I work at a large "enterprise" company (35,000+) and .NET is the primary tech for in-house custom application development. Much of the development is built arou

I work at a large "enterprise" company (35,000+) and .NET is the primary tech for in-house custom application development. Much of the development is built around SOA, so there are very few "standalone" apps that is considered "enterprise" in size/scope (i have limited industry exposure, but i highly doubt many org's build anything truly resembling "enterprise" software -- they buy it). Being familiar with .NET and Ruby/Rails, you would be hard-pressed to find .NET development in my org that couldn't be done as well as or better in Ruby/Rails. The reality is .NET is a "safe" choice for large businesses. The people making these technology decisions do not understand (or care about) the technical aspect of the technology, but rather look for the status quo/known quantity (few large firms want to use 'unproven' technology), support contracts (if something breaks we can at least get the vendor to fix it), available/sustainable (and ultimately off-shoreable) labor, and a "unified platform" (Exchange email leads to active directory leads to MS product A leads to MS product B, etc.). It comes down to the high-level IT governance, and what IT steering committees are comfortable with staking their reputation/jobs on. "No one ever got fired for buying IBM (or MS)" The only reason why .NET and Ruby/Rails developers solve different kinds of problems is because management are large companies are too scared/lazy to try out new solutions, thus Ruby (and many other lang devs) aren't even allowed to solve ".NET problems". Anyhow - the article was just a nice little PR move anyhow.