PLF Computing was born out of a need for computing that respects the needs of professionals, technically-oriented business owners, and researchers: people who need effective protection for their ideas, designs, projects, and other forms of intellectual property - from competing interests, hackers, and even governments.
Unfortunately, no major software company provides this protection today. Major software companies, such as Apple, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, maintain their own security services to protect their own interests in intellectual property spheres, including behavior that is strategically anti-competitive in addition to cooperating closely with Western governments. This has facilitated vast theft and destruction of private intellectual property, of which the general public remains mostly unaware and to which these companies and governments are rarely if ever held accountable due to corruption in Western courts and patent agencies.
Some governments have attempted to provide a solution to this problem by creating secure variants of Linux. The United States government has built both LPS and TENS - secure, 'amnesiac' versions of Linux designed to be run from a read-only device to improve data security. Neither is likely to function or to even be downloadable in the event that the end user is already under U.S. government surveillance. The Russian government supports and maintains Astra Linux. Meanwhile, the British government, in a move that might be described either as incredibly cynical or perhaps just psychopathic, has funded the development of Kali Linux - a Debian fork poorly hidden, undisclosed, on most British Ubuntu mirrors and designed not only to provide a superficial added level of security, but also to assist those who want to flout security in violation of law in order to give government agencies a bit of excitement in prosecuting otherwise-innocent college students and the like. One particularly notable, recent case of someone who was provoked into committing such crimes by Western governments is that of Roman Seleznev.
There is also an independent project to create a 'reasonably secure operating system' called QubesOS. In principle, it offers a number of satisfactory, software-based solutions to a wide variety of theoretical attack vectors in computer security. There are two main problems with QubesOS. One is that its funding is largely provided by the United States government and several United States corporations, chiefly Google, and source code for the operating system is only available for a few of the supporting software packages built into it - not for the entire operating system. The other is that the current Linux kernel on which it is based - known as systemd - is effectively a hypervisor into which a wide variety of processes unknown and unauditable by the user can be introduced, particularly in the event of closed-source software such as QubesOS. Recent versions of Microsoft Windows are similarly insecure - in addition to maintaining an even wider range of other security holes intended to benefit Western governments and other interests.
As an interim solution, the best alternative that we can conscientiously recommend is a fork of Debian 7.8 based on the FreeBSD kernel. While not a perfect solution, and one to which we are already building a superior alternative, it does offer greater transparency to the user as well as a far more limited opportunity for intrusions and introductions of malware. This distribution has recently disappeared from most Debian mirror servers, aside from that of the Physics Department at ETH Zurich. We offer download links below.
While it is true that there are several structural aspects of BSD that are superior to Linux in a security sense, the primary reason it is more secure than other alternatives in real life is simply that today, most malware and other exploits are built by Western governments and their contractors. Today's operating systems involve many levels of code abstraction; and, because that malware is more or less accessible to other parties once released 'into the wild', exploits tend not to be built for operating systems based on Unix, BSD, Solaris, etc. because these operating systems are mainly used in mission-critical server applications in major organizations. Building exploits for these operating systems that are targeted at desktop users would, therefore, be potentially quite dangerous. As a result, BSD is compelling as a potential solution for the problems we address above.
The challenge with this version is that it is difficult to install, and most likely on purpose. Much like ReactOS, it was likely intended to run only in virtualized environments. Nevertheless, it can be installed in garden-variety PCs at the 'bare iron' level. Our workaround requires a USB flash drive with a controller that can be reconfigured to emulate a DVD-ROM drive.
We have provided recommendations for suitable USB flash drives as well as the configuration software to create the necessary installation media:
Kingston DataTraveller SE9 (16GB USB 2.0 version)
Transcend JetFlash 620 (8GB/16GB USB 2.0 version)