
Why don't startups use the C#/.NET/Microsoft stack? - ayjz
Is it just that the licensing cost is a barrier to entry? Or is there any reason why it&#x27;s actually a bad idea?
======
nunobrito
Only runs on Windows. Hard to program when you're running Linux, end-users
have Mac, Windows and Android occasionally.

Also, no appeal in moving to a closed-source platform. I know it has recently
opened a bit but compared to Java is literally a drop in the ocean.

We _could_ stretch to use .NET but the question is "why?" when Microsoft
itself only opens their hand of a monopoly when is clearly losing traction.

So we took the intentional decision of using Java for our large-scale data
processing (I mean large scale in the sense of handling a trillion files on
disk) and Java is good enough to reduce development costs. One app runs across
the whole enterprise stack, regardless of the operating system or CPU
underneath.

My 0.2 cents.

------
joshuaellinger
I use the Microsoft stack but run a lifestyle business, not a startup. It has
a lot going for it and it is not costly. I spent years on Sun Solaris in the
80s -- I like Linux a lot as well.

I think there are a couple of things: 1\. Amazon supports Linux better. 2\.
Good C# people go to work for big corporations. 3\. Certain Funders (A16Z)
really don't like Microsoft. Can't imagine why. :) 4\. A lot of new,
interesting stuff is open source, where MS doesn't really play. 5\. The
startups that use it don't talk about it. 6\. MySQL. C# is cheap. SQL
Server... not so much historically. 7\. Microsoft lagged behind on the modern
javascript world. Still does a bit.

From where I sit (Capital Factory in Austin), I see about 10% C#/.Net. There
is probably another 5-10% that I don't see.

Microsoft has always been very good to developers. I think the biggest
consideration would be can you find and hire good people on the stack. But
then, that is always going to be the main issue.

------
MCRed
Having been around for quite awhile, going back to the days when Microsoft
used to threaten startups (eg "We'll cut off your oxygen supply" was a threat
I personally received from a MSFT rep if we didn't join their initiative that
competed with us) anyone who wanted to have a viable product would host it on
linux because MSFT would do things like make your software not run as well
under windows as their software did, and stuff like that.

OF course since they also charged per user licensing for servers, if you're a
startup you might as well use linux which is "Free" (at least free of cost,
you still need human resources to manage the machines.)

Finally their confusing constantly changing product and development strategy
left people worn out- once you were locked into one technology they would
introduce another.

Open source basically destroyed all of MSFTs advantages for development in
tech companies, and now you only use MSFT technology if you're only deploying
on MSTF machines.

Oh, and MSFT killed the packaged software market-- which was completely dead,
you really couldn't sell apps, until Apple created the App store-- because
they wanted to own the desktop completely. There used to be a rich ecosystems
of desktop apps but they were all killed- the only exception like Adobe and
... and I can't think of any other exceptions--were that way because they
gobbled up smaller companies faster than MSFT did and got big enough to
compete.

MSFT killed the desktop software market completely....again, except on Apple
platforms where it was a level playing field. (but all the MBAs in eh 1990s
would say "macs don't have enough market share" and kill mac versions, even
though in cases where companies did do cross platform they often made all
their profits on the mac, and had the larger sales of the PC washed away by
the much larger support costs for PC customers.)

