[vertigolimbo]

You can make it as useless and as powerful as you want. I have worked on many projects and developers loved it (no joke). But it was down to having it properly setup and using just the bare minimum that enabled to do work. What often happens, is that JIRA "experts" (usually incompetent PMs or Scrum masters) let JIRA dictate your workflow. That's where discontent arises. (No affiliation to Atlassian).

[cassianoleal]

You can make good workflows on Jira, yes.

That doesn't fix the horrible UX, sluggishness, confusing options, forms that present a lot of useless fields but don't give you the option to present other, more useful ones, ... I could go on.

Jira is a terrible tool.

[oneplane]

Sounds like your experience mostly revolves around older self-hosted JIRA versions?

The UX on modern JIRA has been fine for years, and the options and forms are easy to use. Granted, you can add useless restrictions and weird field configurations, but if someone configures it until it's broken, that would be on them, not really on the product.

[SamWhited]

I used to work for Atlassian (not on Jira) and the Jira "experts" that worked there set it up in such a way that everyone there hated it too. If your product has such bad defaults and is so flexible that this can happen, you've made a bad product whether it's technically possible to use it right or not.

[esafak]

Defaults matter, and flexibility can be bad. Apple really gets this.

[Zigurd]

Unlike most IDEs, where using more of the tools means better productivity, Agile project management doesn't benefit from more features and capabilities. A memory leak finder or profiler or better lint has no downside.

Not true for project management features like, for example, "velocity" measurements denominated in story points (unitless) over time (seconds). Management metrics bullshit seldom benefits a project. In feature-monster tools like JIRA you have to do a lot of work to un-feature a project and those features are still lurking.