Probably my only response in this forum (filled with blind tribalism on all sides - the title of this post is sufficient proof). I don't have the patience for it, but thank you for the page.
Your assessment is pretty spot-on, with the "I lost patience with the test-fail-test-fail-test-fail mentality quickly" being my attitude, too. Failure *is* an option... once. Don't keep failing and telling me it's a success. However, you can't argue with the ultimate success of the Falcon 9 series, including both cargo and crewed variants. They were primarily responsible for the success of the US commercial space efforts not sliding into the abyss of failure.
Relying on the Russians was never going to be a winning hand - I told my leadership that back during the Shuttle program, pre-ISS. I actually caused a (minor) program incident when I inadvertently insulted my Russian counterpart by "daring to question" his computations (which were wrong - and I saw it/proved it early). When I was "counseled" for not just accepting his wrong data and fixing it later, I reminded them "that's how Challenger happened." They were not particularly pleased with that reminder, but I was right.
WRT SpaceX, there are two types of people there now - the fanbois who think everything they do is great (and are evidenced by the crappy PAO-types they shove on broadcasts and the screaming idiots behind the glass at SpaceX mission control), and the ones who actually see the issues, but are somewhat afraid of the consequences of bringing up problems. I know several former colleagues who got there and left because they wanted to be the third type - the ones who see, identify, and voice not only the issue but the solutions... and that wasn't encouraged.
Don't get me wrong - the SpaceX engineering team is doing some brilliant things, but the attitude getting to a successful and sustainable program is different than mine. They have a more disposable/test/fail/test/fail mentality that has never appealed to me.