Yep! It also comes down to a difference between the people the tool is primarily targeted at, and who actually has to interact with it. Salesforce's CRM (and its various sub-products) is very similar.
This is an inane take. Almost every system we use in a business requires support, and management to be used effectively. You wouldn't fire the people responsible for maintaining your other services.
You can either have something incredibly powerful, like Jira, with a lot of sharp edges, or you can use something incredibly similar. The latter would be more like 'no-code' since it's going to be drastically limited in terms of adapting to how your business does work, versus Jira which can be transformed into just about anything.
That 'just about anything' is the root of the problem, since over years a business will let dozens of people alter configurations and do special little bespoke things on their projects until it's unsustainable.
> You can either have something incredibly powerful, like Jira, with a lot of sharp edges...
It's powerful. But I think a bunch of the dislike is because the edges are not sharp. They're very dull. That's why it's so clumsy to use. (Sure, it's still easy to cause damage, but that's not the same thing...)
Disclaimer: I have never actually had to use Jira. This is just my impression from listening to others complain.
The point of something being sharp is doing damage with minimal effort, which I think fits here! Though, I won't disagree that a lot of parts of the Jira UX are more blunt-force.
I'd rather pick any other ticketing system which has things done in one way than waste my life configuring jira