It's interesting to watch the double standard unfolding in this thread after all the mean things that were said by certain people about the DS1054Z's minor/obscure bugs.
Only interesting to brand partisans.
The DS1054Z never had any bugs in basic things like triggering.
A lot of basic functionality had issues, and triggering wasn't free from bugs -- and there are still bugs now, after a couple of years of high sales volume.
Selecting long time bases causing unresponsiveness, screensaves taking ridiculous lengths of time, there were (still are?) incorrect measurements, 'random' slowdowns and freezes... Hardware flaws are present, too.
There are a lot of problems that may be "minor" for some usage, but make it unusable for other applications.
Why is Siglent being given so much love?
Why do you perceive this to be the case? Pointing out bugs or issues (some similar to those with the Rigol) and complaining about the lack of a firmware update don't seem any different to what happens with any 'scope that has such issues. This seems to be most of them, today (including the expensive brands).
Recall that your principal excuse for the performance issues and bugs in the Rigol was cost: that you shouldn't expect a US$400 'scope to operate as well as a much more expensive one. That isn't unreasonable, provided basic functionality is available. This Siglent has more processing power, so should be capable of doing better than the Rigol -- but there are obvious bugs that need to be corrected.
I don't see any significant difference in reaction.
(From the end user perspective, I only care about the Siglent bugs, as that is what I bought. More generally, there is no real reason that firmware cannot be written correctly for any instrument.)