[otp209]

>but I'll reluctantly accept that me not knowing how to use the tool is not entirely the tool's fault

I don't buy this. A good tool should do its job and stay out of your way. The amount of pointless knowledge I now have just to be able to use a version control system for my job still to this day annoys me.

Linus Torvalds isn't some infallible god, and it may be useful for linux kernel development, but we're not all linux kernel developers; and tools like VCSes, when designed well, should be unnoticed until the exact moment you need them, convenient and simple to use, and not get in your way or create problems for you where there weren't any to begin with. (Holy run-on sentences, Batman!)

In contrast, git goes out of its way to throw itself in your face at every opportunity, exacerbate your problems, and create a maze you either have to navigate precisely or just decide "fuck it" and do a copy/replace file trick just to get back on track with what you were actually doing.

The fact that people keep prescribing "just learn all its intricacies" or other band-aids (like the other "use with" software suggestions here) rather than even acknowledging it as a problem, to me, points to the lack of UX expertise in the field, and to stockholm syndrome.

(Which, funnily enough, is a problem things like git contributes to. It being one of the first things required to learn in CS, I constantly wonder how many of my peers might've switched out of the field given the mess it is, assuming CS wasn't for them. And, in turn, the breakthroughs we might've missed out on having earlier.)

Tools should be simple and usable, not throw up arbitrary barriers to entry.