But isn't that just a mitigation of risk? I am not that technical but considering things I hear about certain routers, Intel chips (and maybe others,) already being compromised I would reckon that my Linux laptop might be safe from the more mundane viruses but not from the sophisticated attacks by more aggressive hackers or government(s) especially if I'm hooked into the internet or using WiFi or 4G etc or having accounts (email, bank, credit union, CCs, etc) with people that are running who knows what type of system and equipment?
the only way to be safe from those attacks is to not own a computer or related devices. consumer routers are notorious for being insecure, components from china being backdoored, NSA/CIA/FBI/other govt agencies (and not just the US) are constantly searching for exploits to use (and they have access to $micro$oft'$ and apples source code to easier find said exploits). judges granting secret search warrants to force isp to log data to use against you, and so on.
aggressive hackers are more likely to go for the money; selling cc #'s and data, selling user (generally corporate) data and so forth. unless one has a personal grudge against you, that is an unlikely avenue of attack.
the point is that if some one wants into your stuff bad enough ,they will find a way, no matter the protections you take or the OS you use. its the same theory as "locks only keep out the lazy thieves" .