Didn't say anything was tied to .NET. I said Microsoft educated a whole industry of .NET developers to never look outside the MS stack. That's two different things.
Which MS technologies I consider inferior to non MS alternatives, but .NET developers insist on using despite them being inferior?
Let's start with the elephant in the room: Azure...
Azure Web Apps. They are slower than ElasticBeanstalk or AppEngine and only run on IIS, so .NET Core devs can't even run their .NET Core apps to their full potential by running it on Kestrel or Kestrel behind something like nginx. This itself is embarrassing and the fact that still so many people don't look beyong Azure Web Apps just because it's Microsoft is just mind blogging.
We love azure at our company. For one project One dev running Windows, a few running MacOS, one running Linux all coding our .net Core web application. Simple check-in to github kicks off a QA branch build of our app hosted on Azure web apps.
AWS is the default cloud stack. It's more mature, more companies run on AWS than on any other cloud platform, it has full .NET and .NET Core support, it even supported things like .NET Core or F# much earlier than Azure did. There is more resources online, more courses, more talent and more books on AWS than on any other cloud platform.
So how is Azure the default stack? You call it default, because Microsoft has spend so much marketing - aka educating you - to believe that Azure IS THE DEFAULT thing to use.
It's sad honestly, because it makes .NET development a lot less fun and I really like .NET otherwise.
EDIT:
Comment below me:
> I think rather because it is integrated into Visual Studio and SQL Management Studio out of the box.
This is another example that precisely proves my point, that .NET devs have been educated to stop looking beyond what Microsoft puts on their plate.
AWS also has fantastic Visual Studio support. It's only one plugin away. It's like installing a NuGet package, hardly any effort. But the default .NET developer rather uses an inferior cloud stack, because the effort to install an AWS plugin into Visual Studio is seen as more effort than having to deal with all the inabilities of Azure in the long run. That doesn't make sense. It's irrational and only because Microsoft has done such a great marketing it doesn't even occur to the majority of .NET devs.
CosmosDB is inferior to postgres or cassandra depending on use case.
Azure functions is inferior to lambda/cloud functions.
Azure in general is vastly inferior to aws/gcp. That's a point which is reiterated on a monthly basis on HN.
None of these three points are opinion. They're well covered facts.
We use RabbitMQ hosted on Azure via CloudAMQP. We had almost half a day of downtime because Azure performed maintenance on our instance, involving a restart.
CloudAMQP told us that Azure do this without notifying them, or us! We got told by them if we moved to AWS rather than Azure this wouldn't happen. AWS notifies you two weeks in advance and can allow live migrations without any downtime.
They said they don't actually recommend hosting on Azure!
I don't know for the other ones but the tooling for lambda is definitely better on aws, I had to patch around 500 lines of serverless-azure-functions to allow for missing features & fixing bugs. I should probably do a cleanup & do some pull requests one day.
How are those distributed cluster queries going on Postgres?
How do you plug a graphical debugger into lambda/cloud functions like I can do in VS?
GCP is so good that it is lagging behind Azure.
https://hackernoon.com/help-my-azure-site-performance-sucks-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16099729
https://dvt.name/2018/02/27/microsoft-azure-sucks/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19056911
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19658553
Azure's woes are well documented. I've experienced them first hand. In fact you'll find me with ~hundred upvotes describing my experience with Cosmos in one of these threads. Most engineers will take take aws/gcp without GUI tooling any day over Azure and its sea of undocumented bugs, performance issues, unlogged failures, and blown SLAs.
The only reason to use Azure today is either because it's the only thing you know or because there are external forces making you do it.
Or some other ones about the automated replies and lack of human support on GCP.
> The only reason to use Azure today is either because it's the only thing you know or because there are external forces making you do it.
Sure, that is why GCP is playing catchup with Azure and Microsoft had such a huge loss in Azure profits during the last years. /s
Anecdotes stop being anecdotes when you're looking at well over a hundred consistently negative experiences from different users across a number of unrelated discussions. At that point those anecdotes become the consensus. Try to find 1/10th of this many HN users shitting on aws or gcp, you won't be able to.
I didn't pick up azure looking for excuses to shit on it, like you appear to be doing and confirming in your profile bio. I came ready to deliver on the next round of projects, expecting something resembling parity with the other cloud vendors. And walked away feeling borderline defrauded by the delta between how MS markets azure and what it actually is.
"Said someone that never used either SQL Server or its GUI tooling."
You just sound like an angry teenager lashing out because their one and only skillset was shown to be poorly chosen. I'm pretty sure I've been using SQL server longer than you've been in the industry. It's middle of the pack at best today, sorry.
My profile bio is what I do in 2019, not what I have done since mid-80's.
In fact I have my share of delivering projects in AWS, across multiple kinds of stacks, all the way back when EC2 was started.
As an rdms? In what way? I mean, I do personally prefer Free software - and while it's possible, I think it'd be a bit premature to run ms sql in production on Linux - but "inferior" seems a bit harsh?
At what scale? For what kind of workloads? Use cases?