Good tools should be invisible, the author argues. When a tool operates without notice, it disappears from the user’s workflow. The piece notes that many people celebrate a tool’s limitations as puzzles to solve, treating workarounds as evidence of the tool’s value. For example, the author cites users who spend time building macros in Vim for tasks that could be completed quickly with multiple cursors in Sublime Text. He observes that the satisfaction derived from solving such problems does not equate to actual productivity, which can be measured by elapsed time and error rates. The author distinguishes between feeling productive and being productive, suggesting that many praised tools may not improve output when examined objectively. He also addresses arguments that terminal applications are inherently superior to graphical interfaces, stating that keyboard‑only navigation is feasible in GUIs but often lacking, and that perceived limitations are design choices rather than technical necessities. Regarding Linux desktop adoption, the article points out that extensive configuration can delay a system that works out of the box, and that designers should prioritize good defaults while offering optional advanced settings for a minority of users. The author concludes that tools perform best when they become invisible, allowing users to focus on their work without defending or celebrating flaws.