I'd recommend GNU Guix System, in that all the software is free (so any vulnerabilities can be fixed) and applications can always be updated, as previous versions can be safely reverted to; any system with btrfs has a similar advantage to the latter, although not as great.

The best way to advertise software is to make good software; if people get their friends to use it, then it can grow exponentially without any expense on your part. If you're not making good software, please don't advertise it.

I'd actually recommend learning a higher-level language, like Common Lisp, to better understand Python: knowing about the relevant algorithms and how they transfer should do far more to educate you than learning C, which shares no abstractions with Python.

Jami (https://jami.net/) has the advantage of keeping your child's communication private and lacks the ability to find outside groups (like phone calls), while having the features they would want to have to interact and being multi-platform.

Weeks to a couple months from the last time; I quite enjoy the work of setting everything up as I want and dealing with installation problems. (I use Linux-based systems, often on testing versions.) I like Scheme and would like to try GNU Guix System when I can, but I have non-free internet drivers and it's not practical to build it on my device.

You could say that, but value is only created upon the creation of goods, while anything else merely amounts to the transfer of value; hence, only those who create (harvest) raw materials have any worth to society, and therefore should be the only ones to benefit. If this situation strikes you as preposterous, then value is clearly something other than money. Secondly, the rich are relatively ungracious; the money means far less to them than it does others and they use far more of it on themselves (even if they use less proportionally), so their goodness is less than what it would be if they had declined to profit and instead improved their employees' lives such that they could do good with their money. Thirdly, your last statement implies wealth will be built, whereas government action (such as enforcement of a trademark by the author in this case, or the breakup of Meta) can prevent wealth from accumulating without reason and thus spread wealth out for maximal utility.

No, that's potluck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potluck), and, given its diversity across cultures and continued presence, it can't be very inefficient.

Potluck...are you serious? There's nothing efficient or inefficient about the concept of potluck. It's a cultural celebration, not a "I need this to provide sustenance to my being".

What I in fact find to be the most compelling reason for strict (as in non-optional) monetization is that making a service without monetization can make it significantly better than other services, potentially increasing the quality of the experience of the consumer, but reducing the potential for any other developer of entertainment to profit, which, if they were in need, could significantly harm them.

The solution to this, of course, is to set up a (government) service to pay artists, such as game developers, for their work.

If that is the case, then the best way to monetize things would be to ask for donations; it allows the user to decide whether the person has done good work, rather than forcing them to have a less pleasant experience. Everyone should understand that the person who best understands how they feel is that person.

Wikipedia, famously a non-profit funded solely by advertising, has consistently expanded for ~20 years, even while embarking on repeated, mostly useless projects unrelated to its current work (why does it need an internal search engine? it can already show a listing of related pages on its dominant service) instead of saving.