Debian has the complete source code available.
Debian has the complete source code available.
If you need top-tier protection, Qubes OS is a strong choice. It divides tasks into isolated virtual machines, offering maximum separation. The main benefit is that internet-connected VMs stay completely apart from those not accessing the web. While alternatives like macOS with Parallels or Debian with VirtualBox exist, Qubes comes preconfigured for this setup. For ultimate privacy, avoid using the internet altogether. If that’s not feasible, Qubes remains a robust option. Other security-oriented systems such as Tails or Kali are available but are limited in popularity and support. Overall, the trade-off between security and usability usually hinges on network connection, making Qubes a solid decision when possible.
They have engaged in questionable activities previously. Prior to the anonymous opt-in process, they gathered identifiable information at one point without informing users. Some individuals also disliked the inclusion of Amazon search results alongside their searches. It seems this situation has changed over time, and I can't offer an opinion on the present state. Most distributions are open-source, though their source code might not include every available software for that particular distro. You’d need to check the official git repositories for specific versions. Generally, it’s a significant effort. In my Arch setup, I have around 1721 packages, and other distros could have many more. I regret asking for something nearly impossible. Even without data being sent back, users can still be tracked through hardware, network devices, equipment, and online behavior. Regarding OS security, Arch’s frequent updates mean you’re often among the first to receive patches, but you remain responsible for managing how applications run and maintaining the system. Arch provides only packages and documentation; its support is limited outside server environments. Security guidance is sparse, especially for proprietary tools. For example, Firefox can be unreliable—its defaults are common across distros, with no clear warnings, though some lighter versions exist. I personally prefer Firefox. Another choice is systems built around snaps or flatpaks, which aim to containerize apps more securely. Yet, I can’t judge their effectiveness or compatibility fully. Ultimately, you must depend on the distro’s maintenance to stay secure. You’ll likely need to accept that privacy is very limited unless you take extreme steps. From a security standpoint, most risks still apply. Every system has vulnerabilities; it’s about who discovers them, how they’re used, whether they impact you, and how quickly fixes are applied. A backdoor could even be built into hardware, as some have been criticized in the past—like Intel’s issues.
It wasn't always transparent; sometimes it was just an opt-out instead of an opt-in. Not ideal, but not very important now. Also, it doesn’t relate to Ubuntu versions that don’t use this approach.
If you're deeply concerned about your privacy, turn off the internet, wear a hat, and go to your safe place to wait through whatever comes next. If that doesn’t work, try to understand how everyday services collect your information so they can profit from it. It’s not the operating system itself that invades privacy—it’s companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc., who track everything. They want detailed data about you to sell to others who also want to use your personal details for profit. No Linux distribution does this: developers constantly review code to catch mistakes that could turn a useful tool into a security risk. Many find issues before the software reaches the public, fixing them quickly. But I remember you had a question like this recently. Repetition doesn’t change the truth.
Gentoo remains active despite past challenges. Many users remain committed to building and maintaining the distribution.