This doesn't mean eliminate all choice. There are enough choices that users will have to make anyway: the way their document will look, the way their web site will behave, or anything else that is integral to the work that the user is doing. In these areas, go crazy: it's great to give people choices: by all means, the more the merrier. And there's another category of choice that people like: the ability to change the visual look of things, without really changing the behavior. Everybody loves WinAmp skins; everybody sets their desktop background to a picture. Since the choice affects the visual look without affecting the way anything functions, and since users are completely free to ignore the choice and get their work done anyway, this is a good use of options.
(Note this part: everybody sets their desktop background to a picture)
So you can only go crazy on futile options and not useful ones? Give me a break.
like the 'designers' of gnome3 (using the term loosely here) who thinks focus-follow-mouse and click-does-not-raise-window are things that only the devil would use and so no one should be allowed 'for usability sake' and 'think of the children'
think about it. a black wallpaper is the best readability option. period. so let's remove the user ability to change wallpapers pronto!
what i say "everytime you provide the user an option, you are asking him to, if he uses the software enough, to take a little second to make a decision that will give him an incredible productivity edge"
now, stop being lazy and hiding behind excuses. work on the real problem: how to present the options so they are not in the way, like joel mentions it while not being missed by the user