Consider that this is merely my humble opinion, and that I don't post as frequently to the boards as some others do...
I see all these alternate classes as a sort of how-to class. It's Paizo saying "Someone in your campaign wants to try a samurai? Here's how we'd do it using the pre-existing rules and NOT adding a new class." I like this idea. it shows me how the mechanics work and spurs on ideas of my own. It's not "class glut" if all they're saying is change these three things and you can play an entirely differently themed class without being forced to introduce a new class that only two people may play ever.
Some changes need a little more explanation, so they take up a little more space. Big deal? No, not really. Show me how you did it and perhaps you'll inspire me to do my own switches. Or perhaps I'll find a better way to make it work.
You don't want guns in your game? Fine. Play a game that doesn't have them. Don't want the oriental classes? Leave them out. It's that simple. Do you live in a town where only seven people game and they're all conspiring against you to add these things in? Perhaps the problem isn't them. Or, teach granny's bridge club the game and run it yourself.
I personally think these ideas are good ones. I think Paizo is going about this the right way. I'll reserve my thoughts on whether the classes are built the right way for another board. Which is where I'm headed to now.
Like it or not. Buy it or don't. It's your choice. it's all optional and instead of whining about what you don't like or want, how about you praise what you do like and tell these great people who are actually willing to listen what you DO want?
My two cents