this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
126 points (92.6% liked)

Linux

53615 readers
1654 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Today i took my first steps into the world of Linux by creating a bookable Mint Cinamon USB stick to fuck around on without wiping or portioning my laptop drive.

I realised windows has the biggest vulnerability for the average user.

While booting off of the usb I could access all the data on my laptop without having to input a password.

After some research it appears drives need to be encrypted to prevent this, so how is this not the default case in Windows?

I'm sure there are people aware but for the laymen this is such a massive vulnerability.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Almost no Linux distro has disk encryption turned on by default (PopOS being the major exception).

it's usually an option in the guided disk partition

If an unencrypted computer is now unacceptable on Android, then it should be on Linux too. No excuses.

Linux is about choice, not whatever someone else thinks it's acceptable

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Sure. But defaults are important.

[–] Bogus007@lemm.ee 2 points 8 hours ago

Defaults are generally who do not want to understand in depth what they are doing (no offence). Example from other sphere: in R-Cran (used to write statistical models), some functions have defaults to either choose a particular algorithm or an optimisation value. I have heard almost about nobody among students, PhDs and even higher up the ladder, who took the time to understand what is happening below the shell. Instead these people took just the defaults, it worked (result was significant), done. However, if they may have chosen another algorithm, things may have turned differently, which would open up a box with many questions concerning modelling adequacy and understanding of data. It is the same with defaults in Linux.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Echoing Jubilant Jaguar's sentiment about defaults mattering, I think that sometimes an excess amount of choice can be overwhelming such that a user is less empowered to make choices about things they do care about (Leading to a less steep learning curve). Sensible defaults need not remove anyone's choice

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

I don't disagree with the premise. I may disagree encrypted hard drive by default a sensible choice