Ubuntu is Not Revolutionary
THE Ubuntu community died a very long time ago, almost a decade and a half ago. Nowadays Canonical is a Microsoft partner that's pandering to banks and trying to sell services around buzzwords like "clown" (cloud), "smart" (whatever that means), and "Hey Hi" (AI).
When Canonical started Ubuntu it was shipping CDs all around the world, trying to make the media easily available/accessible to as many people as possible. Ubuntu was almost the same as Debian (in 2004 it was virtually identical; I tried it at work for a year), but it had more marketing and budget for distribution.
Ubuntu is historically significant because for a period of about a decade it was quite dominant. It is still used a lot, but the momentum is gone and the investment in Ubuntu as a desktop/laptop operating system isn't quite there anymore. It's very similar to Fedora with GNOME desktop and the main difference is the packaging/distribution format.
The market dynamics have changed a great deal; for one thing, many people now use "phones" with "apps" and some people run on their desktop/laptop mostly a browser with some "webapp". This is not good for people's digital life (e.g. privacy, control over files), but there has been insufficient resistance. Ubuntu never truly resisted the mainstream. Remember UbuntuOne? █