2

So I posted this question on the Security SE site:

I wrote that late triggered by this question here on Super User where it seems like the creator of TempleOS blames the development of the OS cannot proceed because of something connected to PS/2 drivers being disabled in modern BIOS’es.

My original question on the Security SE was/is genuine. But now that I have read up on TempleOS it seems like the claim is pure bunk and not something real security minds need to consider.

That said, would the question—with some small alterations—be better suited for this site? The background of the OS itself seems to lend itself to a skeptics mindset, so I assume the claim of PS/2 drivers being disabled due to CIA interference might be something that a skeptic might make short order of debunking on this site, correct?

4

Part of the goals of this site are to examine widely-held claims, and not to waste our time debunking the wacky beliefs of solitary individuals.

While we normally accept evidence that a belief has been widely read as proxy evidence that people may believe it, I am not convinced that is applicable in this case.

Looking around at mentions of TempleOs, most of the coverage seems to be about the author's unusual and individualistic belief system

I would be looking for more evidence that anyone, apart from the original author, believed any of his claims on this page.

  • Makes sense. This is the answer. – JakeGould Jun 4 '18 at 20:43
1

The question might be shut down for not being a notable claim, but if it does thats because this site also glows in the dark.

  • 1
    “…but if it does thats because this site also glows in the dark.” I have no idea what this means. – JakeGould Jun 4 '18 at 12:05
  • 2
    I'm quoting Terry Davis, the writer of templeOS. He shows signs of what some may consider paranoid delusions and so do I. – daniel Jun 4 '18 at 20:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .