No, people are probing for some hint that the developers have any awareness of what, aside from hierarchy, traditional file systems provide. When it appears there is no such awareness, it worries people: how can you make something better when you don't understand what is good about the old thing? So they probe further, and instead of revelation find scorn. They hoped to find, perhaps, a tiresomely exhaustive list of ways that traditional file systems have been useful and, for each, how the new approach meets that need. Such a list would serve as proof that the problem space was thought about carefully. Scorn makes a poor substitute.
It can't be tragic when a software project fails for not understanding users' needs, or life itself would be tragic. Projects fail all the time. They might even fail more often than not. It's just wasteful. When the failure drags down other projects that had otherwise been grand successes, that's worse. Good planning would ensure that the total failure of this sub-project would leave the project as a whole intact -- that it could be pitched over the side ("kludge!") with no loss but time. So the second line of inquiry is into whether the project would survive such a failure. Again, a coherent plan would reassure, scorn does not.