GNU/Linux is about Freedom. Among them is the freedom to choose what runs in your computer and how. So in that sense, it is about choice.

That’s preciselly what allows anyone to change anything. If anything, it’s the ones that fight against that freedom the ones with the controlling OCD.

Choice is what drives innovation and change. If people aren’t allowed to choose and can’t experiment with alternatives then they’ll always have to use the same thing, no competition, no change.

I do agree that no software should try to “ship everything”. But that has nothing to do with giving choice. The UNIX philosophy is a good example of the freedom that can come from simplicity, you don’t need a program to do it all for it to empower user choice. In fact, often the small tools that do just one thing but do it well are the ones that offer the most flexibility in the way people can integrate them in very different workflows.

Note that allowing the user to choose by themselves what they run/do is not the same thing as demanding that devs implement/give the user anything.

I’m sure I’d agree with the underlying context, but I think it picked the wrong message. Choice is good and Free Software is about choice.

Linux isn’t “about” anything. It’s just a kernel that some people build operating systems on top of. There’s nothing deep or mystical about it.

Linus himself said he only cares about code.

Personally, I only care about the code. When I say maybe there are people who worry about walled gardens and cloud providers who take ownership of your data, I am not one of those people.

(source)

Without knowing the context, his comment sounds quite reasonable