>>> 80-90% of what users think are bugs are either misunderstandings, environmental problems, or configuration errors by the users themselves. For what's left, the majority are often feature requests (unimplemented features) and not bugs (malfunctioning features).
>> Do I ever make mistakes?
>> No. It’s the users who are wrong.
> I disagree. He's just trying to educate these guys about usability.
I invite you to reconsider for these reasons: (1) Have you seen people "just trying to educate" in an uncharitable way? Many people have. Such cases of 'education' may involve paternalism and/or assuming the other person is ignorant. For example, both can manifest in the phenomenon of "mansplaining". There are more tells, also: (2) The commenter doesn't ask questions; (3) The commenter doesn't steel-man the other position; (4) The commenter uses a mocking tone. (To be fair, I've done such things in the past, but I'm striving to do much less of it.)
> The vast majority of people using Ghostty are not stupid.
No one is claiming this. Individual intelligence is not the same as «how people behave in system S compared to system S'». In other words, people do 'stupid' things all too often -- just hop in an automobile and watch our collective behavior.* Not to mention riots and mobs.
In the case of some issue tracking systems, "not-stupid" people can do things that are counter productive.
So, if project leaders have the ability, dedication, sincerity, rationale, and motivation to experiment with different systems, I say GO FOR IT. Experiment. Take a risk. Refusing to experiment is often worse.
Some people forget a key underlying principle of 'agility'† : start somewhere, gather feedback, be rational, experiment, and see where it takes you. If you see two different teams in different circumstances doing things the same way, you might take a closer look: one or both might have rigid processes that have stopped learning.
> If they misunderstood something or made a mistake, it's highly likely that it could have been avoided with changes to improve Ghostty.
Maybe, but that sounds like a tall claim. Remember that the Ghostty team _did in-fact_ make changes to their _process_ based on reflection.
I put much more confidence in the Ghostty team, who has shown signs of thoughtfulness, to make careful and wise decisions than someone with no skin in the game (a vast majority of the people here), especially uncharitable ones.
* I try not to 'blame' individuals or groups -- most human responses are statistically predictable and often even sensible and maybe even justifiable from a narrow point of view. If anything, I ascribe more importance to the design of roads, automobiles, and the cultural pressures we face.
† Too many forms of 'agility' forget the notion of recursive self-improvement. They instead get mired in ceremony.
>> Do I ever make mistakes?
>> No. It’s the users who are wrong.
> I disagree. He's just trying to educate these guys about usability.
I invite you to reconsider for these reasons: (1) Have you seen people "just trying to educate" in an uncharitable way? Many people have. Such cases of 'education' may involve paternalism and/or assuming the other person is ignorant. For example, both can manifest in the phenomenon of "mansplaining". There are more tells, also: (2) The commenter doesn't ask questions; (3) The commenter doesn't steel-man the other position; (4) The commenter uses a mocking tone. (To be fair, I've done such things in the past, but I'm striving to do much less of it.)
> The vast majority of people using Ghostty are not stupid.
No one is claiming this. Individual intelligence is not the same as «how people behave in system S compared to system S'». In other words, people do 'stupid' things all too often -- just hop in an automobile and watch our collective behavior.* Not to mention riots and mobs.
In the case of some issue tracking systems, "not-stupid" people can do things that are counter productive.
So, if project leaders have the ability, dedication, sincerity, rationale, and motivation to experiment with different systems, I say GO FOR IT. Experiment. Take a risk. Refusing to experiment is often worse.
Some people forget a key underlying principle of 'agility'† : start somewhere, gather feedback, be rational, experiment, and see where it takes you. If you see two different teams in different circumstances doing things the same way, you might take a closer look: one or both might have rigid processes that have stopped learning.
> If they misunderstood something or made a mistake, it's highly likely that it could have been avoided with changes to improve Ghostty.
Maybe, but that sounds like a tall claim. Remember that the Ghostty team _did in-fact_ make changes to their _process_ based on reflection.
I put much more confidence in the Ghostty team, who has shown signs of thoughtfulness, to make careful and wise decisions than someone with no skin in the game (a vast majority of the people here), especially uncharitable ones.
* I try not to 'blame' individuals or groups -- most human responses are statistically predictable and often even sensible and maybe even justifiable from a narrow point of view. If anything, I ascribe more importance to the design of roads, automobiles, and the cultural pressures we face.
† Too many forms of 'agility' forget the notion of recursive self-improvement. They instead get mired in ceremony.