Libervis has made a follow-up on their critical discussion of Ubuntu. They seem more balanced in the arguments this time and is quite positive on Ubuntu.
The article is a follow-up on this one. and you can enjoy it here.
Here's a good example from it:
Fork or not?
According to the current results of our poll, the community is far from agreeable on the answer to this question. I would say that it is so because they are searching for the wrong thing or maybe the question just seems to mandate that the answer should be merely “yes” or “no”, that is, “it's a fork” or “it's a derivate”. I think that the right answer would be neither or in the same sense *both*. What Ubuntu is, is a Debian *based* GNU/Linux distro, but that doesn't essentially make it neither a fork or a derivate if you'd closely follow the meaning of those two.
Good part of the commentators would say something I tend to agree with as the best possible answer; Ubuntu is a fork of Debian release cycle and derivate of the rest (the actual package management system and the unstable package repository). This answer also makes sense particularly considering that the strictness of Ubuntu six month release cycle actually is the very source of any incompatibility issues that arise. As Ubuntu “snapshots” Debian unstable to make a new release of it, Debian unstable itself still continues to evolve essentially diverging itself from the point at which it was when the snapshot has been made and thus from the snapshot and its outcome; the new Ubuntu release. The only bridge remaining as a possible compatibility saviour are all the patches that Ubuntu sends back, but their implementation isn't ensured as it depends on debian maintainers' and their decision of whether the recieved patch fits Debian and it's goals or not.