> They are talking about obsoleting hardware not because it’s fundamentally broken, but because it no longer fits neatly into a roadmap.

Not really. The discussion is about cost, benefits and available resources. Projects are not immune because they are open source or free software. Actual people still need to do the work.

> Open source has always been about making hardware outlive commercial interest and let it run long after the hardware vendor abandons it.

Again, not really. Open source has always been all about freely modifying and distributing software. This leaves some freedom for anyone to keep supporting their pet hardware, but that’s a consequence. In this case, I don’t think it would be a real problem if anyone would step up and commit the ressources necessary to keep supporting older hardware. This freedom was not taken away because a project’s developers decided that something was not worth their time anymore.