That's just envy. What he says is:
I started this distro, with the aims of creating a desktop specific linux, and it was good and doing quite well, and then this milliionaire bloke came along and without innovation created a better, more hyped distro. Lots of people now run this distro and only the early adopters run mine.
So what? He then criticises all the clones for lack of innovation and says that a clone is by definition unstable. Well, if they do all this work on top of the base distro, then there is innovation, and if they don't, then they would have no usp and no difference with the base (and no instability problems). So his argument isn't even internally consistent. And look at his website (linked in PrettyBoyTim's post). Would you choose the linux distro from that homepage? The only mention of linux is on the forum links with someone asking if he can use his smartphone as a modem. It's fundamentally unprofessional. It does not look like the website of a distro that believes that it is the desktop distribution of the future.
Ubuntu suits me very well because of the LTS versions. If they didn't exist, I'd run Debian (as I did before), but because they do, I can have a linux box that requires comparatively little maintenance (and I'm fundamentally lazy).