> Because of the fragmentation, I don't have to use systemd, or pulseaudio, or snap, or Gnome desktop, or most other things I don't want to use for whatever reason.
I think part of the very reason some folks like you don't like to use some of those things is their shortcomings... which likely come about in part due to the plethora of choices leading to fragmented efforts on the development side. People shift their attention to the newer/shinier things all the time, and nothing ends up becoming rock-solid to the point where you wouldn't even think about wanting to replace it.
To put this into perspective, consider how bizarre it would be to hear end-users complain "What if I want to replace the Windows Audio/Task Scheduler/etc. service with something else?" in Windows land.
"Linux is about choice" is the most toxic and cancerous idea in the Linux world.
Linux has always been about software freedom and open source, it was never about choice. When people made it about choice, infinite fragmentation started and there's no end in sight.
Though with their shortcomings, thankfully somebody is fighting against that concept, and trying to build a stable base for everybody.
I'm not sure how you can put "software freedom" and "never about choice" in the same sentence to be honest. Software freedom implies without a doubt the freedom of not using software, or that of using "different" software.
That makes absolutely zero sense. The whole point of being able to modify and redistribute is about being in control of the software running on your system.
I posit that freedom 0 of the free software definition can be interpreted to mean that one can not just not use a specific piece of software, but even make use of alternatives if they're better suited for one's purpose.
Pretending that freedom of choice about what people spend their free time on is "an unfortunate side effect", is what represents a "toxic" attitude in my opinion.
End users might not complain about that but most end users do not care about that. For those that care there are replacements like Process Explorer/Hacker.
And people have tried a LOT to replace stuff in Windows, it is just that Microsoft doesn't make it as easy as on Linux.
> "What if I want to replace the Windows Audio... service with something else?"
In Windows Vista, Microsoft rebuilt the audio stack on top of WASAPI, making MME and DirectSound shims which feed into WASAPI. However, they didn't break compatibility, and all APIs more-or-less work nowadays. On Linux, ALSA apps sometimes have trouble picking the right device when talking to PulseAudio, and it's difficult for PulseAudio and Jack to share a single device.
I think part of the very reason some folks like you don't like to use some of those things is their shortcomings... which likely come about in part due to the plethora of choices leading to fragmented efforts on the development side. People shift their attention to the newer/shinier things all the time, and nothing ends up becoming rock-solid to the point where you wouldn't even think about wanting to replace it.
To put this into perspective, consider how bizarre it would be to hear end-users complain "What if I want to replace the Windows Audio/Task Scheduler/etc. service with something else?" in Windows land.