> I fail to see how a first class framework with a LTS that was released years ago can be described with a straight face as "way too unstable". I fail to see h

> I fail to see how a first class framework with a LTS that was released years ago can be described with a straight face as "way too unstable". I fail to see how you can call 2 years of support an LTS with a straight face, it's taking the piss out of the term. The LTS of the OS I'm likely to run it on is supported for 8 years. 2 years isn't even enough time to finish many projects on the same LTS it started on. At work we've got 30 year old c/c++ code bases that still run, they'll probably run for another 20 at least, we've got 20 year old python code that still runs (for now) and we've got 20 year old c# projects that still run. That last one will never get rewritten in .net core, in part because they've pissed away the stability the framework had. It would be crazy to use tools with 2 years of support for any of those projects. > Don't confuse "why waste money maintaining working software" linesof reasoning as a sign of respect for stability. Why should they waste money maintaining working software when there are stable options available? What does upgrading to asp.net core get them? Why should tens of thousands of companies waste money modifying working software just because someone on the core team thought the existing API was inelegant or too hard to maintain compatibility?