In my experience, trying to get people to use NuGet is like pulling teeth. When OSS dependencies are considered cromulent, vendoring, sometimes just straight-up binary vendoring, has been my experience with .NET shops. Those are the above-average places, though--I've seen a ton of reticence around using anything with an OSS license.
Coming from a Mono background, this was very weird to me.
I think the conclusion we can draw from this discussion is that dismissing Microsoft-stack developers is a terrible generalization.
Agreed in full; see my other post in this thread.
> I've seen a ton of reticence around using anything with an OSS license.
Very true. This used to be a point of contention where I work, but was easily fixed by having an automated process for getting our lawyers to approve OSS code (with a Nuget or Github URL). We still have to do it on a per-project basis (not per-license), but we're using lots of OSS code now and I've made a little headway on open-sourcing some of our own stuff.
These days OSS advocacy isn't that hard, especially with the hard facts demonstrated by CoreCLR.
Now .Net is now also open source it would seem that the only proprietary part to the stack is Windows itself, and shortly .Net is going to be running on any platform.