zlacker

> clearly explained in the first paragraph of the readme

Yeah but people justifiably don't exhaustively read documentation. If people are getting confused because they didn't read some bit of documentation - even the first paragraph of the readme - then you shouldn't just dismiss them as stupid and bask in your superior documentation-reading abilities. You should think about how to resolve that confusion in a way that they would actually see it.

It's hard to explain how to do that without a concrete example, but it usually is possible. It's also usually more work than just replying RTFM, but you should at least be aware that you are choosing not to bother.

>>IshKeb+(OP)
I'd rather OSS authors write and improve the software and documentation for most people than do the very time-consuming, burnout-inducing free customer support you are suggesting here (especially for those not bothering of reading even the first paragraph of the documentation).

>>franci+mb
It's not customer support; it's giving the product good usability. I would much rather they do that than waste time writing documentation that people won't read.

I think a concrete example would help here. Let me find one from this repo...

Ok after looking through about 20 discussions I was actually unable to find a single one that was a misunderstanding or misconfiguration on the user's part. They appear to all be real bugs (or feature requests), and very high quality ones at that.

So I think their assertion that 80-90% of what people think are bugs are actually not is total and utter bullshit.

That's kind of unrelated to what we were discussing though; misunderstandings due to poor usability do happen but I guess we can't easily find examples in Ghostty.