> I'm sorry, but this is just tinfoil nonsense. Please refrain from insults and ridiculing. That does not belong into a honest discussion. > Trustworthy compu

> I'm sorry, but this is just tinfoil nonsense. Please refrain from insults and ridiculing. That does not belong into a honest discussion. > Trustworthy computing has nothing to do with TPM & accessories. Trustworthy computing and Trusted computing are so similar term, that most people will confuse these two. Especially if they are not native English speakers. It was not a good choice to pick a term so similar. > The above PDF is also a good reference guide to mitigations that are not present on desktop linuxes. Of course not, these desktop linuxes do not have the most used attack vectors in the first place. > Choosing not to install security updates also leaves you vulnerable to such attacks on Linux, and they do happen. Sure, but the point was lack of trust in Microsoft and the abuse of the update mechanism in the past. You wouldn't pick any candy from a box, if you knew that just some of them are poisoned... > Are you seriously trying to imply that you've never had an issue with a package manager on Linux? Yes, I seriously do. Since Redhat Linux 5.0 (that's Redhat Linux, not Redhat Enterprise Linux), the only issue I had was an invalid package that failed to install (it was later fixed and the package then installed fine). No Linux distribution ever abused the update mechanism in such a way as Microsoft did. The only questionable thing that happened was Canonical and their forwarding of search data to Amazon. They were rightfully criticized, the fix was easy, the updates didn't flip the setting back and in the end, it was corrected by Canonical. I have yet to see any correction from Microsoft - they didn't even admit wrongdoing yet.