This is really just the age old "you chose the wrong distro!" argument that Linux evangelists have used for 2 decades now to dismiss criticism.
If parent had instead said that they were having trouble getting some software working because of a system library conflict, you'd admonish them for using a distro meant for hackers instead of one of the "easy" distros.
The point being: why should anyone have to choose between these two extremes? Why can't things be both simple and functional?
Simple and functional are completely subjective. To answer your question: they have to choose because there are dozens, if not hundreds of options to choose from. That is like one of the most common espoused benefits of the platform, from Linux evangelists and open source maximalists alike!
Apparently you are unable to differentiate between nostalgia and an actual technical issue. Yeah, I remember sysv init too! Why should I have to choose between that and systemd??? That isn't exactly the same as having a library issue. hth
If parent had instead said that they were having trouble getting some software working because of a system library conflict, you'd admonish them for using a distro meant for hackers instead of one of the "easy" distros.
The point being: why should anyone have to choose between these two extremes? Why can't things be both simple and functional?