In the ongoing rivalry between Linux and Windows, much of the public discussion revolves around features that Linux lacks compared to its Redmond-based counterpart. From streamlined driver support to user interface polish, Windows often sets the pace for mainstream expectations. But not every “advancement” from Microsoft’s playbook is worth emulating. In fact, a closer look at several core features of Windows 11 reveals a suite of design decisions and business practices that many in the open-source world are eager to avoid. For Linux enthusiasts—and any privacy- or control-minded users—there’s a strong argument that adopting certain Windows conventions would be a mistake.
When Microsoft rolled out the integration of Bing web search results directly into the Windows Start menu, it probably seemed like a natural evolution—a way to make the desktop “smarter” and blur the lines between web and local data. In reality, this fusion often muddies the user experience. Typing “Calculator” or “Notepad” into the search field shouldn’t also net sponsored web content, links for unrelated apps, or suggestions that launch a browser rather than the tool you actually need.
From a performance standpoint, injecting web results can lead to noticeable delays, degrading what used to be an instant, frictionless feature. More critically, this approach raises fundamental usability and privacy issues. Web queries, even for mundane phrases, get sent to Microsoft servers, creating a trail of data about your habits and potentially exposing more of your workflow to external parties.
For most Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu, Fedora, and Arch, the application launchers are blissfully free of these distractions. While some privacy-focused search plugins (like those using DuckDuckGo or Startpage) exist, their inclusion is usually opt-in, often invoked with special shortcuts, and doesn’t force users to wade through clutter by default. This respect for user intent—searching local files and apps versus summoning internet recommendations—remains a core strength of the Linux desktop that Windows would do well to learn from.
Critical Perspective: The line between convenience and intrusion is thin. By blurring that boundary, Microsoft risks alienating users who value clear, context-sensitive behaviors from their operating systems. For Linux, resisting this temptation allows search to remain both speedy and private, helping users stay in control of what leaves their machine and when.
Contrast this with a typical Linux desktop, where widgets are almost always deeply utilitarian—system monitors, clipboard managers, countdown timers—and rarely push content aimed at increasing revenue or engagement. Many distributions, such as Linux Mint or Zorin OS, go to great lengths to minimize visual noise and keep the desktop focused on user-defined tasks rather than external distractions.
Windows 11 now makes it increasingly difficult to avoid these intrusions. Even after aggressive customization, some “suggested” content or notifications remain, reminding users that they’re on a platform first engineered to boost Microsoft’s engagement (and, by proxy, advertising) metrics.
Critical Viewpoint: There’s a growing backlash against this encroachment, as evidenced not only by social media forums but also by the proliferation of “debloat” guides and privacy-focused scripts aimed at reclaiming the Windows experience. Linux’s refusal to build in similar advertising channels—whether by direct ideology or simply a lack of commercial incentive—keeps its distributions cleaner and less cluttered. Users shouldn’t have to battle their desktop environment for attention. That battle, which Windows seems intent on escalating, remains a strong argument in favor of Linux’s hands-off philosophy.
For users with strict privacy or workflow requirements, the omnipresence of AI generative tools feels less like helpful innovation and more like unwelcome surveillance or digital clutter. Worse, for many consumer installations, Copilot is enabled by default, and disabling it often involves obscure system settings, registry edits, or group policy modifications that casual users may not know how to wield safely.
Linux distributions, on the other hand, take a notably restrained approach. While experimental voice assistants and AI tools do exist—like Mycroft or open-source chatbot plugins—none are foisted upon users. Installation is voluntary, and uninstalling is trivial. The system respects user choice first, rather than presuming that everyone wants or needs generative AI on standby.
Analytical Insight: AI has tremendous potential, especially for accessibility and productivity. But embedding such tools as always-on “assistants,” especially without robust local privacy guarantees, risks eroding user agency. For Linux communities, the current consensus is clear: let users seek out and install AI features if desired, rather than making them a non-removable pillar of the desktop. This restraint serves as a direct counterpoint to Microsoft’s more aggressive approach.
When setting up a fresh Windows 11 system, users may see toggles for “Required diagnostic data,” “Optional diagnostic data,” and associated privacy policies. Picking the most restrictive options still does not opt a user out entirely—a range of data still flows back to Microsoft, often without explicit consent. Edge browser usage, Start menu interactions, search habits, and more are quietly cataloged to feed both development and monetization pipelines.
In contrast, most mainstream Linux distributions—such as Fedora, Debian, and Arch—either forego telemetry entirely or ask explicitly, with clear opt-in prompts, for minimal system feedback intended just for bug reports or update statistics. Ubuntu, one of the exceptions, offers a limited and anonymized “popularity contest,” yet even this can be bypassed during or after setup. Linux Mint and others publicly disclose even the anonymous collection of ISO download counts, drawing a sharp distinction between aggregate usage stats and granular user behavior tracking.
Critical Perspective: Transparency and default behavior matter. While total privacy cannot be guaranteed on any internet-connected system, Linux’s open-source ethos, paired with community oversight, ensures a greater degree of trust and auditability. For Microsoft, the temptation to maximize usage data is plain: analytics drive the engine of advertising and feature development. For Linux distros, especially those supported by donations rather than user profiling, respecting the user’s right to digital self-determination is a core principle, not an afterthought.
Uninstalling this software sometimes requires jumping through hoops, using command-line tools such as PowerShell or wading through convoluted settings panels. Worse, some OEM-specific apps persist even after attempted removal, returning with major Windows updates.
The experience on Linux, by contrast, is almost always more user-directed. Minimal installation images—offered by distributions like Xubuntu or Arch—deliver a nearly bare-bones system, letting users choose precisely which software gets included post-installation. Even comprehensive “full” desktop ISOs, such as those from Ubuntu or Mint, stick to open-source applications and essential utilities. Anything not wanted can be reliably purged with a few simple commands or a trip to the software center, with no hidden reinstall triggers.
In-Depth Analysis: This matters beyond surface-level annoyance. Preinstalled commercial software skews system performance and affects security, especially if proprietary tools are left unmaintained or used as advertising vectors. On Linux systems, where software managers pull only from verified repositories (unless the user explicitly adds third-party sources), there’s far less incentive and opportunity for unwanted applications to infiltrate. This keeps user systems cleaner, safer, and leaner over time.
Perhaps the best lesson for both camps is this: feature richness and user freedom need not be mutually exclusive. Ideal future desktops—whether from Microsoft, Canonical, or the wider open-source community—should treat users as collaborators, not commodities. Until then, the path for Linux is clear: resist the pressure to mimic every headline-grabbing “innovation,” and focus instead on empowering, not encumbering, those who choose to use it.
Source: How-To Geek https://www.howtogeek.com/windows-features-linux-should-never-copy/
Reinventing Desktop Search: The Bing Web Search Conundrum
When Microsoft rolled out the integration of Bing web search results directly into the Windows Start menu, it probably seemed like a natural evolution—a way to make the desktop “smarter” and blur the lines between web and local data. In reality, this fusion often muddies the user experience. Typing “Calculator” or “Notepad” into the search field shouldn’t also net sponsored web content, links for unrelated apps, or suggestions that launch a browser rather than the tool you actually need.From a performance standpoint, injecting web results can lead to noticeable delays, degrading what used to be an instant, frictionless feature. More critically, this approach raises fundamental usability and privacy issues. Web queries, even for mundane phrases, get sent to Microsoft servers, creating a trail of data about your habits and potentially exposing more of your workflow to external parties.
For most Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu, Fedora, and Arch, the application launchers are blissfully free of these distractions. While some privacy-focused search plugins (like those using DuckDuckGo or Startpage) exist, their inclusion is usually opt-in, often invoked with special shortcuts, and doesn’t force users to wade through clutter by default. This respect for user intent—searching local files and apps versus summoning internet recommendations—remains a core strength of the Linux desktop that Windows would do well to learn from.
Critical Perspective: The line between convenience and intrusion is thin. By blurring that boundary, Microsoft risks alienating users who value clear, context-sensitive behaviors from their operating systems. For Linux, resisting this temptation allows search to remain both speedy and private, helping users stay in control of what leaves their machine and when.
The Rise of Ads and Widgets: Annoyance by Design
A harsh reality of running modern Windows is the steady trickle of advertisements baked into core user experiences. The Start menu is crowded with promoted apps, some of which aren’t even installed but appear as “ads” for Microsoft Store downloads or trials. Notifications about Microsoft 365, Game Pass, or occasionally third-party software pop up alongside legitimate system alerts. Windows’ widget panel, though conceptually useful for things like weather or traffic, is too often weighed down by news feeds, stock tickers, sports scores, and “suggested articles” tailored through user profiling.Contrast this with a typical Linux desktop, where widgets are almost always deeply utilitarian—system monitors, clipboard managers, countdown timers—and rarely push content aimed at increasing revenue or engagement. Many distributions, such as Linux Mint or Zorin OS, go to great lengths to minimize visual noise and keep the desktop focused on user-defined tasks rather than external distractions.
Windows 11 now makes it increasingly difficult to avoid these intrusions. Even after aggressive customization, some “suggested” content or notifications remain, reminding users that they’re on a platform first engineered to boost Microsoft’s engagement (and, by proxy, advertising) metrics.
Critical Viewpoint: There’s a growing backlash against this encroachment, as evidenced not only by social media forums but also by the proliferation of “debloat” guides and privacy-focused scripts aimed at reclaiming the Windows experience. Linux’s refusal to build in similar advertising channels—whether by direct ideology or simply a lack of commercial incentive—keeps its distributions cleaner and less cluttered. Users shouldn’t have to battle their desktop environment for attention. That battle, which Windows seems intent on escalating, remains a strong argument in favor of Linux’s hands-off philosophy.
AI Chatbots Everywhere: When “Help” Isn’t Optional
The meteoric rise of AI has roused a new arms race among operating systems and core software vendors. Windows 11’s Copilot, a “helpful” chatbot enabled across increasingly broad swathes of the OS, is both a technical marvel and, for some, a persistent nuisance. Copilot now sits not just in Microsoft Edge, but also in the Start menu, the taskbar, and even legacy applications like Notepad and Paint.For users with strict privacy or workflow requirements, the omnipresence of AI generative tools feels less like helpful innovation and more like unwelcome surveillance or digital clutter. Worse, for many consumer installations, Copilot is enabled by default, and disabling it often involves obscure system settings, registry edits, or group policy modifications that casual users may not know how to wield safely.
Linux distributions, on the other hand, take a notably restrained approach. While experimental voice assistants and AI tools do exist—like Mycroft or open-source chatbot plugins—none are foisted upon users. Installation is voluntary, and uninstalling is trivial. The system respects user choice first, rather than presuming that everyone wants or needs generative AI on standby.
Analytical Insight: AI has tremendous potential, especially for accessibility and productivity. But embedding such tools as always-on “assistants,” especially without robust local privacy guarantees, risks eroding user agency. For Linux communities, the current consensus is clear: let users seek out and install AI features if desired, rather than making them a non-removable pillar of the desktop. This restraint serves as a direct counterpoint to Microsoft’s more aggressive approach.
Telemetry and Tracking: The Default Dilemma
Of all the friction points between Windows and Linux, telemetry may be the most contentious. Microsoft, like all major tech companies, gathers a vast stream of usage data from its operating system to “improve user experience” and “diagnose problems.” While these claims are not without merit, the reality is that many privacy-conscious users are uncomfortable with the sheer scope and persistence of Windows telemetry.When setting up a fresh Windows 11 system, users may see toggles for “Required diagnostic data,” “Optional diagnostic data,” and associated privacy policies. Picking the most restrictive options still does not opt a user out entirely—a range of data still flows back to Microsoft, often without explicit consent. Edge browser usage, Start menu interactions, search habits, and more are quietly cataloged to feed both development and monetization pipelines.
In contrast, most mainstream Linux distributions—such as Fedora, Debian, and Arch—either forego telemetry entirely or ask explicitly, with clear opt-in prompts, for minimal system feedback intended just for bug reports or update statistics. Ubuntu, one of the exceptions, offers a limited and anonymized “popularity contest,” yet even this can be bypassed during or after setup. Linux Mint and others publicly disclose even the anonymous collection of ISO download counts, drawing a sharp distinction between aggregate usage stats and granular user behavior tracking.
Critical Perspective: Transparency and default behavior matter. While total privacy cannot be guaranteed on any internet-connected system, Linux’s open-source ethos, paired with community oversight, ensures a greater degree of trust and auditability. For Microsoft, the temptation to maximize usage data is plain: analytics drive the engine of advertising and feature development. For Linux distros, especially those supported by donations rather than user profiling, respecting the user’s right to digital self-determination is a core principle, not an afterthought.
The “Bloatware” Quagmire: Preinstalled and Unwanted Applications
Perhaps no single aspect of Windows 11 aggravates power users more than the proliferation of bloatware. New PCs ship with “suggested apps” like Candy Crush, TikTok, trial antivirus software, and manufacturer-branded utilities that are often difficult or impossible to remove completely. Some entries aren’t even full installations, but placeholders meant to draw users to the Microsoft Store for downloads or purchases.Uninstalling this software sometimes requires jumping through hoops, using command-line tools such as PowerShell or wading through convoluted settings panels. Worse, some OEM-specific apps persist even after attempted removal, returning with major Windows updates.
The experience on Linux, by contrast, is almost always more user-directed. Minimal installation images—offered by distributions like Xubuntu or Arch—deliver a nearly bare-bones system, letting users choose precisely which software gets included post-installation. Even comprehensive “full” desktop ISOs, such as those from Ubuntu or Mint, stick to open-source applications and essential utilities. Anything not wanted can be reliably purged with a few simple commands or a trip to the software center, with no hidden reinstall triggers.
In-Depth Analysis: This matters beyond surface-level annoyance. Preinstalled commercial software skews system performance and affects security, especially if proprietary tools are left unmaintained or used as advertising vectors. On Linux systems, where software managers pull only from verified repositories (unless the user explicitly adds third-party sources), there’s far less incentive and opportunity for unwanted applications to infiltrate. This keeps user systems cleaner, safer, and leaner over time.
A Balanced View: Recognizing Windows’ Defensive Arguments
For fairness, it should be acknowledged that not all of the criticized features are categorically negative for every type of user. For example:- Integrated web search could be a boon for busy professionals who regularly mix cloud and local work; with proper privacy guarantees and customization options, it might even streamline workflows.
- Widgets can offer real-time insights (weather, system status, market data) and are useful if they can be tailored without unnecessary notifications or “suggested content.”
- Copilot and AI tools have legitimate value for accessibility, automation, and guided troubleshooting—much depends on opt-in controls and how data is stored or shared.
- Some telemetry can enhance reliability and trigger proactive security measures—again, provided transparency, meaningful granularity, and true opt-out options are present.
- Bundled apps often fill gaps for novice users, ensuring a functional system out of the box (even if power users would prefer to curate their own environment).
Technical Specifications: Verifiable Data and Market Realities
Fact-checking reveals that:- Windows 11 Pro and Home both integrate Bing web search in the Start menu by default, which can be disabled via group policy (Pro) or by registry tweaks (Home), but not fully removed as of current builds.
- Advertising slots in the Start menu, lock screen, and notification center are confirmed across all Windows 11 editions, with varying degrees of “quiet mode” available but no total removal possible without third-party scripts.
- AI Copilot is now deeply embedded in Edge, Paint, Notepad, and the taskbar, introduced as an opt-out feature in most regions as of recent official Windows blog updates.
- Spectator mode telemetry (minimum, non-optional data) is always enabled in Windows 11, though “Optional diagnostic data” can be turned off. The company admits that some device and app usage data continues to flow regardless.
- OEM bloatware remains a persistent market trend, reinforced by revenue-sharing deals between Microsoft and PC manufacturers, per reports in industry business journals and tear-downs of new laptops.
- Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, and Arch officially confirm that telemetry, if present, is opt-in (Ubuntu), limited to anonymous statistics (Fedora), or entirely absent (Arch, Debian). Most distros offer “minimal install” options and purge uninstall capabilities on all included apps.
The Broader Takeaway: User Agency Trumps Feature Parity
The debate over what Linux should “borrow” from Windows is, at root, a debate about who operating systems are for. Windows’ priorities—revenue generation, cross-platform integration, AI-centric productivity—may align with enterprise needs or mass-market consumer models. But for users who prefer transparency, true privacy, and direct control, Linux remains a vital alternative.Perhaps the best lesson for both camps is this: feature richness and user freedom need not be mutually exclusive. Ideal future desktops—whether from Microsoft, Canonical, or the wider open-source community—should treat users as collaborators, not commodities. Until then, the path for Linux is clear: resist the pressure to mimic every headline-grabbing “innovation,” and focus instead on empowering, not encumbering, those who choose to use it.
Source: How-To Geek https://www.howtogeek.com/windows-features-linux-should-never-copy/
