alt Hacker News>If you know better just hack it your way.
While this might be technically true, I also think it's a lazy argument that ignores practical reality. It's basically a way to avoid any kind of accountability or self-reflection on the part of developers. "Users aren't happy? If they don't want to make the change themselves, they can fuck off." This is a toxic attitude which I see a lot in discussions of free software.
In practice, 99% of the time it's not worth the time and effort to fork and maintain a large project. Even in a free ecosystem, users get locked into specific products and technologies. This is why sane technical leadership and responsiveness to user feedback are important, even (especially?) in open source projects.
Can you tell me an instance where users got locked into a dying ecosystem in Linux?
What I can tell you is that CentOS, which was used extensively in servers, died and you didn't really see much issue, at least not as much as compared to the pain and suffering users are having to go through now that Windows is the dying place.
What's lazy is the repetition of this realist fallacy of the technical lockin, when in fact what you really have is what you see, an open platform you can very well just leave for another when you disagree with the current vendor.
Dislike Ubuntu and you can very well migrate. That's the practical reality.