THE notion of GNU/Linux "preloaded" or bundled is very important because many people do not know how to install an operating system, then make it compatible with all their hardware (printer, camera etc.) and it's a lot harder with Microsoft Windows than with GNU/Linux. Many people wrongly assume that installing Windows is easy because the OEM already did all the work (and likely provided recovery media, akin to "factory reset"), whereas GNU/Linux had an uphill battle, so it needed to make installation a lot easier and more consistent/predictable than Windows. It's widely known by now that Linux has vastly better and more extensive hardware support than Windows (this has been the case for over a decade), so why don't more OEMs offer GNU/Linux by default? Is there something inherently wrong (technical) or sinister about it? Or is Microsoft still bribing OEMs (we've documented extensive evidence of it over the years)?

"It's widely known by now that Linux has vastly better and more extensive hardware support than Windows (this has been the case for over a decade), so why don't more OEMs offer GNU/Linux by default?"The video above alludes to something we don't wish to link to (giving it attention it does not deserve), but instead it speaks of the underlying issues. In an age of back doors everywhere, plus military-connected subsidies ("contracts") for large technology firms, we need to recognise that the available technology (readily available in the market) isn't made to work for computer users but against them, at least some of the time. So we need to respond accordingly; it's not something "revolutionary" or "activist" wanting to simply control one's machine (which one paid for). ⬆