Earlier quoted context omitted.
The list of Ubuntu "sins" is very long, and goes all the way to their founding - effectively forking the Debian ecosystem. As for being "dev friendly", it really depends on what you mean by that; their insistence on building their own things and discounting third-party input, over and over, was anything but friendly.
[Article author and submitter here] > effectively forking the Debian ecosystem The company and project were founded by a Debian user and developer, who employed and still employs a number of Debian developers, to make a version of Debian for ordinary people. How is that a bad thing? Ubuntu changes feed back into Debian. Debian now has the `apt` command instead of `aptitude`. It has the Ubuntu GUI tool for configuring…
But seriously: Shuttleworth tried a classic EEE play on Debian, over and over and over. Obviously nerds mostly want to get along and will end up talking to each other, but it doesn't change the fact that, at the time, it was a (not-that-) thinly veiled, well-funded takeover attempt on the Debian ecosystem and community.
> Ubuntu changes feed back into Debian. Debian now has the `apt` command
It's nice that you bring up a classic case of unashamed namesquatting. People have been referring to "apt" in general terms since apt-get came on the scenes, 6 YEARS before Canonical was founded. But why give up the chance to piggyback on someone else's brand, eh...? So when the time came to churn on the umpteen apt-get frontend, they did just that.