The Gnome project has a reputation and a long history of removing preferences that people want. The 'Ubuntu interface preferences' are largely Gnome preferences, and taken on and individual basis, are generally quite reasonable. The only 'mess' I know of is the fact that the preferences are displayed in a giant dropdown menu, instead of in a control applet interface, like OS X, Windows, and SuSe do. Gnome actually has a control applet that should take the place of that dropdown, but Ubuntu chooses not to use it.
OpenOffice.org is a disaster whose problems go far deeper than the UI.
Also, rails is changing things by preferring convention over configuration? What year is this, 2005?
In the end, here is my complaint: You are taking what is essentially the best case scenario, proprietary or not, and saying that it means software with a copyright license is more usable than software with a copyleft license. Stop doing that, it does the general discourse about software a disservice.
Best case scenario... OK, how many apps are in the iPhone app store? 1/4 million I think I saw somewhere? How many of those are open source? A lot of those sell more copies than most desktop apps would dream of. You can put open source apps on the store, and it could impact a ton of people. Why isn't it happening? Android apps, from what I've seen, have a similar comparison - while many of the successful open source apps are unique in some functionality, the vast majority of the polished design seems to be coming from small companies. And Android is far more appealing to most programmers / geeks who value open source. What's the disconnect coming from, if not lack of supply?
I've yet to see more than low-double-digits of beautifully designed open source programs, and the majority of those were made entirely by one person, often open-sourced because they didn't think they could get enough money to make monetizing it worthwhile. I've been watching for years (though I could be watching in the wrong area). Meanwhile, the rest of the world has been utterly rocketing towards more focus on design, and has a long history of success.
Want more evidence? Look at games. Millions upon millions of players, probably approaching billions of copies sold / downloaded, very few of which are open source games. There's an entire industry oriented around UI/UX and design... and where's the open source influence? Bad Civilization / Quake clones? A lot of the unique designs I've seen have been done by individuals without open sourcing the code, for whatever reason.
And yes, OOo is frightening on many levels. It's a worst case scenario, and I recognize it... but I see it echoed frequently in other OSS projects.
I have not said OSS cannot produce good UIs. I have said there seems to be a trend, and at least I have seen far less. And also take into account that this is not done by enumerating all programs ever produced; this is weighted by success, especially with the design-oriented consumer culture lately.
OpenOffice.org is a disaster whose problems go far deeper than the UI.
Also, rails is changing things by preferring convention over configuration? What year is this, 2005?
In the end, here is my complaint: You are taking what is essentially the best case scenario, proprietary or not, and saying that it means software with a copyright license is more usable than software with a copyleft license. Stop doing that, it does the general discourse about software a disservice.