All using an incompatible ecosystem. This is were fragmentation starts, not when Ubuntu joined the scene in 2004.
Well, what's new there? RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! :p
We've seemingly traded the emacs/vi wars for the RPM/DEB, sysVinit/systemd/upstart, Pulseaudio/ALSA/JACK wars.
And per your definition: a "little head" will not cause disruption in this area.
Not sure what you're referencing with this remark, but to clarify one thing: I wasn't denigrating Ubuntu-at-that-point; merely making light of the fact that it was a fledgling distro fighting to garner attention and get users.
Debian and RH were still big, big players, and I recall (and initially joined in on) skepticism about it; some of it the same "Well, why fuck around with Ubuntu when it's just Debian Testing or whatever? Bah!" as today.
I know I was pretty risk-averse about switching distros, given how damned hard they were to dial in, and I don't recall hearing about significant adoption of it for a few versions.
Although I agree it is not always good for adoption, I think the "do as you please" DNA combined with huge technical quick wins is the big reason why entrepreneurs come to Linux. I would not criticize it, but if we chose to do so, I would like the same standards for everyone.
Linux Standard Base adoption helped fix some of the huge incompatibility mess...but I'd be hesitant to have every ship in the sea always tack the same direction on less critical things.
That includes Ubuntu. :)
Being able to compare, contrast, and bitch at other projects because they are So Very Obviously Wrong allows us to maintain perspective and drives innovation, and even if it costs us some users and mainstream developers...well, screw it - as an ecosystem we're ludicrously adaptable and agile.