Linux isn't a company and I wouldn't call it a brand either, in the same way that "death metal" isn't a brand. So it doesn't fit in the blank in the first place.

> My favorites are [...] mostly interchangeable.

Those are the key words. You have the option to walk away from one distribution to use another if things start getting bad. Such has happened in the past, either because of distribution maintainers making decisions that certain users don't like (think Ubuntu from Unity onward) or because of distribution makers maintainers making decisions that put them ahead of the pack (think early Ubuntu). Overall, it has resulted in a competitive marketplace.

And if things got really bad, people can either fork the offending software or (if they use Linux as a more traditional Unix environment) there are various versions of BSD. If you use Linux for desktop applications, there is even the option of switching to Macintosh or Windows since open source applications tend to be multi-platform.

Being a Windows guy is a bit different. They are sticking all of their eggs in one basket. There isn't a viable Windows-like alternative to Windows if Microsoft messes up. Heck, it is growing increasingly difficult to stick with versions of Windows that are out of support. While I won't go as far as calling this brand loyalty, it means one is pretty much at the whim of the brand.

No. It's not your identity, it's a piece of software. "I use ____ for as long as the benefits outweigh the drawbacks" is what you should be thinking.

Being a "linux guy" is more like saying you're a "computer guy" at this point.

The better example is being an "Arch guy". That's the same kind of problematic as being a "Mac guy".

I'm a Linux guy, but I've always had a little bit of FreeBSD on the side.

(I'm also forced to use Windows at work)