Apparently the guy has a good deal of support, but not from me. I disagree with virtually every point he raises. Not all of them, mind you, but most.
For example, I love spatial nautilus. This guy proposes to go back to navigational. I have to use navigational on my xp box at work and it irritates me to no end.
He proposes changing the button order. Well ok, but I like it fine the way it is. I find it very intuitive. I could probably get used to another button order, but why bother?
He proposes not only that java, mono, python, perl, et all ("fancy technology....oooooooh) be avoided, but that future technologies not be considered for inclusion in gnome. That means no Storage for advanced searching capabilities, no gnome-volume-manager for plug-in-and-it-works functionality, and no slick apps that use python or mono (both of which are gaining serious credibility). His philosophy is "if it ain't C it's no good!". He offers no arguments for this other than to call other technology "fancy." If he's dismissive of alternative options right off the bat then he's just lost the bulk of his credibility with me.
He proposes ripping out things like default music and document locations and exposing the filesystem more. It's generally agreed that Mac OSX has the best user interface around, and they sure as hell didn't get that title by exposing the file system. They got that title by making things as pretty as possible for the user to use. Not everyone is a hardcore unix type. Not everyone is a hardcore windows type. Most Gnome users just want to listen to music while writing a document. If you can make that as braindead as possible, you've succeeded.
Seriously, I never really saw what all the whining and crying was about from half of the gnome community. Oh wah wah wah...you took our options away! Gnome is every bit as flexible as I need it to be. Seriously, my needs include surfing the web, writing email, music, office stuff, file management, and programming. Those needs are probably far greater than 80% of the Gnome user base out there and current Gnome does me just fine. Who gives a fuck whether Rhythmbox defaults to a standard music folder, or a menu item is called "web browser" instead of "epiphany." Chumps like this guy are micromanaging, and probably need to get out of the house a hell of a lot more. It's not Gnome I've gotten sick of...it's the people who bitch whine and complain about the lack of options and customizability. I can set things up just how I like them through preferences and gconf...really I don't see what the issue is.
Guys like Galaxy (the guy who's released this set of patches) are probably better off using something like FVWM or KDE or Gnome 1.x or some other environment that allows them to customize and tweak and edit files so that in the long run they can be 0.7523 and a half % more productive. Seriously the guy sounds like he'd be a real fan of a pure straight up window manager...it makes no decisions for you whatsoever, and contains none of this "fancy pants technology" that people keep talking about. If you ask me he comes off sounding like a hyperconservative nut job who's terrified of progress. I sincerely hope his project fizzles.
Ok that was a lot to write so I'm not really gonna pick apart Ralinx's initial post like I intended I'd just like to point out one thing that came to mind as I was reading it: I tried KDE 3.2 from SuSE a few weeks back, and not very much has changed since I used to use KDE 3.0 back in the day. New default theme, a little faster, some new apps, but that's about it...nothing groundbreaking. No real progress. Now the entire reason I was using KDE at the time was because Gnome 2.0 was completely unusable. Compare Gnome 2.6 with Gnome 2.0, and then compare KDE 3.2 with KDE 3.0 and you tell me who hasn't made any real progress in the last 2 years