>encrypting disks on Linux >you got to put a filesystem

>>61694179
>encrypting disks on Windows
>all your shit goes to their servers once you log in and connect to the network

>>61694210
>no proof: the post

Why are you comparing a process used to manually achieve an encrypted partition on GNU/Linux to the process by which you use a piece of software to automatically achieve (superficially) comparable results?

Do you even understand how disk encryption on Microsoft Windows beyond using third party software?

Do you realize that it is incredibly easy to automate the encryption process on GNU/Linux?

Do you even know the difference between file encryption and disk encryption? Did you even realize that there was a distinction?

>>61694257
you're right! looks like my only choices are to either check the source code or to trust them

>>61694264
>if I ask a lot of questions it'll make people think I know more than the other person!

Your whole argument falls apart if you actually know how these "abstractions" are dealt with in Windows and Linux.

On Windows resizing encrypted volumes are as easy as point and clicking in the disk management admin applet.

On Linux you literally have to calculate sector counts and do everything manually and resizing the filesystem, the LVM logical volumes, the LVM physical volumes, and the LUKS crypts.

>>61694257
> I trust them because I totally can view the source code!
Absolutely proprietary.

>>61694412
>Point and click
>Using a mouse

File: 1497882052188.jpg (968KB, 638x5176px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 638x5176px

>>61694257

File: win10-baseline-netstat.jpg (1MB, 1476x3401px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1476x3401px

>>61694179
Ill stick with Linux. Id rather have it filter the idiots like you anyways.

>>61694478
Thats only to improve your experience goy

>>61694179
I have no life. Like absolutely none.

I still don't use Linux for anything else then my server.

>>61694642
Apple?

>>61694412
>On Linux you literally have to calculate sector counts and do everything manually and resizing the filesystem, the LVM logical volumes, the LVM physical volumes, and the LUKS crypts.
https://www.veracrypt.fr/en/Home.html

Why are you lying on an Internet forum?

I use Linux as a daily and built many many flavors of linux and ive never had to manually calculate sectors once

>>61694696
he's neet not gay

>>61694179
POO IN THE LOO

BitLocker and Veracrypt work similarly under the hood by making a logical volume on top of a physical volume (partition).

>>61694614
Thanks for posting this. I was actually looking for this exact image.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like Windows users (at least, not the stupid ones) are fully aware that Windows uses telemetry. Subconsciously, at least. I mean, it would be condescending--not to mention untrue--to say that all or even a sizeable minority of Windows users are genuinely that dumb. They aren't

After the Snowden leaks, searches on Wikipedia for topics like "bomb making" and other terrorist-like, will-most-likely-put-you-on-a-watch-list-type queries were reduced dramatically. If you ask someone about surveillance in person, they most likely say one of two things: "nothing to hide" and "not true". The latter is less likely, since most people aren't actually that stupid. But in spite of saying the former, the fact is, clearly, people are still behaving in ways that suggest they are apprehensive to surveillance.

The fact that your toggling telemetry in Windows makes no discernible difference in security, nor actually explains what stopping telemetry actually is supposed to effect with regards to surveillance is actually less worthless than it seems: the point of these technically pointless toggles is to help Windows users cope with the fact they have no control. It's a device they can use so that, once they cross the t's and dot the i's, they can put up their hands and say, "I've done all I can" and "What I've done is clearly sufficient enough, because I've done all this work. If you put in work, then clearly that must mean something has changed". It's not to actually fix the problem; it's just meant to mediate the ego so that they no longer have to feel guilty about the fact that they can tolerate surveillance as they perceive it at that present state.

LVM is not required

>>61698100
Meanwhile, I have a job.

>>61698100
The most ironic part is setting up w10 and de-botnetting it is more complicated and time consuming that installing Arch, for example. And even then, it still phones home.

>>61698241
You don't even know what a botnet is.

It's shit made my NEETs like you that abuse your systems resources to mine cryptocurrencies.

What you're talking about is telemetry, which is harmless.

>>61698255
>telemetry, which is harmless.
>reddit spacing
>microsoft using windows to data mine its own users isn't practically a botnet or harmful at all
kill yourself pajeet

>>61698197
Well, that's a good point. I think, in our circles, you're kind of obligated to hate botnet/surveillance/telemetry, and it would be really embarrassing to be ignorant of that kind of stuff; but there are people who are willing to compromise for ease of use.

By "de-botnetting", what they're really doing is coping with that impasse (convenience v/ privacy/ethics).

It seems idiosyncratic, but it's a necessary ritual in order to rationalize a paradigm that is discernibly unethical/insecure/not private.

>>61694412
>On Linux you literally have to calculate sector counts and do everything manually and resizing the filesystem, the LVM logical volumes, the LVM physical volumes, and the LUKS crypts.
You can use openZFS on GNU/Linux. Also, BTRFS.

>>61694179
> you got to put a filesystem on top of a LVM logical volume
Nope. Fail.

You just encrypt the drive. Or the partition. As you like it. LVM is nice, but optional. Same as using GPT or MSDOS partitioning.

Unlike with Windows, you can actually just put a filesystem on the raw (whole) block device which is itself just optionally a LUKS device which handles the actual encryption/decryption to the real block device (SSD or HDD).

Just PEBCAK.

>>61694179
Good. Stay away from Linux, we are full.