It also shows you the screen you set it for, and a boolean to set it for all screens at once.
KDE used to be the "bloated" desktop way back when (I know, pretty silly and laughable now given the current state of things).
That cemented Gnome/Mate into a lot of major distros as the primary DME. Ubuntu being the most famous.
The QT licensing situation is also a bit of a bizarre quagmire. There are certainly people that don't like KDE for more ideological reasons.
Personally, none of this bothers me and it's what I use for my personal computer. KDE is just so close to exactly how I'm used to interacting with computers anyways growing up through the Win95 era. It is so close to the Windows experience you want to have.
Doubling down on short judge-y stacatto contributes to an aggressive "I don't need to tell you" vibe that would be sassy and fun, maybe, if in person. In writing online comments, it just means we need to get a 3rd comment from you before we get to anything I'm interested in (I don't particularly care what your one word description is, I don't know you)
To the exact contrary to what you assert, one of the prominent argument against Gnome that I've been seing times and times again in DE debates, is the "dogmatic" opposition to SSD from the Gnome project.
But what things in KDE do you consider 'bloat'?
That’s not my recollection. I believe that the non-free license you mention was the major factor, in addition to the fact that KDE was written in C++ at a time when the free software community still preferred to write software primarily in C.
GNOME was written using a free software toolkit, and it was written in C, and it was associated with the FSF.
Nowadays the major problem with KDE is that by the time it is stable a new QT major version gets released and along with that it essentially gets a major rewrite, which takes years to stabilize and once it does a new QT version is released, etc etc etc.
There are a lot of people that bitch about it, but that is only because it is the most popular one and they think that Linux desktop is a zero sum game. They don't use Gnome most of the time and arguments tend to be parroting somebody else and probably out of date for years or just kinda made up conspiracy theories about Redhat or something.
The whole thing is pretty confused. Gnome being popular doesn't make KDE not be popular.
I'm not trying to be mean here, I'm just fascinated by what people will consider to be a waste of time.
This, sometimes it's enough for things to just work as you expect so you can do your actual work. I don't really understand why so many people are unpaid part time evangelizers.