The problem is, one person's minimal user configuration and sane defaults is another's I'm strangled because the shell won't let me do what I want. There's gray in between.

Configuration does not necessarily mean additional capability, except insofar as being able to configure the application to go "bing" instead of "bong" means that the application has the capability to go "bing". And again, my rule of thumb is that an application should have as many configuration options as are absolutely necessary to its functionality. If being able to go "bing" is specified as a required function of the application, then a configuration option to enable "bing" should be considered (though it should not be automatically adopted -- there may be other ways to make the application go "bing" which do not require any configuration options).

The best GUI grows with the user. It starts off clear and simple but as the user's understanding grows, the GUI can and does expose more capabilities if the user wants them.

The best GUI would never stop being clear and simple.

I also think your use of Enlightnment shows that Gnome isn't all that it should be.

This seems to assume that what GNOME (or any interface) should be is something which meets every need of every user; no matter the level of configurability, some group of users will always be left with some of their needs unmet and so may look to another solution which better suits them.

And that I spend as much time in GNOME as I do these days is a testament to how far they've come on the usability front; previously I would not have given it or KDE five seconds of my time. Now I can be quite happy and productive in GNOME for days on end. KDE is another story.

Go back and look at Peter's point about Excel. Tons upon tons of flexibility and functionality that exists without the need for corresponding tons upon tons of configuration. Which means that allowing people to come up with innovative or unusual ways to use something does not depend upon adding configuration options to it.

But should applications be limited on purpose to keep users from using them in ways that the developer didn't consider? Maybe, but it's not a given IMO. I would personally take that as a strike against that application - not a plus.

You are not talking about configurability here. You're arguing with some hypothetical development team that either A) hates its users or B) has a massive control-freak complex or C) both. Perhaps you have run into such a development team, but that's not what's being dicussed here. And it's already been pointed out that reducing configurability does not necessarily equate to reducing the number of (non-trivial) things users may do with an application.

Your argument recently seems to have been that those who don't like Gnome don't understand it well enough, or don't know their needs well enough, or ... - something other than accepting their honest appraisal of their wants and needs. Yet to an outsider it looks as though you were more interested in "stirring the pot" than putting your money where your mouth is because Gnome isn't your preferred environment.

My argument, in so far as it touches on most of the people who've argued with me, is that the needs of highly advanced technical users often diverge significantly from the needs of most other users. A desktop environment which primarily seeks to fit users in the latter group will, pretty much necessarily, have to either leave out things which the former group consider "essential", or expose them in a different way in order to avoid a loss of usability for its primary target user base.

In other words, a systems administrator needs fine-grained control and configurability of every single option. Joe Sixpack doesn't, and in fact that control and configurability can place unnecessary obstacles in his way as he tries to use something. So if your target audience is Joe Sixpack, you're going to disappoint the sysadmin.

My use of Enlightenment (though I'm typing this right now in GNOME) is based on my understanding and acceptance of this fact; when the majority of an application's or desktop environment's users have needs which different significantly from my own, I don't expect something that fits them to fit me particularly well. So instead of complaining that this makes that application or environment broken or crippled in some fashion, I look around, find the right tool for the job at hand and go with it.

Look at it this way: my mother needs to keep track of her money. Suppose that there's an application out there which just has you type in your initial balance, and then enter your deposits and withdrawals as they happen. If you're tracking a savings account, it could let you enter the account's interest rate and calculate that for you as you go, so you'd always have an up-to-date balance. This would a good application for her, and would suit all of her needs. Now, I'm a small business, and my accountant needs to keep track of my money. Which would be more productive: complaining to the developers of my mother's application that it's not suitable for use by my accountant, or shopping around to find something designed for needs of an accounting practice?

As for rumors that GNOME will add more configurability, I'd want to see much more detail and really I'd want to see how it gets implemented before I judge it; I worry that the GNOME team will eventually cave in to the ceaseless screeching of high-end users, and I know that would inevitably decrease the general usability of the desktop.