Maybe this is a difference in expectations, but I don't expect a platform to be supported forever, nor do I expect support for a platform when not specified, by anyone. When I looked at the "sunshine enema", I saw a tool for a specific purpose and not much else, certainly not anything about what platform the tool supported which could wait until I read the install/download pages. What I read in the message was someone who was stuck doing something he didn't like, and he was asking for people to do precisely what he did with Capistrano: step up and scratch their own itches, something further helped by Capistrano being an open source project with a current release that still works fine with Windows. I didn't see someone who should have been beholden to anyone otherwise. I also don't see that as an OSS project doing wrong, I think it's reasonable given the situation and this certainly does not have to end here in this way.

For what it's worth, what would bother me is if this wasn't explicitly announced and the dev just didn't feel like working on the project anymore, or if it was a core feature of the tool that was going to be ignored in the future. Now that's something to complain about, and then go do something about if it mattered that much to me.

I've personally been in a similar hellhole of a situation (who hasn't?) doing some dev work for a nonprofit where less than 5% of the users both by number and usage completely wasted my time trying to convince me I should bring back support of older browsers and platforms for absolutely no legitimate reason other than a lack of willingness to upgrade on their part, even though the nonprofit had existing volume and discounted licenses that would effectively make the software free for them. Make a lazy <5% happy by doing LOTS of extra work possibly eschewing working on features for the other >95%, and still deliver what may be a subpar experience (think windows 98 when everyone else is running Vista) while billing them for it at the same time? No thank you.