It makes a lot of sense. Malware is very common and well documented. Hardware
black bag jobs are rare and expensive. Of course, all new intel and
apparently amd also machines come with built-it hardware backdoors so...
ah, but can you verify the physical integrity of your computer? then assume
it's been turned into a zombie according to this logic...
it doesn't really make sense.
The rule is: If the package you want to install is missing the source code or
you can not be sure it was really compiled from the specific "safe" source
code then assume it will turn your PC into a malicious version of robocop
that will strangle you in your sleep
:P
Actually, freedom is a priority, because the other things are
consequences of the absence or presence of it.
For example: Imagine a scenario where one is to priorize the goal of
privacy and uses non-[free/libre] software, in this scenario, there's no
privacy since you can't be sure of what the
You are right freedom is restricted by windows, but there is an even bigger
issue,
THIS: It is even worse for your privacy and security.
You can test a live USB; no changes are saved. You can then install it later
from that USB. Or just play around with it. The 'mini' image is much more
lightweight. The regular image uses GNOME and is the full experience.
Personally I think the full image will be more to your liking, for
I want to get away from Windows and want to use Trisquel beside Windows, on
the same laptop, without installing it to my hard-disk.
I have a fast USB 3.0 stick with 32 GB of space.
Is it better to install Trisquel to a USB stick or is it better to use the
Live version?
What is the
