Well put. This is one of the reasons why Tarsnap supports BSD, linux, and OS X, but not Windows -- people who run Windows are generally not trend-setters or early adopters... nor are people likely to take the advice of Windows users where security is concerned.
Windows is a far larger market, so early adopters and trend setters aren't as loud as they might be in an empty room, but that doesn't mean there are less of them. Instead, they tend to be visible only in niches of the PC market, rather than simply the Mac niche or FOSS niche.
Also, I recommend that you moderate your intake of propaganda re Windows security too. Windows is the big target, and has by far the largest number of suckers (i.e. unsophisticated users). That doesn't make it inherently insecure, or savvy users of it incompetent.
The statement "people who run Windows are generally not trend-setters or early adopters" remains true, and is actually supported by what you said. Also, the poster did not refer to Windows users as "suckers" or "incompetent", or describe Windows as "inherently insecure", so you should consider the possibility that you've misunderstood the intent of the message before accusing him of "hubris", "bigotry", and being a consumer of "propaganda".
'Also, I recommend that you moderate your intake of propaganda re Windows security too. Windows is the big target, and has by far the largest number of suckers (i.e. unsophisticated users). That doesn't make it inherently insecure, or savvy users of it incompetent.'
Windows Vista was the first Windows consumer OS to ship with a firewall enabled, and that by default used limited privilege accounts that prompted to elevate privileges when needed.
When did Linux and OS X have those features?
Vista was the first Windows OS to ship without inbuilt, unfixable windows-smashing vulnerabilities. Did Linux or OS X ever have an equivalent unfixable vulnerability baked into the display server?
How long has the idea of all software being digitally signed been in the Windows world?
How long has the idea of 'it's compromised, game over, reinstall and re-apply non-executable data if you think that's not compromised too' been around in the Windows world? Or do people still use 'anti-virus' software as a line of defense, when it's already too late?
Which current consumer version of Windows has mandatory access control ala SELinux or AppArmor?
Which version of Windows has chroots? Process jails?
How large is the 'Windows Hyper V appliance' based on Server Core 2008 compared to VMware ESX3i?
Which OS requires users close all their application, stop executing their kernel, and restart everything for simple, non-kernel updates?
With your answers to the above in mind, do you think you should perhaps limit your own intake of propaganda regarding Windows security?
I would have to agree with this. We released the first version of our software for Linux and OS X only. It wasn't a deliberate plan to target 'trend setters', we simply didn't finish the work we need to do on Windows yet.
Since we are in a technical niche (network security) a lot of the traffic to our site is from Linux and OS X users, but 85% of it is still from Windows. It's painful to watch people arrive at our site, realize in the first 30 seconds that there is no version of our software for Windows, then disappear (probably forever).
It isn't just about how many early adopters there are -- it's that, with Linux and OS X, they make up a much larger proportion of users. There are probably a lot more savvy Windows users, but the high proportion of early adopters in Mac/Linux markets makes it easier to be recognised by those types of user if you're targeting them.
A colleague was asking about internet-based backup systems. He uses GNU/Linux, but his wife uses Windows, and he wanted them both to be able to use the same backup system.
I was about to recommend that he take a look at Tarsnap, until I saw it doesn't support Windows.
