There are many reasons to choose Linux over the alternatives that have nothing to do with one's ability to customize it.

One example is the simplicity of system management. Desktop oriented Linux distributions tend to take care of everything from application installation to updates with a single interface with minimal interruption to my work flow. This is only sometimes the case with macOS and Windows. Android, iOS, and ChromeOS are not realistic contenders in the application space for some users.

Cost of ownership is another factor. Linux may not make sense for some businesses if they have to hire someone to manage their systems, but an end user who can handle often trivial tasks can usually support their own system and benefit from less downtime. While paying for software is a good thing, it frequently adds many constraints on what can be done while modern business models can make licenses prohibitively expensive (e.g. subscription models or various forms of forced obsolescence).

Other reasons include: sometimes the desired software just works better under Linux since it was designed for Linux, a desire for privacy or a need to ensure confidentiality, compatibility with older hardware that is no longer supported by the vendor (but may be supported by open source developers).

Working with what's presented simply means that you are unlikely to modify what is shipped by the vendor. You can still add to it or benefit in other areas.

So you are claiming that simplicity of system management is a strength of Linux?

Ok, we disagree on that, but I get what you are saying.

But, another aspect of what you are saying is ‘trust the vendor and don’t look under the hood’. This is no different from trusting Apple or Microsoft.

You are actually confirming the general point that Linux provides no benefit in terms of who you have to trust.

I.e. it doesn’t in fact give you a system that you own and control - you are at the mercy of a vendor.

Most Linux distributions are also easier to audit than commercial operating systems and some go as far as encouraging it. While this is optional and requires a deeper understanding of what you're looking at, it does not require handing control over to a third-party (including the vendor). You can choose to trust the vendor by clicking a button, you can use integrated tools to choose what is done and when it is done, you can use those tools to audit what is done before it is done, or you can audit it down to the source code level. This is a far cry from Apple, Google, and Microsoft's approach where you have very little control and what little control you do have is complex to access.

To be clear: my commentary on "work with what's presented" was merely in response to above comment about Linux desktop shit-show. The following is about choosing Linux over alternatives.

I avoid Apple because of the slow descent into vendor / walled garden lock-in, which suits neither my wallet nor personality.

I have a couple of ChromeOS devices for the kids' schooling, but they're unwieldy for my workflow.

You didn't ask, but I moved away from Windows because of increased bloat, telemetry and the dual issue of decreasing control of "services running" alongside noticeable slow-down of performance frustratingly too soon after a fresh install. I've also had two occasions (which is two too many) where Windows decided, upon it's own, to install updates and reboot, losing whatever I had open at the time, no message pre- or post-update just clean login screen next time I went to use the machine. I think they've made that better, and there are options to control the nature of how updates are dealt with, but I've already made the jump.

"what's presented" by Linux may not be perfect, but it's closer to my perfection than the alternatives I've tried (to be clear, this is what works for me, not necessarily anyone else).