I can't decide. There are things that I like about each and things that
frustrate me about each. Gnome is good, but there are features that I prefer in
KDE, like the ability to have separate wallpaper on each desktop. This is said
to be upcoming in a future version of Ubuntu (Jaunty). If so, it is about time.
KDE has had this feature for as long as I can remember. Also I hate double
click. It is too Windows-like for me. It is the first thing that I change when I
get to Gnome.

I prefer Gnome's placement of the menu bar and it is the first thing that I
change in KDE. The advantage of KDE is that you can configure or tailor almost
everything to your liking, but in Gnome you are stuck with what they give you
for the most part.

The perfect desktop IMO has a combination of features and has not been written
yet. Most Gnome users use at least some KDE applications such as K3b over
Brasero and Amarok over Rhythmbox. The one that I hate the most in Ubuntu is
Evolution. For the life of me I can't understand why it is installed by default.
Most people use email, but don't need all of the parts of Evolution, almost
every part of which is not as good as available separate ones. Thunderbird is
better than the email component for example. Sure, make it available to those
who want it, but don't install it for everyone.

One of the biggest critics of Gnome is Linus Torvalds, BTW. He sees it as too
limiting. He also prefers Fedora as his distro of choice. I throw this in just
to add some perspective. Even the founder of Linux can err or make decisions
that we might not agree with. I agree that Gnome is limiting, but it is still a
good choice for desktop manager. As for Fedora, it is an acquired taste.