"I find it odd that we're actually arguing about whether it's worth making the most basic of changes based on the assumption that those people in question are s

"I find it odd that we're actually arguing about whether it's worth making the most basic of changes based on the assumption that those people in question are stupid and their box will probably be ok. Surely a better approach would be to suggest optimisations -guiding them through the process if needs be." Not unless we're people with excellent reputations that "those people" can recognise, or it is possible to determine that people with these excellent reputations endorse our advice. Otherwise we're just adding to the muddle of information on the Internet, some of which is bad, some of which is good, and it is impossible for non-experts to tell the difference. My argument is that the distribution is such a reputable source, and that a random article upvoted on HN isn't. If a distribution ships insecure defaults, then you should petition them to fix the defaults rather than publishing "fixes" elsewhere. You'll have to fight your corner, of course, against a bunch of people who might differ from you in your opinion about what is and isn't secure :)