Open source authors are annoyed, in descending order, by:
1) False bug reports, reporter has an attitude.
2) Minor bugs, reporter has an attitude.
3) Major bugs, reporter has an attitude.
4) Unresearched bugs.
It all depends on how you report it. The current opinion, largely [1] pushed by people who do little programming but take over OSS projects, that bug reporters are oppressed by the bad, bad high performing developers is misguided.
It leads to the same dynamics as Mao's cultural revolution, which was not really a success.
5) Reporters not spending hours getting familiar with the build system to verify the bug in origin/master, even though it's been there in the three last stable releases.
6) Not providing a patch.
7) Not using the appropriate jargon for everything.
Entitlement is very much a thing (on both sides of the fence), but these are going to be extremely off-putting for anyone who is only ever going to be an end user.
Maybe those OSS authors ought to document their software better.
A pithy README.md with a toy example nobody would ever actually learn anything from isn't documentation. Maintaining a proper changelog with links to relevant issues/tickets isn't that hard, but it's rarely employed.
> mostly by people who do little programming but take over OSS projects
You're voiding your whole argument by disqualifying any opposition like that. Anyone disagreeing with you will now fall into that bucket, and give you a reason to ignore them. Can we save that for politics please?
It leads to the same dynamics as Mao's cultural revolution, which was not really a success.
[1] Not in this case of course.