Linux

There was a lot of BS advertising not long ago about it being a web browser "for gamers", whatever that means.

Sigh, please stop using that argument, it is an easy cop out, and you don't actually help your cause by analyzing the real issue.

The real reason why people willingly use Windows is multifaceted and can be boiled down to a few points.

1. It is the defacto standard. If you are going to use a desktop/laptop computer you will probably use Windows, especially at work.
2. Most users know Windows in some capacity, this means that companies have an easier time finding staff than if they used something else, it wouldn't be impossible but it would mean spending more time and money training the staff and causing them to be less productive for longer as they learn the system. This is slowly changing with the rise of web apps, chromebooks and Macs. But still, having IT support a fleet of Linux desktops/laptops when working in a non IT sector would be increadibly wasteful
3. Software, like it or not, Windows has a huge amount of proprietary software dominance, organizations LOVE proprietary software and dislike FOSS for one reason. Liability. This means that they get a number to call, email to contact, a person to yell at, they can deflect complaints and seem like they are a strong decisive company by taking legal action against an external party, and not have the buck stop with themselves.

I am an IT technician, this is what I have seen in the corporate world.

By talking about "brainwashing" you remove most of the actual information that could help you figure out how Linux could be better suited for the masses, and to be frank, using a word like "brainwashing" makes the Linux community seem a bit unhinged/cultish.

Focus on facts, then you can use them to change the actual issue.

Or because work requires us to

No, its mostly because 99% of people dont build their own computers and because 99% of prebuilts/laptops come with Windows preinstalled. Thats literally the only reason. If all devices came with Linux preinstalled, most people would be too lazy to switch and buy a windows license. This would change the market share of Linux which would immediately cause companies to prioritize making their software run on linux. Its really just corporate inertia.

It's the de facto standard for many reasons, none of them being individuals' choices. Microsoft paid and pushed for Windows to become the default OS on pretty much all OEM hardware, they lobbied super hard to push people into using Office, they gave massive discounts on licences for corporations, big and small companies.

It has nothing to do with individual choices, it created the problem you mentioned in your comment though. People just became complacent and ignorant because of that, not the other way around.

People were saying the exact same thing when I first started using Linux in 1999-ish

Granular permissioned access for apps from trusted supply chains is better than attempting deny lists based on signatures (AV).

I still use it, but I put way more effort into SLSA, securing containers, flatpaks, and limiting their blow back. From there its keeping up with CVEs in ways that do not create more or break functionality.

I will say A LOT of the Linux software ecosystem is was more secure than Window's default.

I don't think a Linux anti virus program would be such a big security win. Phishing is the biggest security threat to most users, and no amount of software can prevent that.

Sure, downloading and running random shit is a concern, but people in that group are a bit of a lost cause. The best solution for that is to harden the OS, prevent running executables through the GUI, or from user folders (I think SELinux could do that), disable sudo on the user account, and only allow installing Flatpaks. The security of Flathub may not be perfect, but it's a smaller attack surface than the whole internet.

But even if you do that, an Indian call center scam is still going to manipulate your grandma into buying Amazon gift cards, so... It's a lost cause.

Is there antivirus for Android? I mean there surely is, but Android does not really need it because it's built from scratch to give each app as little permissions as possible*. Desktop Linux is going in the same direction.

* technically. This does not mean that Android is secure in terms of privacy.

The click bait headline was a clue.

Yeah, kinda disappointing how superficial this article is