The difference between the power user and the programmer is that for the latter the entire graphical system of the computer can be considered to some degree optional. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the perspective of the "gnu/linux power users"; the concerns are not aesthetic. The principle that graphics are optional is not a secondary function of Unix either, but a core tenet. To whatever degree that the goals of the graphical user interface and the textual interface conflict, the TUI will pretty much always win, in Linux.
These Unix principles are as much as anything else agreements between developers, that computer systems should be designed along certain lines. Compliance with any standard is more or less optional, and compliance with open source licenses, while not optional in the strictest legal sense, are as often 'honored in the breach as the observance'. It can be hard to detect when a license has been violated; refer also to the issue of public code lacking an explicit license. Generally though, if you agree to play nice with others, they will let you use their code without any financial consideration whatsoever. Linux is merely one example of the fruits of these agreements.
Bear with me here: because of the inability to simultaneously optimize for both TUI and GUI, making Unix palatable to the masses involves in some fundamental ways making it not Unix. Apple has been very successful with this strategy -- would you imagine that iPods and iTunes don't even have their own scripting language? -- and Canonical has been only a moderate success. The difference between the two is that no one would ever think to interact with an Apple machine exclusively by way of the command line.
On the one hand, Canonical needs Linux to serve as the basis for Ubuntu. On the other hand, they need Ubuntu to be different from Linux/Unix, because Unix isn't really built for normal people to find it usable. You can make it into something like that, but the more you do, the less Unixy it is. Also in doing so, you're going to end up violating Linux standards, and particularly where concerns the GUI. You may rely upon this generating ill will.
My opinion is that at some point, Ubuntu will be better served by describing itself as a Linux-compatible OS, rather than a Linux distribution per se. The Moblin/Meego/Sailfish fiasco seems to have resulted in precisely that animal, I'm afraid, and SteamOS never pretended to be anything different. Canonical needs to divorce Linux, but it needs to keep living in the same house for as long as possible.
On an unfortunate persona note I must add that you seem to be under the idea that you are in the group of users for which Linux is primarily intended to be useful, or that your use case is to some large degree compatible, and I regret to say that such is unlikely to be the case.