First of all, some friendly advice: please learn to use paragraphs and punctuation. Long posts without paragraph breaks are physically painful to read, and run-in sentences with 20 commas just make you seem like an out-of-breath teenager venting about his/her FEELINGS... neither of which do any favours to your credibility.
With that out of the way, I can see you've adopted the same general tone as most devoted Ubuntu fans: "everyone else are just haters who are jealous and want Canonical to fail"... "others just want Linux to be hard and only use command line"... "Canonical is the ONLY one innovating on Linux, without Ubuntu, Linux will fail"...
And as I've said before, it's no wonder - this rhetoric comes directly from Shuttleworth. Shuttleworth is, although a misguided, grandiose, and at times downright a pompous fool, also a charismatic person who has the gift to make people believe in what he's saying. That's not a bad quality for a leader as such, but it's also meaningless - and potentially dangerous - if not used responsibly...
Many times I've now seen this same rhetoric being used by Shuttleworth, and then numerous Ubuntu fans come to forums and parrot his talking points - and it's only natural, it comes with the territory: you're a huge Ubuntu fan, you idolize Shuttleworth, you take your behavioural cues from him. Too bad that the rhetoric Shuttleworth uses is increasingly often arrogant, fallacious, passive-aggressive and even downright slanderous (remember the whole Mir FUD debacle...)
Mark has a tendency to make strawman arguments. He likes to dress up his opponents as foolish old dodderers who are too set in their ways to see Mark's brilliance. And this is a narrative that is very effective - we tend to root for the underdog, the story of the little guy who nobody believed in, who everyone laughed at but triumphed at the end against overwhelming odds is ingrained very deeply in our culture: it's a story told thousands of times in various forms... it's a formula used very often in Hollywood movies, because it's an effective narrative, it's something people relate with very easily, and has appeal to most people. We want the little guy to win.
And this is the narrative that Mark also uses - he wants to craft this story where he is a lonely, misunderstood genius, where the Old Guard laughs at him and doesn't believe in his brilliance...
Of course there has been many good things made by Canonical, they've made some very useful contributions to the Linux ecosystem - but recently they've also made some very questionable moves, and it's delusional behaviour to claim that there hasn't been controversies because of those decisions.
The problem is, when you accept Mark's narrative of "everyone is just a mean jerk who wants to keep us down, they just don't understand our visionary brilliance", you're also shutting out all criticism and honest debate about the decisions of Canonical. When your counter to all arguments made against Canonical, all criticism expressed towards Canonical's decisions, is to say "you're just a hater who wants to see Canonical fail"... that's a problem, because then, who is there to question the actions of Canonical?
No man, no business, no government, no corporation, no organization should have our unconditional trust. You should never follow anyone blindly. Always think for yourself... Nothing is holy - everything should be open to be questioned and debated against.
Dee did you notice how earlier I told someone to be nice and respect others opinions as no opinions are correct? Then you go and post this rude peice of garbage. There is a reason noone respects what you write dee.