[mseebach]

The beauty of actually free open source licences is that you don't need Microsoft to give a fuck. All that stands between you and fixing something is one click on "Fork".

Sure, it would be better if they were interested in building and engaging a community (and who says they're not? It's a huge company and a lot has changed in the past few years, but fair, you don't want to take anything for granted), but releasing code, tests and build instructions under one of the most liberal licenses around is so close to the mark that no, complaining isn't really warranted.

[cjsuk]

Let’s be realistic. How many forks, other than a personal fork for patches, are actually viable? This is one of those attractive fallacies like owning a Tesla service manual.

Complaining is warranted when you are a paying customer and you are told to post a GitHub ticket which is ignored...

[mseebach]

It depends on what you mean by viable. Plenty of projects have fixes and features that live in forks and solve real issues for real people. Plenty more have bits and pieces copy-pasted into other repos, forming the basis of a new project. Rather than focusing on the expected viability of a fork, the real value is that it's possible at all to have one.

You can't make other people do stuff for you for free. Sometimes, as you've relayed your experiences, you can't make them do it even if you pay. At least open source gives you the option of fixing it yourself, or paying a third party of your own choice to do so.