3 ms·

>, but it feels like my peers at university and in the industry tend to stay far away from .NET for personal projects, etc. Why is this? It's leftover industr

by jasode 5y ago

>, but it feels like my peers at university and in the industry tend to stay far away from .NET for personal projects, etc. Why is this? It's leftover industry bias because of Microsoft's long history of a proprietary tech stack that costs money to use. Today's Microsoft of promoting open source VSCode doesn't really undo the mindshare they lost in the 1990s and 2000s when the internet got big. I wrote previous comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20256825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20256825 C#/.NET (including WinForms and ASP.NET) was instantly popular with corporate enterprises but Microsoft never captured emerging startups with their tech stack. E.g. 1990s startups like Ebay, Amazon, Google, etc all used Java+MySQL+Linux instead of C#+MSSQLServer+MSWinNT. And new high-profile open-source projects like Hadoop, Cassandra, Elasticsearch, etc chose Java instead of C#. I currently can't think of a famous project where the canonical source is C#. I use iText C# library but that was ported from Java. That's how it usually evolves. A lot of C# libraries were actually Java projects at first.

jiggawatts 5y ago
A part of this is that MySQL can have read only scale-out replicas for zero additional licensing cost. You pay only for the hardware. In Microsoft Land, the SQL Server team considers this an Enterprise feature, which basically translates to: "We added a couple of zeros to the price". THIS, I feel, more than anything, meant that the Microsoft stack was just a dead end for many startups. The licensing cost for the database alone exceeded their revenue. This was already crazy back then, but since then Microsoft has doubled down and increased SQL Server licensing. It is eyewateringly expensive now, and even their Enterprise customers are slowly starting to switch away from it. They're slowly but surely turning SQL Server into Oracle.
- fomine3 5y ago
  Into Oracle? Isn't it also expensive?
  - jiggawatts 5y ago
    I mean that Oracle is even more fantastically expensive, and the SQL Server team wants the charge a comparable amount. They're slowly but surely working up to that level...
    - fomine3 5y ago
      Ah I see. I misread they as Enterprise customers.

by jasode 5y ago

jiggawatts 5y ago

A part of this is that MySQL can have read only scale-out replicas for zero additional licensing cost. You pay only for the hardware. In Microsoft Land, the SQL Server team considers this an Enterprise feature, which basically translates to: "We added a couple of zeros to the price". THIS, I feel, more than anything, meant that the Microsoft stack was just a dead end for many startups. The licensing cost for the database alone exceeded their revenue. This was already crazy back then, but since then Microsoft has doubled down and increased SQL Server licensing. It is eyewateringly expensive now, and even their Enterprise customers are slowly starting to switch away from it. They're slowly but surely turning SQL Server into Oracle.

fomine3 5y ago
Into Oracle? Isn't it also expensive?
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  I mean that Oracle is even more fantastically expensive, and the SQL Server team wants the charge a comparable amount. They're slowly but surely working up to that level...
  - fomine3 5y ago
    Ah I see. I misread they as Enterprise customers.