Did you read bridgman's response? Well apparently you didn't understand ANYTHING he cleverly wrote to you. They had to make fundamentally changes in the linux gfx stack, before they could even start making all the good things a modern graphic stack should be. Fundamentally changes in the linux driver stack, is not something you write in two weeks!
How can it be fanboyism having an idea how hard/long it takes to re-write the whole graphic stack of linux?
My point is that the way they have chosen to do the whole open source strategy from the beginning to end is crap, so no technical reasons of the current problems can change the facts.
When you are a leader in the graphics department, you don't follow standards that slow you down (kms, gallium crap etc) but you create your own standards and everyone else follows you. That's what nvidia does now, that's why they lead *nix graphics, and no-one cares about the unstable buggy xorg standards that change/break in each version. Nvidia does this the closed-source way, ATI could had done the same, but better and open-source if they wanted.
Right now they are following intel and kernel/xorg graphics projects. Who has better experience and knowledge in the graphics department? Intel? Kernel-dev-team? xorg-dev-team? or ATI/AMD?
The answer is easy here, but the answer is not the leader and that doesn't make sense.