Maybe not 100% in the subject, but I just deployed a Wazuh instance to let me know how any of my hosts, containers and computers may have vulnerabilities. I found a crap load of holes in my services, and I'm halfway through squashing all of them.

If this is a hobby, that's sure to keep you entertained for quite some time.

Signal.

If you want t see Mr. Torvalds questioning this in the video in the link, go straight to minute 43.

Of course. What could possibly go wrong? 🙄

You're missing the point. It's not about the amount, it's about the invasion of privacy and the control.

Never mind the fact that paying for a license doesn't guarantee it won't break. In my experience, every Linux distro I've used has been much more solid than all Windows versions since Windows 8.

That is the solution. Connect your box to the internet, never the TV.

Independent firms hired by them? Right. I don't think "independent" means what they think it means.

Easy in terms of installing windows? No harder than a normal install in any situation. Easy in terms of usability? Can't even imagine ever trying. Have a hard enough time using my windows cloud r at work.

Let me see if I understand your logic. Microshit decides to push something sneakily on servers, and the OP mentions that he just found out about it, and never once does he mention that he doesn't know what to do about it, but and you assume he doesn't know, but and choose to blast him over your assumption.

Did I miss something?

Wao, this push against VPNs is getting ridiculous. We're all well aware that most VPNs are not private. But using a VPN has it's advantages. Geoblocked media, ISP snooping, and many other things you can circumvent. Not all VPNs are private, and even those we believe to be private, most users have to subscribe over trust alone, as we have no way of knowing if they really are or if what they describe as how they operate is true or not. But using a VPN sure beats just leaving your browsing visible to your ISP and local government.

You'll have the die-hard "XX is the best distros" and the "distros are irrelevant, choose a DE" answers here. The reality is that it will all boil down to your hardware, use case and willingness to tinker, in that same order.

For example, I love PopOS for laptops with Nvidia cards, only because I am used to the Cosmic version of Gnome PopOS has used all these years (looking forward to the proper Cosmic DE once its out), but for PC (regardless of GPU) I'd rather use Fedora KDE (customized to a Gnome feel) because I find it easy to customize to a very granular degree, and I feel Fedora has the best mix of cutting edge + stability.

As you can see, there's a whole lot of "I" in my comment. That's the beauty of Linux, whatever you end up sticking with, you get to make it as YOURS as you want it to be.

Arch derived distros require more carefully maintenance than most other base distros (RHEL and Debian), but are also great to actually learn Linux more deeply. RHEL derived distros, IMO, are a better balance between "it just works" and "I can make this happen", and Debian based are the easiest to maintain, mainly because it tends to be what the most popular distros out there are based on, which makes for a much larger community for when we hit a brick wall (when, not if).

Bottom line is that I believe you would be better off going the route you mentioned, and going through the pitfalls of each until you find that sweet spot.

And of course, once you're on that road, come and ask anything you want, most of us are always happy to help if we can.