I have, and the built-in tools are weak or cumbersome to the point of being useless (or were when I moved off to bitbucket).
The wiki had its own weird markup at the time, so people who might have helped me write documentation were faced with learning a weird new markup (they were volunteers, that's a tough ask.)
The bug tracker had no way to send emails, and you were expected to rig up some external systems to do that. Maybe it's changed now?
Just lots of little usability things too.
These issues had such ardent defenders on the mailing lists, too, I became convinced the situation would likely never improve.
Aside from the cute idea of having your version control in one self-contained file with a single-binary server, I can't think of anything fossil does better than any other system.
I guess the ability to use the bug tracker while offline is a nice advantage, but for that to be worth it it needs to be competitive with centralized bug trackers.
It is just like distributed code review tools, I wish there was any that was good enough but the ones that exist are too primitive to be worth the small gain of being able to seamlessly review code while on a flight.
The parent I replied to had an issue with the (assumed) model. You have an issue with features. All your points are valid- the parent had no points to debate validity of.
