I can't say how true this is for the configuration tools of RedHat, but I can attest that the SuSE stuff
Comparing SuSE to RedHat is not at all fair. Just because they're both commercially-backed Linux distros doesn't mean they're the same thing. SuSE also has a history of doing very consumer-hostile things, like not releasing their ISOs, and being overall troublesome. I see no reason why anyone would use their product. RedHat's config utilities also kick SuSE's out of the ring.
Here's the root cause of this entire thread - many people want to be elitists. They'll be the ones switching to FreeBSD when they deem linux is too mainstream. I'm sure I don't have to point out why this is plain silly, but I will anyways. The wider the adoption of a platform, the more apps and support there is for it. Better drivers, better games, better everything. One key to attaining this is increasing accessibility to the maximum level, ie make it easy to use. Now ease of use does not create bloat and inflexibility, the ideal system allows the novice to make simple decisions (ie do you want a desktop or server) to install their system, while allowing advanced users to select every single package individually. Red Hat's installer does this (though there are a couple areas they could improve it). This does not make the distro bloated, it makes it exactly like other, less evolved distros but with the options that allow novices to use it.
Microsoft Windows has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this debate. It's a proprietary system owned by an anti-competitive, user-hostile company that only survives because it's users are too dependent on the system (insert matrix music here). This is a completely different situation than two open source operating systems containing the same kernel and virtually identical packages.