Sort of off-topic, but kinda relevant I guess...

I'd say it's more like this:

If you're trying to sell a product to a bunch of idiots, the most important thing is the way it, and its documentation, looks. The packaging, the finish, gets most of the attention because, well, that's what sells.

If you're making a product because YOU want to use it, and you're nice enough to let other people use it too, then the most important thing is the way it works, its capabilities. So what if a few less-used-by-YOU operations are a little chunky, you're not trying to sell it; YOU don't need a pretty package, YOU don't need slick documentation, so it doesn't happen.

Thus, FOSS software tends to be more functional and less pretty; the development efforts go into core-functionality instead of appearance. With commercial applications, the look of a button is more important than how, or if, the code that it calls actually works. Unfortunately, average people equate "pretty" with "good" and then wonder why their non-FOSS system/application keeps falling on its face, even when it looks so nice.

So, yeah, the icons are kinda ugly - they didn't pay some graphic artist to make them. Get over it.

David...