[troym]

I will not: I will not allow the ignorance that spews from Redmond to infect my software.

I will not: I will not cater to users with a broken OS.

I will not: I will not bother because it represents the minimal technical hurdle for Windows users.

[chc]

What a facile display of false heroism. Ignoring users is the second easiest thing in the world, right after declaring that you're too cool for Microsoft. But this opinion has neither heart nor intellect behind it. It's pure hipsterism — "Yeah, I'm above Microsoft and all the sheeple who use their products!"

If you don't want to support Windows, that's cool. It's your choice. But don't act like this is some great moral stance any more than companies refusing to provide device drivers for Linux.

[rafekett]

The idea of a minimal technical hurdle is important in free software. If we adapt everything from our free world to look just like the Windows world, Windows users will never notice that there's something else better. It's important that free software give itself some competitive advantage over nonfree software, especially for its users.

[chc]

This is a much better-reasoned response. Like I said, excluding people is not inherently unreasonable. You almost always have to exclude someone, and you're free to define that "someone" in whatever way suits you best. But it isn't something to make blustering declarations about, as though you're taking some great moral stance — it's a practical choice that everyone has to make.

[shocks]

And yet I bet you build websites with IE support in mind.