Off-Topic • [Discussion] Psychoanalyzing Windows adherents

(Split from the discussion at Microsoft is Introducing Sudo for Windows)

A general quandary on the perception that is innate to many in which "proprietariness" equates to good and legitimate. It can probably be broken down in several different ways. Among them, the brand worship that expresses itself so strongly in the technology industry. The following is my own observation based opinion.

First, let's define some subdemographics:
Group 1) Uses Windows or other proprietary OS exclusively, and has never heard of linux. Uses whatever comes preinstalled on their devices without ever giving it a second thought.
Group 2) Uses Windows or other proprietary OS almost exclusively, has heard of or even tried linux but declines to use it. Uses preinstalled OS or installed Windows manually.

The delineation can basically fall between "techies" and "non-techies". Group 1 are the largest, by far. Most people do not wish to think about what they use. Most don't even know what browser they use (or what a browser is!), in my experience. Group 1 also tend to take much more amicably to the notion of taking up a different operating system, compared with Group 2. Differences aside, why is it that each can be so hostile to the suggestion to use freedom-respecting software?

In no particular order;

• It is an unknown (Group 1). Aversion to the unknown is simply a human trait. It is unfamiliar, therefore it must be bad.
• It is different (Group 2). User-facing software is like a language. It takes time to learn and even more to become second nature. The "techies" have it even worse. The prospect of migrating to another system is even more daunting when one has sunken such great investment of time and knowledge into an existing system.
• The suggestion that one changes their system software insinuates that their current choice is wrong. Wrong or not, it is the fact that their "decision" is being challenged that they find upsetting. Again, Group 2 are more put off by this.
• Their primary value may not be liberty or sovereignty, but is often actually convenience and amusement. Even if it can be proven to them that linux is less of a hassle, the prospect of migrating to linux is such a perceived inconvenience so as to be dismissed entirely.
• Lack of knowledge as to the extent of how they're being exploited. Most do not fully comprehend the extent to which they are being surveilled, restricted or monetized because they simply lack the overarching knowledge of computing required to understand it. Group 1 comprise the majority of this condition.

I sometimes wonder if the more wild explanations might have some merit. Consider, for example, the crabs in a bucket perception. Perhaps they're aware of how mistreated they are by their software and feel powerless to change it, so they seek to sabotage others who achieve any greater success in "leaving the bucket". By spreading FUD and belittling solutions or those who suggest them.

Or maybe it's more simple, like with the brand worship I mention earlier. The idea that only things with the backing of big commercial vendors can be of any good. This sort of mentality that the vendor is a god that grants the holy product to the people and dare not be questioned. Maybe it taps into something primal in the human psyche. Those who oppose the group consensus are blasphemous heathens!

This is the end of my speculative rope. I am mostly perplexed by the Group 2 techies, who often have had some contact with libre operating systems and maybe even understand the issues of digital freedom and privacy... and yet they crawl back to Windows each and every time. "It's just not ready yet!" they cry. Ready for what? What measuring stick are you using to gauge this imaginary goal post? Sometimes I wish I could peer into the mind of a Windows adherent. But I'm simultaneously glad that I cannot.

Statistics: Posted by Uptorn — 2024-02-14 01:44 — Replies 3 — Views 85

---