Yeah but that's the game isn't it ? Free open source licence means authors gave them permissions to do it. Complaining about something you authorized to do is not fair play.
And it's not like they became apple or microsoft. Their mistakes are minor at worst compared to other competitors. What they brought to linux, however, is huge.
Because there is a loudmouth sub-set of the community that think a single look and feel of the DE would bring about "the year of the desktop". This while they keep CADTing the APIs and ABIs, thus making third parties weary of developing for said desktop.
>>"debian users especially not taking the fork well"
This never sets well with me, especially when OSS groups are involved. Is it not fundamentally the whole point of the software freedom movement?
First, ubuntu was initially seen as "noob's linux", debian users especially not taking the fork well, nor the fact that the numbers of linux users was raising in some kind of OS version of eternal september.
Then there was the fact that ubuntu was OK to mix up proprietary code in their repos, like proprietary drivers. It was (it is) a big fight for debian to sacrifice ease of use to enforce non-proprietary software.
Third, there was the massive success of ubuntu, making all other distros the challengers. This always tends to attract criticism.
And finally, there was the perception of canonical pushing their agenda on their users, leaving them no choice, like when ubuntu migrated to unity or with the whole amazon lens debate.
The mix of all of this makes this linux distro having the easiest setup and the more compatibility/support being looked at with disdain, which is a shame, really.