Edit: Perhaps this comment is gratuitously negative. Nonetheless I'm not going to delete it because all these things contribute to why people have avoided MS/Windows and hence .NET. (Mono's great and has worked well for me in some scenarios, but, say, with ASP.NET/EF it hasn't been totally stable like the CLR.) I've also invested a ton of time into using MS and promoting them (MVP at one point), so I think I'm rather fair on my criticism.<p>Don't blame Microsoft? Ha, OK. MS is responsible for gimping the .net environment to Windows with no technical reason. I'm a bit of an MS fanboy but I'll admit deploying on Windows is a pain in the ass. Shit, it's just now they're getting around to "Windows Server Nano'. OpenVZ's been around for a long time, and MS just steadfastly ignored containers as long as they could. Or DRBD - 2015, and MS ships nothing like this. Everything is commercial 3rd party stuff.<p>Or look at SSH support. It's just now they decided to add that, despite wanting to do it internally for a while. WinRM is annoying but that didn't stop them from leaving it as the only option. And before that? Deployment was what, exposing smb shares?<p>Or look at IIS. It's 2015, IIS has no real reverse proxy (ARR is a terrible joke), and nginx only runs with limitations on Windows. Why is that? And FFS, they're making you upgrade the OS to have HTTP2, and this whole time, you've not been able to use SPDY. I've seen .net/win shops add Linux just for nginx/SPDY, then realize the grass <i>is</i> greener... Not to mention every other thing, like Elasticsearch - Linux is the OS of choice for deployment, so why bother dealing with it on Windows?<p>.NET was designed from the beginning to be cross platform and cross language. The first book I read on targeting the CLR was for Component Pascal! The CLR design is far better than the JVM. And around that time, MS had a version of .net running on BSD. They <i>chose</i> to ignore developers and thus everyone flocked to the JVM. This is entirely MS's fault. They could have destroyed Java (or at least started an arms race). The JVM was built solely for Java the language, with no thought for running other languages the CLR was designed explicitly with this in mind, yet almost no langs target the CLR. Explain that without blaming MS.<p>Even now, they have F#, which is essentially better than C# in every way. How do they promote it? By fucking up features in Visual Studio so things don't quite work. By downplaying it as a language for "scientific" and "financial" work. This is the team that brought generics to .net; without them they'd probably have Java's lameass erasure model. And it looks like MS just grudgingly throws a bit of F# support out as a bone. They don't get it. Instead MS focuses on their line-of-business "Mort" developers. (The kind that can pump out useless, scammy crap to get the Windows Store numbers up, or contribute to more licenses.) They're focused on ops that suit companies that run AD and Exchange. Excellent solutions for those companies; no real focus on others. I'm sure it's been a great win for immediate licenses, but they shouldn't be surprised they lost the war. (And note that via BizSpark, they're <i>giving</i> this stuff away and still can't make it stick.)<p>And it's not their fault people don't rush to implement code that will possibly only work on Windows? Ha!<p>(MS has finally shifted to being open towards Linux because they wanna sell overpriced VMs on Azure. And by overpriced, I mean 2x or more of GCE's cost, with none of the perf benefits. And note this was not MS's first choice. They wanted Azure to be a lock-in PaaS, and only when they realised customers didn't want to deal with that mess did they go after IaaS and start "embracing" open source and Linux.)<p>I apologize for the rant, but I do blame MS for doing all they can to drive developers and ops away from Windows, .Net's only officially supported platform, and thus away from .Net.