Yeah, that's kinda my point. People throw the word "agile" around as though it has one precise meaning, when it clearly doesn't. And IMO, the kind of "A

Yeah, that's kinda my point. People throw the word "agile" around as though it has one precise meaning, when it clearly doesn't. And IMO, the kind of "Agile" that people are railing against is so far removed that it doesn't deserve any association whatsoever with the expression "agile". I agree with you, but I'm also realistic about the fact that the term "agile" has been thoroughly and completely tainted by its association with bad implementations. One may as well complain about people referring to "Linux" rather than "GNU/Linux", or using "hacker" to mean people who break security rather than programmers who come up with novel solutions to interesting problems. Words are defined by usage, and every manager I've encountered has used "agile" to mean a system of project management in which work is broken up into things called "user stories", and is then bucketed into fixed-length "sprints", with planning sessions to actually put the work into the buckets. Now you may say that this is one mere implementation of agile, and you'd be right. But it is by far the most dominant implementation. It's like saying that GNU/Linux is one mere implementation of a GNU system. You're right. But realistically, no one you know will be familiar with any others. It's the same way with agile software development. Scrum is one mere implementation of agile. But it's the only one most developers and managers encounter, so it's understandable that they'll conflate the two.