Fact is, opensuse tries too hard to mimic Ubuntu - and fails. Everything it strives to do, Ubuntu does better (more user friendly, better out-the-box experience, wider software selection).
You don't understand, I like Mono. It's evil, it's fast and it brings the trolls out every time! Win win.Let me give a notice to you, that Opensuse even does not install mono by default! So why is opensuse worse than ubuntu, when ubuntu - according to your standards - act worse than opensuse?
Besides, Ubuntu didn't develop this evil piece of software so they cannot act worse, by definition.
In the present, however, Ubuntu is the most user-friendly distro by far. Yes, some distros may be better in specific things, but Ubuntu is the only distro that tries to be usable to non-techies.That's subjective. Same applied to many distributions (like Mandrake) in past. The only thing Canonical did, is marketing. Canonical in fact is marketing company.
So distros need corporate money otherwise they cannot exist? On what money do debian/opensuse/fedora feed? Why do you think that Ubuntu couldn't function in a community-driven manner if Canonical went away?I would like to emphasis here, that Ubuntu is not vital project today, because it works on credit of Shuttleworth money. There are no other resources behind it. There is no other such project without sustainable development. Canonicals model is not sustainable. It is not comparable neither with Debian style projects, neither with Opensuse/Fedora style projects. So how can ubuntu bring anything?
Besides, there are strong forces who would see to Ubuntu's continuance. Google is developing an Ubuntu-derived distro, for instance - even if the parent distro went away, it's legacy would remain.