Do watch the BSD team's video presentation, they cover everything you've said. I don't want to re-iterate too much of it, but the gist was: "If Microsoft won't

Do watch the BSD team's video presentation, they cover everything you've said. I don't want to re-iterate too much of it, but the gist was: "If Microsoft won't support DOS or Win16, why should the two part-time volunteers support it!?" The OpenSSL team clearly did not have the time or budget to both maintain that many platforms and maintain the security of supported platforms. If "some projects" or "some vendors" want to support esoteric platforms they can fork LibreSSL and add support at their own expense instead of at the expense of the larger community using SSL libraries at-scale on modern platforms for production workloads worth trillions of dollars to the economy. I 100% agree with the BSD team's points and their approach, and whatever contrary argument you make has to also explain away Heartbleed, which was at the time the worst security vulnerability in history. It's like arguing that: "Sure, the Wuhan Lab of Coronaviruses may have had some biosecurity lapses, but just because the world's biggest pandemic originated form there doesn't automatically mean those practices were a problem!" (Or if you disagree with the lab-leak hypothesis, substitute unsanitary animal handling practices at the Wuhan Markets.)