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.
This is a case where Windows-bashing is hypocritical. Almost no Linux distro has disk encryption turned on by default (PopOS being the major exception).
It’s dumb and inexcusable IMO. Whatever the out-of-touch techies around here seem to think, normies do not have lumbering desktop computers any more. They have have mobile devices - at best laptops, mostly not even that.
If an unencrypted computer is now unacceptable on Android, then it should be on Linux too. No excuses.
No, it’s a choice, because:
History… encryption didn’t exist in the beginning. Upgrades won’t enable it.
Recovery… try telling the people that didn’t backup the encryption key - outside of the encrypted vault - that their data’s gone.
Performance… not such an issue these days, but it does slow your system down (and then everyone complains)
So, please continue to encrypt your data as you choose and be less judgemental on others, esp. anyone new
Blah blah blah. Unencrypted data is the wrong default in 2025 for any OS. Linux should not be a poor man’s OS.
It depends on your use-case.
Encryption of data at rest (this discussion) is mostly helpful for physical theft, so a device that never leaves the house, there’s little reason for encryption.
Similarly, on a lower powered mobile device, maybe you only want / need user data to be encrypted, and there’s no need to encrypt the OS, which keeps the performance up.
Maybe you want the whole thing encrypted on your high performance laptop.
So, it’s difficult to define a sane default for everyone, thus making it an option for the end user to decide on.
Linux has more choice than Windows - and the encryption algorithm(s) can be verified - so it’s definitely the better choice.
I will definitely say I wish encryption setup was a lot easier in Linux. Windows is like “wanna Bitlocker?” Done.
With most Linux installers, if you’re not installing in a very default way, and clicking that box to encrypt the drive, it’s time to go seriously digging. For a while.
I managed to encrypt a secondary drive with the same password on my EndeavourOS laptop, but I still need to enter the same password 2 times before getting into the OS.
I consider that a feat, and I’m not touching it for fear of losing everything lol.
Yes, I feel your pain.
Encryption drives sound like a good idea until the subject of unlocking them comes up… and automatically unlocking the drive for the OS isn’t really helping.
But, for user data, it can be unlocked automatically during login. The Arch wiki covers this.
But backup your data 😉
You can’t enable encryption after the fact? What a backwards system…
For which OS?
It can be enabled at any time on Windows & Linux. It’s just optional.
It’s your bullet point number 1
That says that upgrades won’t enable it… the user can still enable it.
it’s usually an option in the guided disk partition
Linux is about choice, not whatever someone else thinks it’s acceptable
Sure. But defaults are important.
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.
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
I don’t disagree with the premise. I may disagree encrypted hard drive by default a sensible choice
When is the last time you carried your desktop outside? Forgot it somewhere?
I always turn on LUKS during install. The only exceptions are when I’m doing tests of different distros on my machine that I lovingly call “FuckAround”.
It really is the best way to find out.