Sure, but can you realistically run an up-to-date server today without systemd? Especially for these organisation that runs stuff like CrowdStike.

Devuan? Void? MX? Guix?

Do sysadmins actually run any of them for large systems like stores, hospitals, airports etc?

The point is that they can if they have the want/need to.

Sysadmins at the places you listed use windows because that’s where the software support is and Active Directory exists.

Alpine Linux. I'm sure they do run that one.

I left Alpine off of my list because the only place I've ever seen it used is inside of containers, which usually don't run their distro's init system at all.

It's a matter of a single click to disable cortana, recall or anything you don't like in Windows, with tools like w10privacy.

Sure, but that’s a whole other tool.

Cortana and recall are just examples. Microsoft (or OEMs) can put anything they want in the OS and make it difficult to remove.

It’s harder to do that kind of stuff for the Linux foundation and the kernel team.

is it? where Linux = Redhat or Ubuntu in the real world, Ubuntu managed to force snaps and advertising for Ubuntu pro down everybody's throats and the Linux foundation was utterly helpless against that.

Sure, but that’s Ubuntu.

If one was fed up enough with Ubuntu, they could switch to Debian or mint and all their programs would still run and their workflows likely will not change too much.

But for windows you’d have to switch to osx or Linux, neither of which is going to easily support your software (unless it happens to run great under wine, but again that’s a different tool)

I feel like the argument of "don't like X, use Y" is often missing the point when people are expressing their pain with OSS. I find X painful because of reason A, B, C so I take the advice to switch to Y, be happy for a half day before I try to do anything complex and find pain points A', B' and C'. It's often a carousel of pain, and a question of choosing your poison over things that should just work, just working.

Just as an example, I spent a couple hours yesterday fighting USB audio to have linear scaling on my fresh Debian stable install, and I'm not getting that time back ever. Haven't had that sort of issue in more opinionated platforms like Windows/MacOS in living memory.

Linux is a more complicated and more powerful (at least more obviously powerful) tool than windows or macOS. Daily Linux use isn’t for everyone. It can be a hobby in and of itself.

The knowledge floor for productivity is much higher because most Linux projects aren’t concerned with mass appeal or ease of use (whether or not they should be is another discussion)

Debian, for example, is all about extreme stability. They tend to rely on older packages that they know are very very stable, but which may not contain newer features or hardware support.

The strength is extreme customization and control. Something that’s harder to get with windows and even harder to get with macOS.

Repeat after me: Debian STABLE does not mean Debian WORKING, it just means that major versions of most of the software will not change for this release. There are many things in Debian STABLE that are not working and that will continue to not work until next major release (or longer). I think STABLE in Debian name is the biggest mislabeling of all time.