Too bad building software isn't at all like building a spice rack unless you're taking about continually rebuilding a spice rack and replacing its components constantly till it turns into a house (as 99% of software is wont to do).
Maybe it should be more like building a spice rack instead of a house. The whole UNIX philosophy of simple programs that do one thing well was successful for a reason.
Or it would have been if the programs really were simple, and not a wild mix of itty bitty trivial doodads and monsters with a huge collection of switches for special cases and extra features, many of which were added and used by exactly one person, collected into non-standardised toolkits which differ significantly across every single variant, and often between versions of the same variant.
And if they really did one thing well. Which - not infrequently - they don't. (See also: critical bugs in ssh, etc.)
And if they didn't have unintuitive names that are impossible to guess.
UNIX isn't just not a spice rack, it's an entire industrial area of tool sheds, grouped with absolutely no foresight or consistency, and impossible to get around without expert assistance.
It kind of works if nine square miles of warehouses connected by bicycle paths with free paper maps of small disconnected areas is your idea of a fun thing. But it's a bit of a stretch to call it an unqualified success.
