Re: Nits
\r\n\r\nPoint I made before, define your userbase. For Linux, that userbase is a fairly well educated and fairly technical bunch. And possibly, the alienation of the userbase may have come from a change in project goals...which will generally make enemies of the current userbase if they feel like the changes aren't necessary/warranted (which brings you back to the curse of having smart people as users)
GNOME has defined its target userbase. Its target userbase, however, is not necessarily the sort of person who's already using Linux, and a lot of its moves toward simplicity and usability have been undertaken with an eye toward bringing users to Linux who never would have considered the switch before (and who mostly would not have considered the switch because Linux represented a bewilderingly complex and frightening system with an obscene learning curve). Also, there's rally no way to aim for this target userbase without forsaking the "absolutely everything must be configurable in absolutely every conceivable way" crowd.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nI disagree, the best interfaces are those which are intuitive and consistent from the outset. The great interfaces are those which, from the humble beginnings of consistency, give the user the ability to adapt the interface to his/her specific situation (ie-disability configurations, personalizations, etc.)
That really is a nit you're picking there. For sake of technical precision, I would have been better off saying "A characteristic of many of the best interfaces is that they are intelligent", but felt no need for such cumbersome language.
\r\n\r\nAs for alienating the userbase, I don't think it's too much of a problem. The people who were going to switch away from GNOME over this have already done so. The remaining noise is from people who wouldn't use GNOME even if it implemented everything they say they want, and can be safely ignored.