Hard to know what to make of this. The author's argument seems to be that he wants to use c#, but also wants a greater diversity of libraries/tools in the .net ecosystem so that he can get a job using those rather than Microsoft's libraries. In other words, he wants it to have more OSS/Linux/Apple cool while also remaining attractive to the more "conservative" organisations that are big users of .net. I'm not sure this could work both ways.<p>I'd say that the incentives for this just aren't there. Most .net developers (like me) appear to be happy with the Microsoft tooling and not having to constantly learn this weeks fashionable framework. Even while many of us recognise that a lot of amazing innovation is going on in the OSS space. Our employers seem to be happy with the well-integrated nature of the platform and the stability that comes with somewhat less choice.<p>.net is fairly independent. The specs are public, and there are a few OSS implementations. You can run it on a Mac or Linux box, or even Pis and microcontrollers. Companies like Xamarin are building apparently successful businesses on top of .net. If you want to use indie libraries and frameworks then, on the whole, there are out there. And Microsoft doesn't show any signs of wanting to sue anyone for any of this.