needs to use is going Web only... so I figure if I install Debian Stable + Widevine that'll cover 99.9% of the use case and I gain an OS that just works correctly.
Any particular reasons?
All 3 give it a solid thumbs up. "It never crashes", "It's so easy", "It's fast", "None of that Windows bs".
Besides, all major distributions (Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu) ship with a shim signed by Microsoft, and systemd..
*BSD is the only escape, but for how long?
> Linux is under control of the same companies
Linux is indeed open source, so are you trying to say that "Linux is EFFECTIVELY under control of the same companies VIA UEFI WITH SECURE BOOT ENABLED"? Or is there a big-Tech cabal controlling Linux in another manner? I get that most big-Tech companies are major contributors to open source projects.
> all major distributions (Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu) ship with a shim signed by Microsoft
Having a shim signed by Microsoft makes no difference if these distributions are being installed on hardware without UEFI firmware implemented on the motherboard’s SPI flash e.g. motherboards from Purism (Librem Laptops), System76 (Thelio, Galago Pro, etc.), Framework Laptop (2021 →), Star Labs, Raspberry Pi / Single-Board Computers and uncountable DIY PC builds with motherboards (ASUS, ASRock, Gigabyte, etc.) that expose Secure Boot options. It is usually only when consumer hardware is being used from major OEMs (Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.) that ship with only Microsoft’s key in the firmware trust database.
> and systemd
You are suggesting that “systemd” is also part of the lock-in or control (in your mind) of those distributions. But strictly in the context of shim and Secure Boot, systemd is not the same issue: systemd is an init-system/process manager in userland, not part of the firmware/boot loader signature infrastructure. Major distros use systemd, so from a “vendor/lock-in” narrative they may lump bootloader trust and systemd governance together. But strictly speaking your assertion is more of a opinion/ideological piece than a formal technical dependency.
> *BSD is the only escape
Not true. Not all Linux distributions use it — Tails, Qubes OS, PureOS, Alpine, Void, Gentoo, etc., deliberately avoid it. Most minimalistic, privacy, or DIY distributions refuse the Microsoft-signed shim route because their users are expected to control their firmware settings or use owner-controlled keys.
The YouTube drama you glossed over is the point: we've reached a stage where explaining how to bypass Microsoft's arbitrary hardware requirements gets censored for "physical harm"
On systemd: calling it a Red Hat/Microsoft, driven monoculture that mediates everything from device mounts to DNS is accurate, the same consolidation that gave us Microsoft signed boot chains also delivered one init system to rule them all, dismissing this as "merely ideological" is exactly how normalization works, by the time it's a technical dependency, it's alreadt too late, look at the "cloud" ecosystem..
You listed exceptions, but let's be honest, they are only just distros.. Tails and Qubes are security, hardened research tools, not daily drivers for "elderly relatives". Alpine, Gentoo and Void require deep knowledge, technical skills and an ongoing maintenance that defeats the "set it and forget it" goal
And yes, you can buy a Purism or System76 laptop, but that's the exception that proves the rule: you must pay a premium and choose their hardware to escape the shim problem, that's not freedom; it's choosing your corporate master from a smaller menu, all subject to the same master/ideology
*BSD remains the only ecosystem offering a complete, usable desktop without either a Microsoft signature or a sprawling, vendor, controlled init system, if that sounds hyperbolic, it's because the Overton window has already shifted so far toward corporate control that stating the obvious appears radical
Today Linux supports most HW but Tomorrow, if the Chip Security Act passes, chips will be legally required to contain tracking and kill-switch mechanisms, while the Act doesn't directly mandate Linux to restrict hardware support, it creates the legal infrastructure for exactly that: either mainstream distributions cooperate with the surveillance architecture or risk being barred from running on modern hardware
The 'choice' becomes BigTech-approved Linux that supports backdoored silicon, or niche distros that can't run on any new machine
I could continue with many more examples, but I feel like none of the people over hear understand the point
https://www.centerforcybersecuritypolicy.org/insights-and-re...
Strongly disagree on this one. All operating systems require maintenance of some sort, but you singled out Void and I find I'm doing far less maintenance with this one. Even with the venerable Debian, it always required some sort of regular maintenance to work around the bugs of it's legacy packages; Void does not have this glaring issue.
They need to do what? Browser, zoom, email client. They are never going to install anything.
All of these have great options on linux, and they work just as well.
Just put them on Debian stable and be done with it.