The whole demonization is mostly nonsenseanyway.
It seems to be becoming more and more common to delineate everything that one finds well with emotional means against the rest.I think it’s out of uncertainty. On the one hand, one increases oneself by belonging to one group and demonizing the other group. On the other hand, one justifies (mostly without real arguments) why one has made such a decision and no other way.
Operating systems are tools.
If I need and use pliers, I’m not going to demonize a hammer just because it doesn’t fit my work.
One should simply choose the tool that can solve the tasks.For example, I usually use Linux for all my tasks (software development, office, etc.). I don’t really want to use Windows anymore, because the effort to have two different systems and e.g. to fix the bucks of both or to stay up to date with both is actually too high. Nevertheless, I still use Windows for music making, because I bought expensive and outstanding software (Ableton Live) and also made myself dependent on hardware (push) tailored to it. Although I’m not happy about it, the tool is so convincing that I’m likely to stick with it. If the tool for Linux were available, Windows would be booted out. I also know people who use Windows to use Photoshop, which has hardly any alternative on Linux when used professionally.
In addition to the aspect of the tool, however, there are also aspects that go a little further into the basics.
Linux is a free operating system.You can look everywhere and you potentially have all the freedoms you can think of. Because you change everything yourself with the appropriate effort.
This makes it flexible enough to be adapted to any task.This is the case with Android, or even with routers, NAS systems, Raspberry PI, and countless other systems, where one often does not suspect it at all (“embedded”).
All this is possible, but it requires effort.
Honestly, it has to be said that most users, especially those who are prone to demonization, do not have the ability to change the source code themselves in a meaningful way.So they only use what is already predetermined.
But even if you don’t change anything yourself, the open source code usually leads you to trust the code, because there are always a lot of eyes involved.If something happens there, it will be noticed briefly or long, openly discussed (and not kept secret, for example, because of bad publicity). For security-relevant systems, I see free software as the only way to establish sufficient trust. It’s nice, for example, that Whatsapp has supposedly good encryption, but I have to believe it for the company. However, you also have to take care of the relevant information with Linux. If you don’t do that, you’re just as uninformed and dependent as you are with a company. But at least there is still confidence in the community and that it would be hung on the big bell if something is wrong (the competition is already making sure of that).
Companies have a desire forprofit.
That is the real meaning of their existence.Everything else is faked. Even if a company starts with better principles, it will be caught up in the long term from a commercial point of view.
At the latest as a public limited company.
Profits corrupt decisions and financial constraints also corrupt decisions.Ultimately, it is not about the user, it is about profit. Companies are largely hierarchically organized. The individual user actually has no influence. It is, at best, a representativedemocracy.
In the case of open systems, the producers themselves are users.The likelihood that the needs of at least these users will be taken into account is greater. There is a culture of feedback, errors are reported, wishes are communicated. However, this is limited to users who are even willing to contribute. Completely inactive users are not directly involved in the process. So you can see it as a grassroots democracy.Who works also decides.
In practice, this has the effect of achieving a good deal with good proposals.There are, for example, some open software where I have left traces, e.g. by wanting a feature and describing it sufficiently convincingly. I’ve tried this with Windows, but it just fizzles out. Even real errors that I have reported are still present after more than ten years.
Why do people still love their company and its products?
Because of profit, companies tend to unify and simplify.This makes the products more manageable. The product is also adapted to the mass of users so that it is as attractive as possible and purchased by as many people as possible. However, the product is not adapted to what users really really need objectively, but to what they think they need.Much of it is less rational. For example, people still buy cars for colors or Apple products because they look so cool. This opinion can also be influenced and can therefore be directed (very successfully) through advertising.
Conversely, the user feels that the product fits exactly to him.He wants to believe it. Who believes likes to demonize, you just have to listen to a discussion between Apple and Windows users. That’s where it goes.
With Linux, people were tired of being ridiculed by the company’s supporters at some point.This is how they started with advertising and influencing the users. In addition, at some point there were also companies in this area that have commercial interests.
All in all, this development has certainly contributed to the demonisation.