Windows is pushing towards a model where it is dependent on an external server when the OS is installing. It may never fully get there, since people will always want to join windows machines to domains, which is the one bypass that still works.
Linux long ago switched to a model where it is dependent on an external server every time you install anything (package managers). From what I've seen, if you ask for help on actually installing something yourself you'll usually get told to use a package manager instead.
Of course you can always compile from source and manually resolve dependencies on Linux, but that feels like a lot more work that bypassing some account creation. So, for me, Windows actually feels like the better option for a system actually under your control.
You know who can? Steam
The biggest DRM platform currently in existence, arguably responsible for popularizing digital distribution and consequently all but ending the ability to actually own games on PC?
I mean, Steam is certainly one of the lesser evils out there, but I can never understand how they are brought up in a positive light in conversations about games preservation.
Digital ownership doesn't really exist, I guess.
Of course it does, courtesy of GOG and similar.
I don't know why people are repeatedly surprised that they don't control a game that only exists in digital form on a platform they don't control.
Not many people care about it these days, but to actually own your games. Since le PC master race sold their consumer rights for a copy of HL2 20 years ago, physical console games are almost the only option.
GOG's library of recent AA/AAA games is growing but still very lacking.
It's amazing isn't it, how people will rally to such a degree to change the least bad thing about the game, but ignore everything else wrong with it.
Gamers rise up etc.