However, the most basic intention of being OpenSource is to have the same successful results of projects such as Linux - not to follow some OpenSource Religion.
I think it was in the film
Revolution OS that Linus Torvalds said something to the effect that he hoped people used open source software not because of some sort of idealism but because it was better software.
That point of view has consequences. It doesn't follow from the success of the Linux kernel that it serves as a blueprint for success. If that were true, things would be different. For instance, the premise of
Revolution OS would have come true. In that film, released in 2001, Eric Raymond tells the delightful story of meeting a Microsoft executive in an elevator and telling him, "I'm your worst nightmare." But has that really been the case these years later?
Another consequence is that there can be a difference between open source source software and the best software for a given task. Characterizing people who use Access as sheep or whatever, just as an example, isn't useful.
Any efforts to paint the open source software movement as a monolithic achievement and point of view are also betrayed by Linus's observation. It's clear that central figures in the free and open source movements are not all on the same page (or there wouldn't be two movements). I think Richard Stallman prioritizes things differently from Bruce Perens. Even if not, compare the Zentyal and Trisquel communities to see the difference I'm talking about. Maybe I'm safer saying that Zentyal's CEO looks at things differently from Richard Stallman.
In any case, Zentyal both as a product and as a project inherits all that back story, for good or ill. Only chaos knows. Debian and Ubuntu are distinct because the back story matters, or at least is presumed to matter. So it's hard for me to imagine, much less know, what pure open source outcomes even look like.