That is blatant false-dichotomy. You don't need to undermine the immense level of security improvement introduced by driver signing. Kernel mode rootkits are ve

That is blatant false-dichotomy. You don't need to undermine the immense level of security improvement introduced by driver signing. Kernel mode rootkits are very hard to detect and eradicate. Right now, windows kernel mode rootkits rely on exploiting vulnerable drivers (very easy to detect when vulnerable drivers are loaded). It's not just signing but MS requiring valudation. If only Linux distros required this by default (with a boot option to turn off validation). If you wouldn't touch Microsoft open source but you would touch Google open source (say Chrome or their contributions to the Linux kernel), I would love to hear how that is different. Personally, the software I use is not a matter of ideology but a matter if the best tool for the task at hand. But your observation on how MS is using adversarial compatibility against Linux (flipping the table) is correct. I just don't see how post-systemd gnu/linux is all that different, perhaps because it is many megacorps contributing and controlling Linux? It's not exactly driven by software freedom anymore.