[mpweiher]

1. The fallacy is called the "No true Scotsman". The "No" is rather important. :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

2. And no, my position has nothing whatsoever to do with the "no true scotsman". I am not saying that they couldn't possibly be using agile because they have bad quality. I am saying that I am not aware of any of them using agile, and I was closely associated with at least one of them for a while.

And I also separately cite the evidence that has now been produced that agile improves quality, and conclude that if there are quality problems as you claim, a more agile approach would likely help, at least according to the empirical evidence.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[grumpyprole]

Given your rather patronising replies, I suspect the original joke was lost on you. The issue is not Agile per se, it is organisations assuming that "Agile" will solve all their problems, where "Agile" usually means vendor products, forced rituals and tick boxes. Yet more Agile evangelism does not address this problem.

What organisations need more than anything is open minded individuals that are not slaves to established dogma. The Agile manifesto actually says that all methods should be constantly re-evaluated to see if they fit the particular organisation/team. Your empirical "evidence" likely comes with a lot of context and is unlikely to be applicable to all organisations and/or domains.

[CRConrad]

And all that was supposed to be read into

> Is there any operating system left now that isn't riddled with bugs? I blame Agile.

?

I think not.

If anything, that deserved even more patronizing replies.

[grumpyprole]

> And all that was supposed to be read into.

Of course not, I am however attempting to explain in detail why such sacrilegious "blame Agile" comments might be made.

> If anything, that deserved even more patronizing replies.

I am highly suspicious of anyone who is so certain of their position, we should all be riven by doubt!