[Rebelgecko]

If you want to get existential, why should Mozilla support users on any non-free platform? I imagine they're able to justify Windows because of the huge user base justified the additional engineering effort. The blog uses "we're the only browser still supporting Windows 7" as an excuse to stop supporting it, but to me that same sentence is also an opportunity and maybe even a moral argument to keep supporting older hardware/software. If for-profit entities won't do it and Mozilla is all that's left, what happens to those users when Mozilla backs out?

This may or may not be relevant with Windows 7, but I think the size of the user base is only loosely linked to the official software EOL. I still use an older MacOS release because software and hardware I depend on don't support newer revisions. Coincidentally Mozilla also just announced ending support for older MacOS versions. It almost seems like they're trying to divert eng resources from browsers to their other projects. Mozilla's strategy is super perplexing to me.

[wmf]

Mozilla "works to ensure the internet remains a public resource that is open and accessible to us all", not to advocate free software.

[Rebelgecko]

Windows 7 users are a subset of "us all". If anything they should be focusing on FF users who don't have any remaining alternative for a modern browser. They're the ones whose internet access is most at risk.

[wmf]

People who refused the free 7 -> 10 upgrade aren't an oppressed minority; they're the infosec equivalent of anti-vaxers. Why should Mozilla support you if you refuse to maintain your computer?