Well here's an explicit accusation of misbehavior to sate your hunger: Canonical has deliberately gone out of its way to stomp on its users, taking advantage of Ubuntu's once-upon-a-time reputation as being "community-driven" to prey upon and exploit that community for failed commercial gain. The Amazon Shopping Lens is but one example of this.
You're delusional if you honestly believe Canonical has any semblance of morality. I'm pretty sure cosmic rays zapped the neurons in Shuttleworth's brain, causing him to take on all the downsides of a Jobs-sized ego without any of the benefits, and now Ubuntu has gone from an excellent modernization of Debian to the second-worst distro (behind only Fedora, though this is increasingly marginal).
Hyperbole does not help anyone, even if it's hyperbole for the purpose of reinforcing some more reasonable point (which I have no way of knowing is the case here). Saying Canonical has no "semblance of morality" is over the top to say the least. I'll take dry boring truth over exciting made-up drama any day.
> to prey upon and exploit that community for failed commercial gain.
AFAICT, Ubuntu doesn't really make money: it's basically Mark Shuttleworth funneling some of his fortune into a Linux distribution. That's a pretty good deal for us end users in many ways, and I don't really blame them for trying to at least break even.
I'm well aware of this, which is why I indicate that it's for failed commercial gain. IIRC, they're making some modest money in a support and administration role (with things like Landscape and what not), but I've yet to see a big Ubuntu-based project actually be successful by any measure.
I'm not complaining about anything but the claim that you made no accusation. A statement that there was misbehavior is an accusation. I'm open to the notion that it was explicit rather than implicit...
