TrueCrypt is highly trusted, they are verifying that trust is well placed. What alternative were you proposing?

LUKS, GPG as examples only. I feel like time would be better spent switching to something less suspicious than trying to prove the suspicions false.

GPG doesn't do disk encryption (full or any), and LUKS is linux-only. That's what keeps people from "just migrating away"...

It doesn't matter what you or I personally prefer, if you want what at least seems to be trustworthy and secure[1], cross-platform cryptography, Truecrypt is what you want.

[1]: Obviously, that is the part that is slowly being evaluated and tested. We'll see what'll happen.

What's the point of implementing cryptography on a closed-source OS? We'll audit TrueCrypt and then have people say "there can still be backdoors in Windows or Mac OS." When it comes to security and cryptography, Linux (and similar) are the only things that matter.

Why do you think that a binary distribution of LUKS deserves less suspicion than binary distributions of Truecrypt?

If everyone were using LUKS instead, one would hope that people would attempt to verify that trust in binary distributions LUKS was well-placed as well.

It's important for Windows users to have access to trusted encryption programs.