In general, it is better to leave nothing to user choice, if you can get away with it. By using any developer's software, you are conceding that their way is the correct way to do things, otherwise why waste your time with that software? There is no software in existence that is able to do every possible thing that anyone would ever want to do.
It just feels smug and talked-down when someone comes along and sands over a reasonable amount of control and complexity that previously existed. I hate having my workflow disrupted because I like getting work done.
Would you argue that we should have no shell aliases? No BIOS and boot order? No desktop wallpaper? No ability to set homepages in the web browser? Etc etc.
The computer is like anything else I own and the more it responds to my wishes, the better. Small tweaks left to my discretion remind me of that, losing control piecemeal provokes disquietude. If it doesn't accommodate my needs then it feels less mine and for that reason I reject software that restricts my choices.
>Would you argue that we should have no shell aliases? No BIOS and boot order? No desktop wallpaper? No ability to set homepages in the web browser?
Those could be nice to have. I can say I do not actually need any of those things when I use my computer to write documents in a word processor. Do you see where I am going with this? Any "control" you want to have is completely up to what you are trying to do, if all I am trying to do is write my novel then all those other things can get in the way.
I'm glad there are people out there that do not follow this user-is-an-idiot philosophy and created essential software like Emacs, Vim, ranger file manager, and i3wm.
If I wanted to use software that works for most people and doesn't believe in allowing users to make choices, I'd use MacOS or Windows. I can't see a reason to use Linux or BSD in that case.