See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_stimulated_luminescence

Neat! I'm ready to buy one and try it out.

Based on the way, how the light is generated, it has no reason to be other quality then discharge fluorescents: Something excite the phosphor and the phosphor is then the source of visible light. The only difference from fluorescent is in the way, how to excite the phosphor: free accelerated electron vs UV photon. But both generate the light, what belong to phosphor mix characteristic spectrum...
So the light would be of an "incandescent" quality, if the /927 phosphor would be used, exactly like with classic fluorescents.

The article on the Wiki strongly feel like advertisement and moreover the non serious one (the statement about the light quality being linked to this concept is clearly a lie)...

I think this technology is still in the labs and commercial lamps of that type still not made.
It is a matter of time, that this lamp, will be commercially available.
Remember also that a CRT tube, that is similar to this lamp, generate much heat and consume much power and also takes 10 secs to warm-up, as you could saw from your old CRT TVs and Screens.
Also, the color is directly related to the phosphors.

CRT efficiency is pretty good, as far as the amount of energy that they put out as light when you look at the input current and voltage to the CRT itself. You can greatly increase light output by not having the electron beam being focussed and scanned, as well as by not making the glass dark ( to improve contrast in daylight) as well as using a flatter  panel with multiple cathodes. Basically the old Sinclair flat CRT idea, which was pretty bright ( though poor in focus when run flat out) and yet would run for a fair amount of time on a battery. Many are still in use as door intercoms here, though they are fast being replaced by small colour LCD displays.

Someone posted a photo of a similar lamp in the gallery recently.  I would like to try one, although unlike many other folks, I prefer the colors fluorescents offer, especially the ones around 6500K.

Click Here , to enter the the lamp manufacturer website (Vu1), and get more information about this technology.
Several info of this lamp in this website appears to be false:
1. Perfect power factor 1.00
2. The lamp claimed to be fully dimmable with ordinary household
Triac-based incandescent dimmers.

Power factor can be 1.0 if you use a PFC preregulation system to supply a 310V supply to the inverter stage, and you can still use a triac dimmer with this, using a design which uses the actual voltage waveform for control, and passes it though to the level control loop, as the PFC can still look like a resistive load to the dimmer, although on the supply side it will no longer be a 1.0 load, but will have some horrible dimmer induced current harmonics.

This though does definitely cost more, probably will lead to a 0-10V dimmer connection being offered as a variant.

There is one another issue with triac dimmers and electronic ballasts:
Electronic ballasts generate quite strong HF disturbance, what could not be allowed to pass to the mains wires. This is ensured by a low-pass filter, what has high attenuation for these high frequency components. But the only loss-less filter could be based only on capacitors and inductors, (resistors would bring losses).
But circuit formed from only only capacitors and inductors have one bad habit: Resonances. For normal supply it is not a problem, as their frequency is way above the mains and well below the ballast operating frequency, so there is nothing able to pump significant amount of energy into them.
But as the triac dimmer generate fast edges, what trigger ringing in the LC filter. And this ringing usually cause triac commutation, so it turn OFF way earlier then it should.
To avoid this problem, ballasts designed to operate on triac dimmers have to incorporate damping circuit to reduce the quality factor of those resonations to acceptable level (to not interfere with the dimmer). But the damping is nothing else then something sucking the energy from the resonator away - so some resistance. In an active manner (allowing to transfer the energy to the DC bus) can be made only damping for lower frequency components, those of higher frequencies can be damped only by resistors - so dissipating power.
And these resistors cause power dissipation even at full power operation (due to internal ripple).
The consequence is, then any triac dimmable ballast would be more lossy then it's nondimmable counterpart (on CFL's it mean about ~2..3x), what add to heat problem in the ballast box (and to the cost to solve it on better quality lamps).
That is (i guess) the main reason, why the triac dimming didn't catch with separated ballasts (even if it would allow to simply only replace the fitting when going from incandescent to some energy efficient technology) - the extra cost (reliability, losses, purchase,...) was considered too high compare to upgrading wiring (for the 0..10V system) or using wireless control (transmitter is in he switch box directly switching the main power and sending the dimming information via RF, receiver placed with the fitting convert it back to e.g. 1..10V for the ballast).