[GordonS]

> .NET Core only supports the three major mainstream OSes, zero support for anything else

This is true, but this level is support for the majority of use cases. I do personally find it very annoying that refuse to support 32-bit Linux tho.

> has the growing pains of a platform where plenty of third parties are yet to release anything on Core

This was true a few years ago, but certainly isn't now. I honestly can't even remember when I last tried to use a library that didn't have dotnet Core support.

[pjmlp]

I can give you several examples, you can start with Sitecore and SharePoint.

[GordonS]

I don't doubt there are examples, but they are surely in the minority nowadays.

Also worth noting that anything built for dotnet framework 4.6.2+ (4.6.2 was released in 2016) will run just fine under Core CLR.

[pjmlp]

No it won't, because .NET Core doesn't support everything from .NET Framework, like WCF server happily running on 4.7.2.

Here is another example, Oracle drivers for .NET Core only support a subset of their capabilities on Core.

I can keep feeding examples of stuff that is actually relevant for Fortune 500's, which Microsoft keeps out of their .NET Core marketing or just hand waves as yet another porting effort, as if we didn't had better ways to spend our money.

[BoorishBears]

You can keep feeding off examples of the subset of Fortune 500s that refuse to compete for top talent in the wider market and instead try and keep zombie projects shuffling because of their mismanagement using contractors and outsourced labor... they also tend to have the kind of engineering culture that pushes away innovators, treats development as a cost center, and generally avoid investment in any sort of long term growth of their talent...

But yeah, why compete with the rest of the Fortune 500 that hire top talent to build out new systems...

when you can pay a "fixer" who prides themselves on self-flagellation keeping legacy systems with no source targeting platforms designed for computing as it existed decades ago (that only exist because of gross mismanagement and a general view of development as a cost center)?

What's interesting to me is someone would actually try to hold this up this dance as something the rest of the tech industry should aspire to uphold lol. Maybe because it makes for less "war stories" deep in the bowels of decade old systems with no documentation successfully migrated to the latest Jenga block in their leaning towers?

Imagine if other fields worked like this

"Our materials science company prides itself on only releasing plastics that can be molded using what was state of the art 20 years ago"

"Our competitor Macrohard insists on occasionally releasing new plastics that are stronger and cheaper to develop with, but we cater to those shops that refuse to invest in techs who know newer processes!"