Having been the only Linux admin of sorts at my former place of employment at my local community college, I can attest to why some of this might be helpful from a standards perspective.
DRBL, software I used for cloning lab systems among other things, was not something that was made to work with Slackware. It does work with Debian (Supposedly, I had issues with it), but I ultimately used CentOS.
In that case, it's a collection of various software put together in such a way to make the whole cloning job go smoothly. But this kind of setup can't really be replicated with relative ease when you have a bunch of people using different standards/methodologies. (This is just an example of course, I'm sure this could happen just as easily with other software.)
Additionally, some of the ease of use points are indeed of concern. While I learned Linux on Slackware and attest to it, it remains a hard sell for me to people that are new to Linux, because I'm supposedly known for my friends to use Slackware because I'm "into Linux hardcore", and so in that respect it's viewed as a hobby OS more than something to use widely. I don't agree with that attitude, but unfortunately it's often what prevails, and it's partly why I couldn't install Slackware and leave it for someone else to manage when I left, it's just not considered easy enough.
So, as others have pointed out, there are places where standards can help, but I don't think it's a particularly common concern. The harder sells I think are the ease of use points. While most of us use Slackware because we agree with the design decisions and see why they are done, there is naturally a lot of disagreement as to what's best.