So OK, because distributing the source is enough for most Linux users, therefore the developers typically don't provide binaries even if is for windows. But while this explains the history, it does not explain the rationale
There is no rationale; This is a behaviour of developers as a whole that emerges from the various circumstances involved:
* Windows has the crappiest known support for software development. No matter what MS does, no matter what any third party does, short of opensourcing Windows, this is not going to change.
* Linux has great support for software development. MacOSX has decent support.
* People use what works, especially in OSS where they are not constrained by company licenses, contracts, or policies.
* Therefore : most OSS developers use Linux or MacOSX.
* Therefore : only a small minority of OSS developers use Windows
* Therefore : often nobody spends time on making the Windows port work as well as it could.
IOW: It's not because of a plan or a rationale, and most of us *would* like to see more OSS and Linux... but it doesn't really seem true that we have the agenda of specifically pushing OSS and Linux. We're not a marketing department -- we're volunteer developers. When we see that the quality of the Windows port is suffering, we can't just produce a competent Windows developer from nowhere and point them at it. We don't -allocate- time at all
- this isn't work, it's fun. People do what they want, improve the things they think need improving, test the things they think need testing, and fix the things they think need fixing.
If you want better Windows support, then make it so! You can't get to there by merely explaining why good Windows support is worthwhile -- btw, you did give a good explanation of that. If you think it's broken, then fix it........ or else complain about it and wait for an indefinite period of time, until someone else decides they find it broken and fixes it. Those are the two options available to you here, and for OSS in general. Easy choice, right?