To quote CS Lewis:
>Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
If you know better just hack it your way. Linux is an open platform. Nothing prevents you from gutting Ubuntu and making it your own. You can't say the same for Windows though.
So I guess is not a matter of monopoly of idiocy, but whether you can do something about idiot decisions when they are made. This is why an open platform will always win. It's just architecturally better for the end user.
While this might be technically true, I also think it's a lazy argument that ignores practical reality. It's basically a way to avoid any kind of accountability or self-reflection on the part of developers. "Users aren't happy? If they don't want to make the change themselves, they can fuck off." This is a toxic attitude which I see a lot in discussions of free software.
In practice, 99% of the time it's not worth the time and effort to fork and maintain a large project. Even in a free ecosystem, users get locked into specific products and technologies. This is why sane technical leadership and responsiveness to user feedback are important, even (especially?) in open source projects.
What I can tell you is that CentOS, which was used extensively in servers, died and you didn't really see much issue, at least not as much as compared to the pain and suffering users are having to go through now that Windows is the dying place.
What's lazy is the repetition of this realist fallacy of the technical lockin, when in fact what you really have is what you see, an open platform you can very well just leave for another when you disagree with the current vendor.
Dislike Ubuntu and you can very well migrate. That's the practical reality.
I actually did leave Ubuntu because background Snap updates were randomly crashing running applications. Now, I'm fairly happy with Fedora, but it's far from perfect. I reject the idea that if I have technical critiques of these projects, that the fault somehow lies with me if I'm not willing to waste my time jumping distros or rewriting them myself. That attitude is exactly analogous to the user-hostile bullshit coming out of Microsoft.
The GP already knows about FOSS. He uses OpenBSD and Guix and in his own words this is his "small, happy place".
Guix in particular is an excellent example of FOSS innovation.
As an end user I want the product/tool to serve me well out of the box, I don't have time to hack it to fix what I dislike about it on my own dime. That's what my job is for.