If you want to own your computer, linux is where it's at. Windows is rusty iron chains and MacOS's are gold-plated silver pretending to be gold, but they're still chains.
I would love to move my gaming PC to Linux but until the kernel devs permit kernel-level anti-cheats, or an equivalent, I refuse to give up games that I love. It's nearly impossible to play multiplayer games now without KLAC. The cheating is out of control.
Unfortunately this is an ideological hill that many Linux devs are willing to die on, so we're at an impasse. Valve claimed to be working on a solution, and if there is any company which can negotiate an accord, it's them.
It's very fortunate that Linux devs do not tolerate this DRM crap. What you are asking for is to turn Linux into another Windows, at which point there is not point.
If you're not willing to stop using harmful software that's your problem.
And let's not forget that cheating in online games is only an issue because companies have co-opted what was a social activity between people you know (or at least can get to know) into a more profitable asocial e-peen measuring contest between randoms.
If that's the tradeoff, then yes. I don't know. I keep a Windows partition for Fortnite to play with one of my friends, and I miss the days of CS:S with 64 player zombie mod.
I don't know if enabling KLAC in Linux can happen without opening nasty doors for other software. If it existed, perhaps one could have different kernels to boot into: One for the invasive software that one boots into for gaming and a secure kernel for normal work, perhaps even with different userspaces.
Online cheating as existed for as long as online games have existed. Long before companies cared about online gaming as a serious generator of revenue. There is a certain percentage of the population which enjoys hurting others and making them have a bad time. The anonymity of online games allows them to be antisocial with very few social repercussions.
I think equating having the option of KLAC with Windows is totally disingenuous. There are countless other differentiators. You would be free to just not use KLAC if you so desired.
The "anonymity of online games" is much greater than it used to be. It used to be standard practice for people to host their own private servers and play with people they knew. This naturally filtered anti-social behavior because people knew they wouldn't get invited back. And public servers were a more casual environment, where the occasional cheating wouldn't ruin any serious competition.
I recently started playing a game that installed "anti-cheat" software that has done absolutely nothing to stop the amount of cheating in the game but it has made my Debian desktop unstable with random gnome and application crashes caused by their poor software. I never had crashes until that garbage got installed. It works exceptionally hard at preventing me from streaming my games I used to not have an issue with
kernel level invasive garbage would be beyond destructive and still not solve the problem
If it's on Linux then it wasn't kernel-level anti-cheat, and therefore mostly useless. It's not surprising that it did nothing to slow down cheating. Even KLAC can be circumvented. It increases friction and cost for cheaters but it doesn't solve the issue completely.
Ideally you would be free to not play KLAC games, and I would be free to play KLAC games. I just hope for the option one day, as I would very much like to make the move to Linux.
It stops a lot of people cheating and usually keeps it at a manageable level. This isn’t a binary choice where we can only expect perfect solutions, and in their absence, we throw up our hands and declare the problem intractable. KLAC is much better, and I’ll take that.
I think you're missing my point: there is no KLAC for Linux, therefore if you wish to play a game with less cheating, you choose a game which requires KLAC. Therefore, you do not use Linux. Your comment is a non-sequitur.
Except that some games use KLAC on Windows, but also have Linux versions that don't use it, so whether you use Windows or Linux is irrelevant.
If you choose to play Windows-only games because you think that is protecting you from some nebulous group of cheaters who moved to Linux to aid their cheating, I think you don't know the cheat landscape well.
Cheat makers primarily operate on Windows, not because it's easier, but because that's what most players still use. This idea that you're going to avoid cheaters by staying on Windows is honestly the opposite of true. MP games with Linux clients are not the games with massive cheating problems.
The real problem is that servers are now entirely the domain of the companies running the anti-cheats. We used to run the servers for most of these and could ban cheaters. But the game companies demand we play the game their way, not our way. We've really lost something.
I agree, it's a curve. I don't think we'll ever completely eliminate cheating, but we can make it so difficult and expensive that most people don't do it. That's good enough for me.
I don't really understand why people insist on treating cheating like something that has to stop. Back in the days before the Internet was a thing, just playing board games, cheating also happened. There are even board games designed around the concept of deception.
Play single player games, then you can complain about cheating AI opponents.
If this post bothers you and you feel the need to defend yourself against it or something, realize I'm not the one making it true. Nothing you say to me can change this.
It's worth having a look at https://areweanticheatyet.com/. I found that the most of the games I play which use anti cheat work on Linux. It's also not hard to dual-boot windows as a backup, though I haven't had a use for my windows partition yet.
Thanks. I intentionally avoid games without KLAC now because the cheating is so bad. The most recent example is Arc Raiders. Such a fun game at launch, very quickly overrun by cheaters. They eventually added KLAC but because they also offer a Linux build, they could not stop the cheating. The game is mostly dead now, [down to just 6% of its peak.](https://steamcharts.com/app/1808500#All)
> When your grandkids ask you what you did with your finite time, is "I pwned noobs" the answer you want to give?
You are being ridiculous. First, unless the person was a professional gamer they would probably answer with the time they spend at work and time time they spend raising their family. But let's assume the grandkids specifically asked what they did for entertainment.
The answer would then be something like "I got together with my friends and we played the popular online games together". They would probably also mention any other things they did a lot of entertainment, too.
Wow, you really dont understand the concept that people are different and have different opinion do you. You are entitled to think what you want, but why tell other people they are wrong in what they think and like?
Feel free to list out all of your hobbies and what you do in your free time and we will all critique it for you.
How is Exapunks[1] anything like a slot machine? Or Slay the Princess[2]? Or Minecraft? A blanket statement like "video games = slot machines" just doesn't work. I won't deny that there are many games that are predatory/mindless, but video games are such a broad medium.
Playing slot machines absolutely is many peoples' hobby, unfortunately.
As others have said, why don't you list out your hobbies (as I did mine), so we can understand exactly what recreational activities you think constitute "valid" hobbies? That will also make it easier for me to explain the difference between video games and slot machines to you.
What are you on about? You clearly don't like video games and think they're a waste of time, which is fine. Other people do like them and find them fulfilling for whatever reason, which is also fine.
Why are you trying so hard to "prove" that someone's hobby is a waste of time?
True story: I know a woman who built a relationship with her tween nephew on the other side of the world mainly by playing Fortnite with him ever week for two years - all for free because she never bought a skin.
But why do you like them? What do you get out of them? What's the benefit?
I've watched people play slot machines. They sit there and pump money into the machine for no real benefit to themselves. Why are video games any different to that?
I get fun out of them. I don't mean to sound snide, but do you really not understand why people play video games? I derive fun from many places, like hiking, reading, movies, music, and video games. Do you not derive fun from your hobbies?
A video game allows you to develop your skills and use your brain in a complex way (especially true of competitive multiplayer games). A slot machine is played by mindlessly pulling a lever.
To be equally reductive, how is any hobby more than playing a slot machine? It’s just pulling a dopamine lever.
I do not believe a hobby needs to yield social value. I believe it is sufficient to derive enjoyment from the activity itself. You don’t need to personally enjoy my hobbies, just as I don’t imagine I would enjoy yours.
I'd say it's less reductive and more the objective reality.
> I do not believe a hobby needs to yield social value
I didn't say anything about social value. I'm talking about value to you individually.
I don't think you've answered that question. I don't see there is any value. I think you're pushing buttons to make the blinking lights blink differently, just like a slot machine.
Any activity you enjoy is enjoyed because it produces a dopamine release (for someone who enjoys it).
People who enjoy reading get the same dopamine reaction from that as people who enjoy video games. Or slot machines.
The difference with slot machines is that the purpose of them is solely to tie that dopamine release to giving away money predicated on deception (specifically, both by not disclosing actual odds, and by lying about them).
A slot game that requires no money to play isn't a problem, because it's not tricking old people into giving away their pensions.
> to tie that dopamine release to giving away money predicated on deception (specifically, both by not disclosing actual odds, and by lying about them)
So just like loot boxes in video games.
> A slot game that requires no money to play isn't a problem
So similarly you should only be playing opensource and freeware video games that aren't designed to extract money from you.
Which is why people have specific problems with loot boxes, yes. But most video games don't have loot boxes.
> So similarly you should only be playing opensource and freeware video games that aren't designed to extract money from you.
"Paying to purchase a game", and "paying to wager money on or in a game" are 2 different things.
I'd also have no issue with someone buying an actual slot machine to sit in their house, so they put in money but also keep the money they put in. But people don't do that because they're not playing for the gameplay, they're playing for the gamble.
I want to clarify to anyone reading this that this only effects high-competitive games, like LoL, Valorant, PUBG, R6S; and not all of them (e.g. Counter Strike).
It does not affect "multiplayer" in general, to the contrary, most multiplayer games are not affected (coop games, MMOs, RTS).
| It's nearly impossible to play multiplayer games now without KLAC. The cheating is out of control.
Ofc, cheating is also present with KLAC, its just the next level of the cat and mouse game (Driver exploits, DMA access via PCIe, Network Packet analysis, ...)
| Unfortunately this is an ideological hill that many Linux devs are willing to die on
Nonsense. 1. Almost no anticheat is implemented on Linux in the first place. Most "working" anti-cheat solutions for Linux are just a #if Linux doNothing(); #else ... 2. KLAC requires SecureBoot/ChainOfTrust + closed source code running with highest privileges. This does not make sense for any PC, but I dont see why it would be harder to do on Linux than on Windows, Linux just has a smaller install base in general and a lower acceptance rate for KLAC, therefore its not worth it to implement.
I would like to respond because you're speaking authoritatively but this is mostly your opinion.
> I want to clarify to anyone reading this that this only effects high-competitive games, like LoL, Valorant, PUBG, R6S; and not all of them (e.g. Counter Strike).
It affected a game I really care about: Arc Raiders. That's not a "high-competitive" game. It's PvPvE, shooting at funny robots and scavenging rubber duckies. Cheating killed the game. [It's down to 6% of its peak.](https://steamcharts.com/app/1808500#All) Just because this hasn't affected the games you love doesn't mean it's not affecting many games. See Titanfall, H1Z1, and The Cycle: Frontier, among many more.
> It does not affect "multiplayer" in general, to the contrary, most multiplayer games are not affected (coop games, MMOs, RTS).
I was going to ask you to back that up, but I realise I made a broad claim and can also not back it up, so we're just giving each other our opinions, I suppose.
> Ofc, cheating is also present with KLAC, its just the next level of the cat and mouse game (Driver exploits, DMA access via PCIe, Network Packet analysis, ...)
Indeed. The goal is to reduce cheating to a manageable level. It is impossible to eliminate.
> Nonsense. 1. Almost no anticheat is implemented on Linux in the first place. Most "working" anti-cheat solutions for Linux are just a #if Linux doNothing(); #else ... 2. KLAC requires SecureBoot/ChainOfTrust + closed source code running with highest privileges. This does not make sense for any PC, but I dont see why it would be harder to do on Linux than on Windows, Linux just has a smaller install base in general and a lower acceptance rate for KLAC, therefore its not worth it to implement.
Linux does not properly support KLAC because its architecture and development philosophy work against it. For example, Valve explicitly recommends user-space anti-cheat for Proton and says kernel-space anti-cheat is “not currently supported and is not recommended”.
The Linux kernel also deliberately does not provide a stable binary kernel-driver interface. Kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman has said that Linux has neither a stable in-kernel API nor a stable binary kernel interface, because maintainers want the freedom to change kernel internals rather than permanently support proprietary out-of-tree drivers.
Riot is on the record as explaining that Linux does not give Vanguard sufficient ability to attest boot state and kernel modules. They also claim that distribution differences make enforcement harder, and that cheats can potentially operate outside an emulated environment where the anti-cheat cannot see them. Riot is on the record saying that anti-cheat is “extremely hard on Linux by design”.
So you're technically correct, but I think you misunderstand a lot of the architecture which underpins this issue, and the ideological boundaries which many developers prefer to enforce around security, FOSS, and ownership.
| I would like to respond because you're speaking authoritatively but this is mostly your opinion.
Sorry, I felt inclined to respond to your broad claim "It's nearly impossible to play multiplayer games now without KLAC".
XKCD 'Wait, Honey, sb. is wrong on the internet', we both know it.
| Indeed. The goal is to reduce cheating to a manageable level. It is impossible to eliminate.
I agree with the goal, but KLAC is not an acceptable way to get there. I would rather suggest to:
- dont trust the client
- really dont trust the client
- support / let customers host the servers (they are the ones who will put in the time required to deal with cheaters, and they will also be there once the devs/publisher have abandoned a game)
- Use statistics a lot more: mark outliers for review, and until review, aggressively move them to their own matchmaking bracket.
- Implement a "demo"-style replay format for matches/sessions (which therefore contains all inputs of all parties). Make all "ranked" or eq. matches publicly available (no names/chat, just the gameplay) and people will develop tools in their free time to detect cheaters.
Also: Have a simple trust score (Account age * Money spent), and act more aggressive on people with low trust score.
Let new people improve their trust score by reserving ~$100 on a credit card which will be billed if the account gets banned for cheating.
I do wonder if AI could be used to statistically identify likely cheaters, but as with all statistics, some innocent people will be caught, and many guilty people will not be caught. Existing server-side anti-cheats have been trying to use some variation of statistical analysis for at least a decade, with poor results. It's not hard to program movements based on statistical modeling of pro players and ensure the movements remain within a standard deviation of that. Aim bots are particularly difficult to statistically identify, assuming the bots have been competently programmed. The end-game is cheaters running around with pro-level skills.
To be clear, I welcome the attempt, but I think it just results in the same cat and mouse arms race we've seen for 20 years. Inference has been beaten time and time again. Until it is proven to work I will stick with the best options we have right now.
These stats should not auto-ban, but flag for human review.
ImO, the goal is to find the statistic cheaters will skew since they are cheating.
Lets say, one is wall-hacking in Counter-Strike.
In Counter-Strike, many maps have a central location/lane called "mid".
There is often a kind of mind-game of limited information going on:
- Does 0, 1, or both teams have an AWP(=one-shot kill sniper)
- Is the enemy sniper guarding mid?
- Which entrance to mid is the enemy sniper currently watching?
- Has the enemy sniper guarded mid in the beginning, but has now left?
Any wall-hacker will be a major outlier regarding not running into mid while the enemy sniper is watching.
If you can accurately dissect/classify/log player behavior, I expect the statistics to look similar to those of poker players who cheat and know the cards of the other players on the table:
https://media.pokertube.com/uploads/2025/12/5d96fe17d39043a0...
Doesn’t Arc use KLAC? Sounds like it did not accomplish its goal. And I’m not sure how you trace direct causation between cheating and decline in popularity. Plenty of games with rampant cheating (Tarkov) do just fine.
Only on Windows (and only after the game had already lost around 80% of its player base), which makes it effectively useless. Because they have a Linux build, there is no way to prevent cheating at a larger scale.
It's fair to argue I have no evidence of the cause of decline. I cite my frequent interactions with hundreds of players in the community, and streamers like Burnt Peanut. However this is qualitative, not quantitative. Me and my friends stopped playing because of the cheating, and so did every other one of my friends who picked it up. It wasn't that we wanted to stop playing the game. It was the cheating.
There's nothing kernel developers can do to "not permit" kernel-level anti-cheat, anyone can build an anti-cheat kernel module (as long as you honor the GPL licensing requirements naturally).
Are there any games in particular or is this a blanket statement? I've switched and not missed anything. I stopped playing Fortnite, but it's not a very good game anyway. The gaming world is huge with plenty of variety.
KLAC isn’t the problem so much as lazy or shitty devs refusing to put in the work to support Linux as a platform. They’ll literally have game logic run in encrypted VMs on other platforms but then refuse to do the same on Linux with superior hypervisors like KVM and bhyve. Some developers have explicitly removed EAC support on Linux from their games, despite no open issues with it. Others demand someone else write the APIs needed for their invasive rootkits to run, ignoring that Linux is very much a community effort and that if one will write and publish it, others will use it.
I will 100% give Linux evangelists the guff they deserve on shitty UX in GUIs and their insistence upon a dozen slightly-tweaked solutions to the same core problem that prevents the industry from consolidating into widescale popularity on endpoints, but the incompetence and/or laziness of major devs to support even something like Debian is not a failing of Linux.
There is no doubt an economics problem here, where it might not make sense to invest a lot of effort into a system from which less than 1% of revenue is derived.
However, KVM does not solve the problem. In fact, Riot explicitly explains why virtualisation can make the problem worse: if Vanguard runs inside a guest, a cheat can run on the host and manipulate the VM in ways the anti-cheat cannot see. Riot says Linux currently does not give it sufficient ability to attest the boot state or kernel modules, with distro differences making the problem harder.
Linux also deliberately does not provide a stable in-kernel ABI for proprietary out-of-tree drivers. The kernel documentation explicitly says there is neither a stable binary kernel interface nor a stable internal kernel interface. The preferred model is for drivers to be upstreamed and maintained with the kernel, which is almost the opposite of how closed-source kernel anti-cheat is normally deployed.
And this isn't just Riot. EA actually supported EAC through Proton for Apex and then removed Linux access because its anti-cheat team said Linux was being used for impactful cheats, that Linux cheats were harder to detect, and that they couldn't reliably distinguish a legitimate Steam Deck from a malicious Linux client pretending to be one.
Valve itself tells developers that Proton's recommended solution is user-space anti-cheat and that kernel-space anti-cheat is “not currently supported and is not recommended”.
So I guess it's technically possible for a game dev to effectively create their own Linux distro, but I hope we agree that's never going to happen. They're game devs, not Linux devs. Anti-cheat needs a trust chain that the hostile user cannot control and not just an API through which it can inspect the system. Linux deliberately gives the machine owner far more control over the kernel and environment, which is exactly what makes strong client-side attestation difficult.
FYI bhyve isn't a Linux hypervisor. It's part of FreeBSD.
> Riot says Linux currently does not give it sufficient ability to attest the boot state or kernel modules, with distro differences making the problem harder.
Why would a game developer have the power to approve what I boot on my hardware?
Especially a peddler of live service free to play.
Have you talked to those people running de googled Android phones lately? Apparently they're excluded from banking and government apps because of "attestation" that's not permission.
You are confusing your right as an individual to do what you want with your OS, and the rights of developers to do what they want, with their software. You have the right to use whatever software you like. They have the right to not sell or give you their software if you don't want to abide by their rules.
To be honest I don’t really understand the hysteria re KLAC. Installing something in kernel space requires trust, but so does installing something in user space. If you don’t trust the developer, don’t use their software. A malicious app installed in user space can steal, encrypt, delete or exfiltrate anything the user can access. It can abuse their applications, credentials and resources. Kernel access is worse, but both are very bad.
And chains of Linux have links that break when you update them, or sometimes they just aren't compatible with random metals: "galvanized chains are planned in a future release, please donate"
I don't know if I would say this as much anymore except for Linux distributions steering away from Red Hat/IBM or Canonical attempts at replacing traditional methods, or the BSDs that aren't necessarily in agreement with more recent developments either.
I certainly would not feel I owned my system if I accepted the full suite of attempts by these companies to replace and subvert existing standards. I do feel I have control with non-systemd init and service management, and source based packaging.
Running FreeBSD on a Lenovo Thinkbook 16 G7 ARP that was bought brand new less than a year ago. Everything except the wifi works flawlessly (daily driver for working).
And the wifi is easily fixable either buying a non expensive dongle or waiting for the next release.
Also running bhyve as daily driver with Ubuntu for development purposes. Everything works without issues, perfectly.
That's valuable and good to know, but I meant a machine that's actually new (not one you just bought recently). That laptop is about 2.5 years old specs wise at this point. I use mine for anything from programming to video editing to AAA gaming on Linux. I don't think a machine like that could be my primary one, but looks like a decent secondary.
I don't know what you consider "actually new" hardware. The machine I use to work has 16 Gb of RAM. Ryzen 7 and an AMD GPU. For me that's a pretty decent and recent hardware.
If you meant the lastest of the latest GPU, processor, chipset and so you you might better off with Linux.
But the fact that the computer that was given to me was boxed from factory and bought after two weeks after started is a sign of recent hardware. I haven't tried it but two other person where I work have high end brand new ThinkPads and I'm confident FreeBSD can be run on those well too.
Ryzen 7 is a 9 year old, AMD GPU a 20 year old generic term.
If Notebookcheck is correct, the "Lenovo ThinkBook 16 G7 ARP" comes with a Zen3(+) CPU and a RDNA 2 GPU, both released 6 years ago.
If Zen3+ vs Zen3 is a significant architectural difference, than it would slightly miss the 5 year mark, since it was released 4.5 years ago.
By new hardware I mean CPU, GPU, WiFi etc. that was released by their manufacturer within the last 1 year or so, I don't even mean hardware that was just released.
The laptop mentioned is fine. But it is hardware that is just at that mark where I'd normally replace it.
As I said, I think it's still OK if my goal is to run FreeBSD. But if my goal is to get the best hardware now that will last me the next 3-5 years then it's dated and I'll have to compromise just to be able to use FreeBSD with it. I don't have to do that with Linux.
I think if I am going to compromise on hardware because I want a particular OS on it, it'll probably be Haiku over one of the BSDs because I don't get the sense BSD offers enough of a difference vs Linux to justify that compromise.
Perhaps, but the BSD developers do not fully invite themselves into your home and network through use of their operating system. I do appreciate however that macOS is BSD somewhere under the hood and switched to zsh as default shell (even if it was supposedly only for licensing reasons, but I believe it's the correct decision practically or legally)
Maybe with the rise of immutable distributions like SteamOS, Bazzite, GnomeOS and KDELinux.
But the other "user-friendly" distributions are just not good enough for a non-techy.
We need better and more A/B partitioned immutable distributions and we need a new implementation of Flatpak.
I recently had to repair my parents their Linux Mint installation because it powered off during an upgrade. Apt does not handle that well, Linux Mint has no snapshotting, you cannot apt autoconfigure -a through the UI. Also the UI does not explain why the machine is getting hot while it's building dkms modules for an hour.
Just this week I saw someone with Fedora get a buggy graphics driver that made the whole system glitchy, they had to downgrade the kernel.
The week before I had to repair a manjaro installation from a friend because getting nvidia to work on ArchLinux isn't trivial even if Manjaro pretends it to be.
To be frank, desktop linux is still in a pretty bad state.
I think it's equally likely a windows update breaks a family owned computer and the solution isn't clear to them eg reinstall drivers directly from Vendor.
I'd also rgue Mint is easier to navigate than Windows with it's 3+ different context menus and baked in ads.
GPL is a more free license if one cares about having control over their computing. The BSD community cares a lot less about that in my (limited) experience and more about purely technical aspects. Which is fine, I just wouldn't expect them to hold if Linux is no longer an option somehow.
I had many conversations about this and it always came down to business.
GPL is indeed restrictive if your priority is the free market. Pretty much every serious BSD person I know of runs it as part of their business, so from their pov GPL is restrictive.
However in the context of the constant restrictions of general purpose computing, GPL has my back. BSD at best doesn't care about restrictive forks and at worst even welcomes them as 'good business'.
Two different approaches, they both have their place but as a user, I feel GPL was written for me. BSD (license) was written for the developer.
This is an oversimplification. I'm sure that some people think like you mention, but it is by no means all. I personally choose permissive licenses because I find the GPL to be hypocritical in the way it restricts freedom while talking about promoting freedom. If I'm giving a gift to the commons, then I want it to be a true gift, not something with strings attached. So for me, permissive licenses are the way to go. It hurts nobody if someone chooses to make a closed source fork - software is a non-rivalrous good, so whatever someone else does cannot take away the free version that I have provided. So I see no reason to deny others the freedom to use my software as they see fit, even if they use it in ways I don't personally agree with.
Thanks for sharing your POV, but that's basically how I understand it. It's the old individual freedom (BSD) vs collective freedom (GPL).
The BSD is certainly less hassle and just a simpler way to give something away.
> I find the GPL to be hypocritical in the way it restricts freedom while talking about promoting freedom. If I'm giving a gift to the commons, then I want it to be a true gift, not something with strings attached.
The right to free speech is a freedom too, yet it has strings attached. Namely it's no longer a freedom the moment it crosses a certain line into endangering someone else and their freedoms. That's sort of the view the GPL takes, but it gets into how different political philosophies view the concept of freedom. Is it freedom to pay whatever the free market (in practice monopolies) demand for commodities critical to survival (BSD view of freedom) or is it freedom not to have to worry about not being able to afford commodities critical to survival (GPL view of freedom).
I do agree the BSD freedoms is simpler to grasp.
> It hurts nobody if someone chooses to make a closed source fork - software is a non-rivalrous good, so whatever someone else does cannot take away the free version that I have provided
True in theory, trickier in practice. 'It hurts nobody' only goes so far because if a closed source fork starts collecting telemetry then it actively hurts its users, unless very much opt in. Now how many average computer users are going to know that there's an open version that doesn't do that? A small number. Trickier still, because the fork is closed, it's likely going to be quite hard to replace it or block the telemetry, at least without loosing some features. So again, the difference is in what is viewed as the commons. BSD views the commons as everyone, including capital interests best in a position to take that the software and twist it into a tool in the ongoing war on general purpose computing, ability to repair etc.
GPL views the commons as the users, so it aims to grants freedoms to them, even at the cost of restricting the freedom of capital in the process.
In short, I do understand and even appreciate the BSD concept of freedom and its simplicity, yet I find it insufficient to protect my freedom in a system full of monopoly power, corruption and exploitation.
In an ideal world where the behaviour the GPL aims to protect doesn't exist, I'd agree the BSD is more free. In the current world, I'd argue that BSD gives freedom to exploit computer users to those with the means to do so.
A Linux computer is so many things and also nothing at the same time that's is basically impossible that one or N AI company can impose you something like Apple, Microsoft or Google can.
With that said, also or instead using *BSD won't do any harm.
