As an experienced Linux user (started with Slackware in 1995), I'll assert that Foresight doesn't really deliver on that front either, when compared to what other distributions offer. On the package management front, for example, there's a big gap in usable tools between the two extremes of the unusable PackageKit and the low level commandline interface of conary (which doesn't benefit much from Linux experience since it's new to most so still has to be learned). Just because I know how to do low-level management doesn't mean I prefer it over tools that make the task more efficient. It's a fallback position to be used when nothing else works (if one values their time and wants a functional tool to get work done).

The problem with Foresight seems to be that there is a big gap between the vision (such as it is) and reality. From both a user perspective, and from the perspective of someone who investigated becoming a contributor, Foresight feels more like "let's play 'make a distribution'" than a serious attempt at offering something on par with the current crop of major distros. And before taking umbrage at questioning the seriousness of the effort, consider the decisions made along the way and how that translated into the final product. Thilo is quite right in questioning the way in which the project is being managed. There's a lot more to a Linux distribution than assembling a set of packages and some tools, assigning a version number and calling it a release. That's the easy part (judging by the large number of distros out there). The devil is in the details.