I don't see anything wrong with what he posted in that thread.
"I have hardware from 40 years ago, your software doesn't work, please fix?"
If I would have seen that I might have replied: "Patches welcome" :-)
Rude, entitled users is definitely a problem maintainers have to face. Here's a better example:
But I don't think that this thread was such a case.
Your initial report started with an incorrect premise - fish does not work on a vt220. The real bug ended up being that fish does not work on Linux serial ttys. That's fine - we all make these kinds of mistaken assumptions about bugs - but it's here where mentioning all the details helps.
For example, without info about how it's hooked up via serial to a getty, it's unlikely someone unfamiliar with these setups would think about the possible consequences of that. And without mentioning the state of TERM, the bug is ambiguous: does fish not work on a physical vt220 with some settings, or does fish not work with TERM=vt220? Those are two different problems.
Excessive verbosity is fluff, but excess brevity leads to information loss. Some redundancy is required to ensure the meaning gets across. This is human error correction.
You weren't rude or entitled, but everyone on that thread, yourself included, displayed less than ideal bug reporting and handling skills. Things could've gone much more smoothly.
It will motivate me to de-invest in a project if I see it more than once, e.g. Chromium and Firefox.
However, after scouring the entire thread, I didn't notice anything like that in the linked thread?
tbh, few things annoy me more in foss world than a mandatory 20 questions form and process when reporting a bug (or feature request) which requires much less to communicate clearly. i don,t think that,s user friendly at all, and in me opinion it is shifting qa,s work onto the user.
i think the missing piece is grassroots support for individual users by the technically literate elite.