Not even mentioning the #1 reason: freedom
Most systemd distributions have a lot of technical merit (I like Fedora Silverblue), but they are increasingly becoming monolithic, so hackability isn't one of their strengths.
I remember a time when Linux was pure anarchy, with loosely coupled independent subsystems that could easily be experimented with and replaced. Now, most distributions are much closer to macOS: they "just work", but you're not supposed to mess with them. So long for hackability.
I am not a fan of Systemd for irrelevant reasons. But the "monolithic" nature of systems has to do with the interdependence of the parts not the glue.
> I remember a time when Linux was pure anarchy, with loosely coupled independent subsystems
Sounds like my Linux box I have for fun. We are still making systems like that, but for business purposes we were always making solid and staid systems.
Very little has changed, only the words we use to say it (and the raw power of the underlying hardware of course!)
I (literally) remember a time from some years before Linux just was - because i was alive, and working in software, then.
source code of packages, including major ones, was available to download ... and source code for programs was available probably much before the technique of downloading was even a thing. people used to ship around programs in source code format via (magnetic) tapes or usenet or sneakernet, later, floppies, etc. see the Jargon File for much more computer lore than you would ever want to know about, including some of this stuff, although plenty of it is interesting, imo.
>So long for hackability.
pardon me.
are Linux distributions not downloadable as source anymore?
I guess, to many devs, including me, that's the ultimate meaning of hackability.
because then you can hack anything from the top to the bottom of the stack.
still editing ...
Autohotkey is vastly superior to anything available on Linux, where one must string together several arcane tools to achieve similar scripting effects. Autohotkey serves for everything, it is extreme reliable and predictable. I know someone will shout "there's Autokey on Linux! And pyautogui!". Rest assured, I know these tools. They're not nearly as reliable and comprehensive as Autohotkey is on Windows.
On Linux, I may sometimes have to glue xmodmap + xcape + xbindkeys + xdotool + wmctrl + whatever-else in a bash script that will probably require reading multiple man pages and multiple iterations to get right. Autohotkey would only require accessing a single source of solid documentation, as it can all be done in a single Autohotkey script that doesn't rely on any other tool.
More often than not GPT will give you the entire code that you need on the first or second response. But it only knows Autohotkey version 1.
By analogy it's as is there's a single stable interface to the GUI layers in apps mediated by the OS, instead of poking at X APIs.
I'm not a programmer but still... It's a little demotivating.
FWIW if you want something to start maximised I'm sure there's a flag in STARTUP_INFO to say that when you create process
You only need to know one – awk.
How is this even a question?
(edit: to not put words in anyone else's mouth)
Software freedom is a very important business property.
Closed source software can be OK while it is supported, and the licencing agreements not too onerous. But when those conditions no longer apply, very expensive retooling ensues. I have seen this often
Free software does not suffer those fates.
This is a very important business reason for Free Software