Always expect you are doing it wrong. It will so rarely be the case that this expectation is wrong that you can discount it as insignificant.
Want to find bugs in Sun's Java 6 compiler for X64 Linux , use annotations (yeah, I found one in their V30 release last week). Want to find bugs in MS' C++ compiler, write your own templates (this was a few years ago, maybe it's better?). The best programmers push the limit of their tools because they know what's "supposed to happen".
Poor programmers hit something that doesn't work, and just try something else, cause, well they're just trying shit. I would go so far to say that poor programmers, in fact, are unable to find compiler, optimizer, OS, or hardware bugs because, by definition, they probably don't have a firm handle on what's "supposed to happen".
I know these things can and do happen. I've come across one or two of these strange ones before, but too often I've seen people jump to the conclusion that someone / something else was to blame. Without any other real evidence other than that they have exhausted their shallow back of talent.
http://pragprog.com/the-pragmatic-programmer/extracts/tips
However, I did once work with someone who did find a bug in select on SunOS... (this was '89 or so).
The documentation was a completely wrong for several years before I started programming there. Once I realized that the documentation was lying to me, I started methodically examining how things actually worked by writing lots of very simple test programs and documenting the actual behavior.
The others didn't care why it was broken. Most of them were just trying to build cool areas, they weren't really programmers at all. They would just tweak things until it appeared to work or they were frustrated enough to give up.
[1] I'm sure a lot of HN knows this, but to save the non-gamers the hassle of looking it up, a MUD is a type of text-based online game and an MPROG is a script used to control the actions of the characters in the game.
Apparently I wasn't the only one, because within a week all the labs were back on GCC 2.95.
Many distributions rolled back so that the default "stable" compiler matched the one they had to use to build the packages - i.e. common sense.
Once the packages were updated to deal with the gcc 3.x language changes, the compiler and packages started appearing together.
My first programming job was doing VB programming in Access 2 programs that had to run on Windows 3.1. (Yes, this was in the last millennium.) I kept on running into bugs that I could demonstrate were in Access, not in my code. It was very frustrating.
My next job was in Perl. I went several years before I found an actual bug in the language. Which then went unfixed for years because someone might be using it. Despite the fact that in every significant Perl code base that I've seen since, there are real bugs in the code that nobody has noticed which trace back to the bug that I found. Why do you ask whether I am bitter?
So your suggestion failed glaringly for me when I was using VB, but since has worked much better.
Access 95 had the ability to upgrade from Access 2, and that included the ability to migrate from Access Basic to VBA. The tool was not flawless (very little from Microsoft is), but mostly worked pretty well.
Now, blaming without reproduction on the dev stack is a sign of a lamer. :-)
I have personally found bugs in Linux (kernel, libc), Oracle, various JVMs, etc, usually cases in which algorithms optimized for "normal" loads became pathological under extreme load. It's much more common than perhaps you'd think.
These legitimate bugs do exist, and some of us have a talent for finding them with annoying frequency.
Less experienced programmers often "want" to find bugs in the compiler/OS/whatever because that way it's not their fault, and they lack the skill to track down difficult problems in their own code. More experienced programmers realize that finding bugs outside of your own code is often a disaster because frequently there's nothing you can do to fix it.