My point being that you seem to be suggesting, in parent and sibling comments, that there are manifest and myriad configuration options provided by KDE AND that you feel you must use them.
You contrast this to Gnome, where there are NOT comparable configuration options, and you are 'happy with minor issues'.
I don't see how this is materially different from simply choosing to not use the extensive KDE configuration capabilities and being as 'happy with minor issues' as you would be with Gnome.
I'm misunderstood here then. I'm not saying that a feel I must use them. I'm saying the KDE UI by default exposes too many controls and provides settings to control this (more or less).
While Gnome exposes less controls (and arguable better UI desicions). Resulting in cleaner UI by default.
Okay, so now it sounds like you prefer the defaults of Gnome over those of KDE, while resenting the more sophisticated configuration options offered by KDE.
I've never really understood the complaint 'there's too many configuration options', at least in software where you don't need to touch any of those configuration options for a reasonable out-of-the-box experience.
If your problem with KDE is, in fact, that a vanilla stock install doesn't align with your personal UI preferences, while also bemoaning that there's too many ways to adjust the UI, then the problem might not be with KDE.
You contrast this to Gnome, where there are NOT comparable configuration options, and you are 'happy with minor issues'.
I don't see how this is materially different from simply choosing to not use the extensive KDE configuration capabilities and being as 'happy with minor issues' as you would be with Gnome.