Thank's god for that! An OS should build on its strenghts, not be a least common demoninator for portabillity's sake. If that was ok we might just as well just use one OS
To your point, it seems like eventually this ends poorly for the incumbents, when they become too bloated and too difficult to extend or modify, since you have to work around some over-engineered high-availability process clustering to touch anything.
In Linux's case, I think the kernel itself is actually fine, but the user land is increasingly tightly glued to an increasingly convoluted set of RedHat stacks.
I mean, it always has -- RedHat made the modern posix threads library, Linux's PAM, and several other core parts, but at least those were pretty modular and "unixy", by comparison to the monolith being developed now.
More like, Redhat/IBM defines what Linux has simply by paying most Linux devs, and of course they take advantage of it in userspace and sys management.
cgroups/namespaces, systemd, gnome (and it's integration with systemd) plus others are two-sided swords: one one hand they create new functionality, but on the other hand the price to pay is concentrating Linux know-how in one place, and greatly diminishing portability of Linux apps vs other Unix O/Ses and even other Linuxes that don't want to go with the program of absorbing ever more functionality into kernels and system frameworks for no real reason other than monopolization.
Unix was designed as a simple portable operating system in very short time. With 30 years of development, the situation today could also be interpreted in such a way that Linux devs just can't stop to add code. Time will tell if Linux can be maintained if the original generation of devs step down. I'd feel more comfortable if we've let kernels stay minimal rather than becoming kitchen sinks. Apart from better portability, this would've also enabled younger devs to start from scratch rather than having to maintain daddy-o's monstrosity.