@karl while I didn't use windows very often (started with MINIX, drifted to GNU+Linux, BSD, and briefly OS X), I never saw the appeal. When I worked in IT there were a lot of people who were foaming windows devotees and it always seemed like Stockholm syndrome to me.
I often have this same issue with discussions of anarchism or privacy/encryption. The latter usually goes something like this:
me: "We should encrypt our communications so we have some semblance of privacy."
them: "I have nothing to hide."
me: "What about others that do? What if you eventually have something to hide? What about that weird spot on your toe that you hit up WebMD about?"
them: "People who have to hide are probably doing illegal things."
me: "What if that illegal thing is the moral and ethical thing to do?"
them: "Dont' be silly, our laws are valid."
At that point, I just choose something else to talk about because I'd like to stay buddies.
I feel like I'm either not educated enough on some of the matters that are important to me *or* I don't have a vehicle to convey the thoughts in a manner in which they will find important.
I'm not even a "real activist" and I'm already tired of trying to carry the banner for some of this stuff. I'm regularly seen as a nutter, a hippie, a leftist, or at best, an obsessive hobbyist.
me: "We should release this code under a Free Software license. It's great for the users and the community."
them: "I paid for this software, won't they just run their own copies?"
me: "They can but there isn't any secret sauce in your source code. Your company is the secret sauce. Nobody can do it better than you."
them: "I paid for this software. I'm not giving it away for free."
me: "You can still charge for access to it."
them: "My competitors will copy it."
me: "Your competitors will be required to release their changes under the same license, so you can benefit from your competitor's work."
them: "No."
Sometimes they'll have software patents. If they do, that'll shut down the conversation before it even begins. I'm not sure how to politely inform people that their software is not necessarily their product nor do I know how to explain how it's good for the users without berating them for their business practices.
It doesn't help that I believe capitalism to be the root of a lot of these software problems. I always keep that out of the conversation, though.
Coming from my anti-capitalist standpoint, I read this article as "centralization is how one runs a business." Most of the author's arguments against federation were about control and competitors (have a look at the Github example).
Regarding the soup of XEPs, there's beauty in the ability to choose between providers or host your own if you're technically inclined. It's a learning process, though.
People are so hung up on instant gratification and companies cater to that, eager to take your money or make money off of you.
Currently, I'm the single admin on #libernil with maybe a dozen users and I don't like the isolation. I'm not sure that any of the users would be interested in a completely shared system, though.
Participating in such a system with geographically dispersed individuals would make it difficult to hold events like I occasionally do under the #libernil umbrella. "Phone" conferences could be put together, though.