Where did the Microsoft tech stack disappear?

https://michaelscodingspot.com/2018/07/30/where-did-the-microsoft-tech-stack-disappear/

by eadmund • 8 years ago

84 144 8 years ago

h4b4n3r02• 8 years ago

C++ is alive and well at all those companies, yet the bar chart shows zero. This immediately makes the rest of this “data” suspect.

saagarjha2• 8 years ago

You were downvoted pretty quickly, but I agree with what you're saying: I don't trust this data. Out of curiousity, I searched up Apple. Of course I got Xcode, Swift, and Cocoa…but not much else. No mention of the hundreds of technologies Apple uses to keep its services (Maps, Siri, iCloud) running, no mention of even Objective-C, which probably outnumbers lines of Swift code ten to one. It seems like this website is just a collection of public perception about companies' tech stacks rather than being an accurate source.

rovr1382• 8 years ago

Not sure if you need to work at a company before you can submit the data, but it also seems like this scans the website and GitHub repos you give it to identify the stacks.

This seems like a bad source. Specially if anyone can submit a company they don’t work for and only use the url scan feature.

mikekij• 8 years ago

My company sells dev tools to software companies. Whenever I have talked to a startup about their tech stack and they reveal they’re on .NET, I later find out that none of the founders are technical, and they’ve outsourced development to Eastern Europe or India.

This is not to say that a startup founded by technical people couldn’t be successful using .NET; I just haven’t seen it.

pnloyd3• 8 years ago

Maybe not startups per say but.

- jet.com uses F#

- stackoverflow is C#

I don't get why a startup couldn't just use .net for the application layer hooked up to a MySQL or Postgress backend. The drivers for both Db exist so someone must be doing it.

maxxxxx6• 8 years ago

I work with C#/.NET but if I had to start from scratch I wouldn't use it. With a lot of platforms you are a second class citizen with .NET because most APIs get released as Java, Javascript or Python. The .NET version often comes much later. After working with MS for 20 years I am also not convinced they will sustain long term what they started with .NET Core.

With a startup I would stick to open source. It's the more vibrant and reliable option.

sokoloff• 8 years ago

This probably also depends on when the startup was founded.

A 2018 startup choosing .Net is very different from a 2005 startup choosing .Net, IMO. (I would place a higher likelihood/possibility of technical cluefulness on the latter.)

abakker• 8 years ago

Is that...bad? I mean, the point of a startup is to start a business, not to write code, isn’t it?

I’d bet that there are many startups that don’t need technical founders, and many who have them are building technology that isn’t really differentiated. One thing that is important is obviously fine-grained control over the business, so I could see how outsourcing might make that slightly harder to manage.

reustle2• 8 years ago

Not only fine-grained control, but as they grow they need to consider the cost of growing and maintaining a system built with antiquated tech.

__sr__5• 8 years ago

Is that...bad?

For Microsoft and .NET community — yes.

rovr1382• 8 years ago

Depends on the startup and product. Assuming the product is software, not having technical talent and outsourcing means the quality of the code could suffer. The problem with this is if the company/product grows it can be harder to work with in the future.

Even if one outsources, having someone doing reviews, QAing the code being introduced and setting guidelines on what’s production quality code is a good thing. This could also be outsourced to someone else though. Doesn’t have to be a founder.

jordansjones• 8 years ago

Homie.com is a startup. We use .Net (C# specifically)

scarface7416• 8 years ago

I’ve been making a living in the MS world for over 20 years. But, when I started focusing on AWS and cloud hosting in general, the Microsoft Tax becomes real. I see how much more costly Microsoft is than a Linux in terms of licensing and resource requirements.

Besides, with AWS and all of the services being hosted, the only servers you really have to manage are your own app servers.

angry_octet8• 8 years ago

Of course you're paying the AWS tax now...

a2tech2• 8 years ago

It’s the licensing. It’s always been the licensing. The cost is untenable for startups (and yes I’m aware of the various bizspark and developer offerings). Those special deals are awesome in the beginning but they have nasty teeth when you’re two years in and you’ve just started to get traction and out of the blue you need to pony up for sql server or windows licenses.

hackits2• 8 years ago

SQL Server/Windows Licenses costs shouldn't really be a problem if you've factor them into your business plan and expenses. The businesses that get into trouble are the ones that naively assume software is free.

a2tech2• 8 years ago

They can be problematic if your growth doesn’t exactly match what your licensing growth plan is.

ebikelaw• 8 years ago

How do you figure in the chance that some birdbrain from Microsoft is going to call you up and demand that you participate in a "voluntary" audit of your license compliance, which you agreed to as a term of your Windows license agreement? I know many of you don't really remember the 90s, but Microsoft was and is evil. I wouldn't touch anything from them, or Oracle, with a ten-foot pole.

InclinedPlane3• 8 years ago

The problem and the cost is not just the licensing. It's also the logistical overhead and the complexity tax.

Imagine a parallel world, one where you could spin up Windows and SQL Server installations with ease and you just get a bill at the end of the year for your licensing costs, with easy payment and financing terms. If that were the way things work (and it is to some extent for the cloud, one reason why azure is so popular) then it wouldn't be terribly bad to deal with MS technology. But in large part that's not how things work. Instead you have to deal with the overhead of finding out exactly what you need (do I want Windows Server 2016? what's the advantage of getting the Data Center SKU? do I want SQL Server clustering? etc.) then you have to go out and buy it, install it. And then, after all of that, you have to occasionally put up with Microsoft barging into your business and doing an intrusive audit to make sure you're not stealing anything.

Compare that to the alternatives out there. If you have a big beefy server you can spin up a VM host and infinity linux VMs, you can run as many copies of nginx, postres, and all the other great technologies out there that you want. And you don't have to be burdened about the complexity of licensing, let alone the cost. When you are paying developers 500, 1000, 1500 bucks a day that complexity cost, and the opportunity cost from not just feeling free to experiment and try things out can easily be more expensive than the actual licensing.

I love C#, coding in VS with the .NET stack behind you almost feels like cheating or like "easy mode" because there's just so much available to you and so much you can do trivially in that world which takes so much work and pain with other tech stacks. But ultimately the truth is that nginx is pretty much just a better web server than IIS and linux is a better platform than Windows, especially for services. Docker on windows is light years improved today compared to where it was a year ago, but it's still an also ran compared to Docker on linux. The Microsoft platform just doesn't have the edge it used to, which makes it hard to justify the cost.

wenc2• 8 years ago

SQL Server and Windows licensing are actually major inhibitors, even at large enterprises. We have to manage our VL/CALs conservatively to control costs.

Wanna spin up n VMs for production / distributed computing? For Windows, you have to license each VM, whereas with Linux, the incremental cost of another node is nearly 0.

(Side note: I had high hopes for container support on Windows Server 2016 because unlike OS's, containers don't require individual licensing. Unfortunately Windows Containers are still immature, and are ironically second-class citizens in the Microsoft ecosystem compared to Linux containers)

Wanna spin up a n database servers? A single SQL Server (Enterprise) instance is pretty pricey (and it's licensed per core, minimum 4), whereas Postgres is free for any number of users and any number of processor cores. You want several replicas of your SQL Server? It is $$$. With MySQL, every replica is free license-wise (there are other costs of course).

The cloud has changed these calculations somewhat, but if your infrastructure is on-prem, Microsoft licensing can be prohibitive at scale.

DenisM2• 8 years ago

I could never understand this point of view. Can you elaborate?

Windows tax amounts to about 30% bump in AWS ec2 costs. Typical CRUD startup will have their costs dominated by payroll, not hosting. If I can get my engineers 3% more efficient at the cost of making my hosting 30% more expensive I will do this in a heartbeat.

What is the situation where you experience onerous Windows tax?

mattchamb• 8 years ago

I say this as a .net dev, but when I look at hosting stuff for myself, the few extra dollars influence my decision.

h4b4n3r02• 8 years ago

Why do you think they will be more (as opposed to less) efficent? Also, particular stacks attract a particular type of developer, and some are better than others. In particular, a lot of the ones that are good have been switching to Linux for the past decade and a half, and once you do that, going back to Windows is such a non-starter. It also doesn't help that Windows dev work typically pays substantially less.

Stacks also have the varying number of "batteries" included, and on Linux, the Microsoft stack comes with very few "batteries".

__sr__5• 8 years ago

If I can get my engineers 3% more efficient at the cost of making my hosting 30% more expensive I will do this in a heartbeat.

How do you quantify engineers’ productivity? A Java or a Python developer (much easier to find than a .NET developer) will be a lot more productive in Java or Python. And it is not a universal fact that .NET developers are more productive than others. Python developers would argue the other way round.

paulie_a4• 8 years ago

Honestly if some licensing is that problematic, your start up is doomed from the get go. Granted I will never use Microsoft products or service again because they just aren't my style or very good. That minimal cost should be the least of a startups concerns.

reustle2• 8 years ago

That's such a silly SV mindset. Not everyone wants to raise a boatload of vc.

zamalek• 8 years ago

The whole "stack" thing is dumb as hell to begin with. Just because someone is using Linux, do they have to use Apache MySQL and PHP? Just because some is using Windows, do they have to use IIS, SQL Server and ASP? Where do Go, Rust, C++, serverless and containers fit into these handcuffs? Why can't someone run netcore on Linux? Why would someone use SQL for all their database problems?

Stacks are an incredibly bad idea and need to go away. If you organically end up with LAMP because those technologies were best-in-class for your problem, then great. Use the best tool for the job, else your solution is categorically enterprise.

"Stack" is merely an FOSS euphemism for enterprise behavior.

rorykoehler• 8 years ago

I agree in principle but in practice stacks end up "organically" being chosen as defaults regardless due to the benefits of having an active ecosystem. Tools that are technically better but not actively supported end up being sidelined by popular tools everyone knows plays nice with their chosen framework.

pjc50• 8 years ago

The best tool for the job depends on which other tools you are using, synergistically.

yread• 8 years ago

What licensing? You can develop in VS community edition (less than 250 PCs and 1 M$ revenue) and deploy to Linux. You can use any DB you like with that.

bizspark has been cancelled last year because of too much abuse - MS offers alternative program only for startup incubator alumni.

lucideer2• 8 years ago

deploy to Linux. You can use any DB you like with that

I don't think Linux or "any DB you like" fall within the OP's definition of "the Microsoft tech stack" that disappeared.

_up2• 8 years ago

You forgot this part:"In non-enterprise organizations, up to five users can use Visual Studio Community."

scarface7416• 8 years ago

In 2008, I looked at where the market was going and decided to tie my horse to Microsoft, .Net and enterprise development. It’s been a good ride, but it’s clear that JS is eating the world. I’m slowly moving over more toward JS and Linux. I am taking a brief detour to Python and AWS though.

I’m not touching Ruby. There are jobs for it but they don’t pay well.

finaliteration4• 8 years ago

I’m not touching Ruby though. There are jobs for it but they don’t pay well.

Source? I know I’m an N of 1, but I just got hired to work on a Rails app and the pay and other benefits are pretty competitive...

CyanLite26• 8 years ago

Probably not in the same salary ballpark as that of a C# developer working on a line of business app for an enterprise shop.

toomanybeersies• 8 years ago

To add to your sample set, I'm a rails developer and also get paid handsomely. My salary is higher than it would be for a C# or Java dev of the same experience. There's a shortage of rails developers in my area I think, but plenty of C# and Java devs.

Xorlev• 8 years ago

I'm not sure why the author is surprised about Ruby. Rails was the darling of startups for years and is probably still a common choice of backend.

This data is also rife with bias: stackshare isn't representative of startups let alone companies in general.

pard682• 8 years ago

Also, Ruby has Jekyll which is probably close behind Wordpress (php) in terms of usage by blog/ecommerce.

joeax• 8 years ago

I don't think the MS stack is going anywhere. It's true that startups tend to avoid MS due to the (real or perceived) high upfront costs and its general lowness on the hipster curve, but once you look outside of SF/Bay Area it normalizes out, and you'll find plenty of .NET/C# jobs at tech/software companies in whatever city.

guu2• 8 years ago

Now that .NET Core exists, it is possible to develop on the .NET stack without licensing fees (By hosting on Linux and using an open source database) or using a third party implementation (Mono).

It remains to be seen whether this will help it gain traction with more companies or not though.

paulie_a4• 8 years ago

Yeah but why bother? Unless you have some legacy code and are forced to use c# I wouldn't waste my time anything Microsoft.

underwater• 8 years ago

Microsoft is doing their darnedest to own JavaScript as a language. TypeScript + VSCode is making inroads.

CyanLite26• 8 years ago

There's an overwhelming majority of developers who recently majored in CompSci or went to Bootcamps that have never touched a Microsoft development ecosystem, let alone Windows before. Schools/Camps are mostly teaching Python, JavaScript, or Java although that's starting to change now with .NET Core being open-source and cross platform and being one of the fastest frameworks out there on TechEmPower Benchmarks.

I founded a startup on the Microsoft tech stack (.NET Core, VSTS, and Azure). Why? It's an incredibly productive dev/tooling environment that Java/Python/AWS doesn't even come close to. The downside? It's really hard to find good C# talent that isn't stuck in an enterprise development mindset.

kitten_mittens_• 8 years ago

It’s really hard to find good C# talent that isn’t stuck in an enterprise development mindset.

I’ve found that C# devs manage quite well in F#, and the ergonomic way of doing things is sufficiently different to break people out of the 3+ levels of inheritance I’ve seen some small C# projects devolve into.

That said, the community is smaller.

vile• 8 years ago

The flipside is also true; as a C# / MS stack focused developer myself, it's quite difficult to find satisfying work that isn't enterprisey, and it seems to be mostly because Microsoft isn't Cool.

imesh• 8 years ago

The cost is something too. I enjoy developing in the Microsoft environment, but by using Microsoft you actually have to pay for your tools.

scarface7416• 8 years ago

The only thing "cool about a company is that they deposit money into my account every two weeks. I don't look for "cool" jobs.

realusername• 8 years ago

It's really hard to find good C# talent that isn't stuck in an enterprise development mindset.

That's also the reason I avoid Java personally, I find the language alright but the community around is kind of "enterprise" focused.

Rjevski2• 8 years ago

It's an incredibly productive dev/tooling environment that Java/Python/AWS doesn't even come close to

Could you tell me what the Windows/C# stack has that the aforementioned stacks don't?

megaman222• 8 years ago

There is some really excellent tooling that is available for .Net that I haven't been able to find real equivalents for other languages. You have to pay for it with money, rather than with time and aggravation, however.

Microsoft-centric devs seem, on the average, to be less averse to paying for software tools than your average Python/Java/JS dev.

scarface7416• 8 years ago

It's a statically typed language meaning it's much easier to refactor using guaranteed safe automated refactors and there is a whole class of errors that will be caught by the compiler (unlike Python) and its overseen by a competent company (unlike Java)

bpye• 8 years ago

Having recently finished university, we needed to use C, xC, C++, JavaScript, Java, Python and Haskell. Nothing Microsoft there at all.

ehnto2• 8 years ago

Excluding 77 of the results because they were PHP and so probably "weren't software at all" is silly, to be polite. I understand the assumption is that they are probably ecommerce frameworks or WordPress sites but a) that's a pretty bad assumption and b) for an eCommerce framework, how is that not just part of the stack like any other framework? They are never off the shelf solutions at that scale, and surely it would be interesting to note that a majority of the top 100 were using a particular framework in the stack.

InclinedPlane3• 8 years ago

All the more condescending considering some of the biggest software companies in the world (such as facebook) use PHP.

BillinghamJ• 8 years ago

What Facebook use these days is a long way away from PHP. Hack is quite different in various non-trivial ways.

The more typical “99th percentile” PHP is not used by any of the biggest tech companies to deliver their core products.

paulie_a4• 8 years ago

Facebook basically doesn't use php anymore. It is a minority and dwindling part of their codebase

guu2• 8 years ago

Yes, slack uses PHP as well...

HNNewer• 8 years ago

true...Zalando and Facebook use PHP but they aren't worth for this classification.

That's blatant bloggging

crunchlibrarian• 8 years ago

Blogging isn't technology? You can't start a company based on writers? Have you not been following tech very long? Blogging is way bigger than Uber and Airbnb combined.

But to actually get to the point you want to talk about, I worked at a startup in 2009 that was a microsoft shop. We committed to some version of .net/visual studio, paid for a bunch of windows server licenses, built multiple data centers, etc etc. So it did happen, at least one time.

peteforde• 8 years ago

It's weird that the author would include Shopify in a list of companies that don't create their own tools.

Shopify is one of the most prolific technology creators in the tech community. Their CEO was on the original core Rails team and is directly responsible for several common libraries and concepts that have been picked up by other tools.

pard682• 8 years ago

Netflix too. Fairly certain they develop a fair amount of their own stuff in house.

kylec• 8 years ago

I think a lot of it is that there just aren't as many developers that know it compared to the other tech stacks.

Part of the reason for that is that if you're starting out as a web developer trying to build stuff for fun, you're probably not picking .NET as your tech stack when there are options that are freer (both as in beer and in speech), easier/cheaper to deploy, and have a more active online community that can help you if you get stuck.

And ultimately, if you're a company that is picking a tech stack, you ultimately need to hire people to work with that stack, and it's a lot easier to find people that know Node/PHP/React/whatever than it is to find people that know .NET.

marktolson• 8 years ago

I've been developing with .NET since 1.1. The initial appeal of ASP.NET WebForms was due to the fact that you could build software similarly to the way you build Windows desktop based apps. State was managed in an unmanaged environment. You didn't have to worry about varying browser capabilities / quirks due to the lack of standardisation at the time.

Fast forward a few years and all of a sudden you have browser standards and amazing MVVM frameworks. Everything you needed ASP.NET for was no longer required.

I still work on enterprise .NET systems and it's no surprise as to why startups look to alternatives. Sure the tooling is amazing but so are many of the other tools out there. After using simple web frameworks like AdonisJS I see no real reason for building your service layer (let alone your app layer) in .NET.

plaguuuuuu• 8 years ago

.NET is demonstrably a great environment (judging by effectiveness) and licensing is hardly an issue since .NET core. So it must be partly cultural. First of all, unless you have macbooks, you're not really a startup. and if you're a new developer who needs to pad out the CV, naturally you will be attracted to the most buzzwordy tech stack available - if it isn't dockerised scala->graphql->redis->whatever so you can code while you code, nobody's gonna hire you afterwards man.

Also that awkward, sad reaction when you reveal to other burgeoning developers that you work in .NET

arc2• 8 years ago

As a Microsoft and all the closed-source software hater, I feel reassured

Rjevski2• 8 years ago

I understand the hate on Microsoft given the recent abominations they produce (Windows 10, "improved" version of Skype, etc) but why the hate on closed-source software in general? People need to eat too.

RickJWagner• 8 years ago

.Net Core is fully supported on Red Hat Linux.

If it gains serious traction, that could change the development landscape for a fair chunk of Enterprise development.

snarfy3• 8 years ago

.NET is fine. Visual Studio is the de-facto IDE.

Microsoft's problem has always been Windows. Software made for "A PC on every desk" doesn't fit so well into a wall of servers running the internet. They should have gave away Windows Server for free. Heck they should do it now. It should be as free as .net core.

tonyedgecombe2• 8 years ago

Why would they give away a product that creates a substantial part of their revenue?

snarfy3• 8 years ago

Why install an Exchange server when I can use Office 365? Even Microsoft is cannibalizing their server offerings. Everybody is moving that stuff off prem. Windows server licensing doesn't make sense off prem.

eksemplar• 8 years ago

It didn’t, it’s the backbone of a lot of enterprise companies and organizations that aren’t primarily focused on tech. Like most of the European public sector.

Coincidentally, companies that aren’t tech companies rarely share their tech stacks, because why would they? Technology isn’t what they are selling and IT people are the guys who tell you to reboot every time you call them, even if that’s not really true.

Take the municipality where I work as an example. I manage several software developers, and we’ve build around 400 minor systems and services over the past decade. Last year when I was working on my masters in public administration I discussed our in-house development with one our eight CEOs. This is the guy in charge of efficiency, which is where my digitization department resides, and while he knows me and what my department does in general terms, he was surprised to learn that we develop software ourselves.

It’s different for Netflix and Airbnb, because they are tech companies and I’m fairly certain their CEOs know that they employ actual software developers. ;)

That’s the public sector, but look up Volkswagen, Maersk or similar and notice how they don’t have entries?

m23khan• 8 years ago

I am sure if the website included majority of fortune 500 companies, then .NET usage would reflect favorably (it still won't overtake java but it would be up there).

There is a place for technologies and associated stacks where the demand exists. The whole .NET and Microsoft ecosystem is super useful for large enterprises who have plethora of data and somehow need to accommodate employees who are both IT and non IT (think of typical IT Business Analysts and scrum masters and product owners -- they are usually involved with microsoft-based tools as I find it).

mattferderer2• 8 years ago

If one could bet money & not just time/effort/knowledge on tech stacks, Microsoft's would be a great discount right now.

They've been employing large amounts of very well known devs to become dev advocates in every popular language/field out there.

Visual Studio Code has overtaken Sublime & Atom as the most popular text editor in just about any demo I see in most front side web development.

MS is now friends & compatible with many of the other cool tools out there. MySQL, PostgreSQL, Linux, etc. A lot of demos I see use .NET with PostgreSQL on Linux.

If you've never used Visual Studio's Full IDE or Azure or the .NET framework, you're missing out on some huge productivity gains. I use JavaScript more than .NET. I'm better at JS than .NET by far. I really dig hosts like Netlify. That said, if I need to spin up a MVP for a project, it's faster, better quality & easier with VS, Azure & .NET for me at least. Startups really underestimate this one I think.

From what I've heard, it's also a great platform with Xamarin for mobile, with Unity for Games, etc. Add on the experimental work going on with compiling to Web Assembly & the .NET framework has a great chance to be running anywhere & everywhere.

reitanqild2• 8 years ago

If you've never used Visual Studio's Full IDE or ... you're missing out on some huge productivity gains.

I've yet to see anything standard Visual Studio does better than Netbeans or JetBrains tools (besides language specific things) but I am yet again willing to be enlightened if someone can explain it to me.

Background: I have months of experience with Visual Studio (more if you count back to school), months on IntelliJ and years on eclipse and Netbeans.

beagle32• 8 years ago

Visual Studio / C++ 6.0 (from 1998!) was by far the best C++ environment at least until 2013 came out (The last version I used was VS2012) - You never had to wait for it even in 2000, when I first used it, and definitely not later.

VS2005 (or 2008? can't remember), which I had to switch to because for x64 work, was unbearably slow and unresponsive in comparison -- although the general standards of responsiveness have come down, so today it might not be so bad (see, e.g., Atom, VSCode, everything JetBrains compared to old-guard Sublime)

From my only-slightly-nostalgia-tinted experience, I would correct GP's post to say "If you've never used VC++6 full ide" ...

Wintereise2• 8 years ago

If you've never used Visual Studio's Full IDE or Azure or the .NET framework, you're missing out on some huge productivity gains.

We recently switched from VS2017 to JetBrains Rider at $dayjob.

The productivity gains from NOT having to wait around for VS (slowest UI contender in my opinion once your project gets sufficiently complex) were off the charts.

This statement may have been true a couple years ago, but it no longer is (at least in my opinion).

cmmartin• 8 years ago

Why are Javascript and Node.js different here? Especially considering this is back-end only. Who is using Javascript on the server without Node.js and how? I think they should probably be combined and if so, you would see absolute dominance by Node.js

AtlasBarfed• 8 years ago

More damning to me is that the stack components in a couple examples that aren't languages, such as databases (MySQL, Postgres, Mongo, Cassandra, Elasticsearch, etc), cache fabrics (Redis, memcached), tooling (Chef, Puppet, etc), data pipelines (Hadoop, ELK, etc)...

None of it is written in .NET except for interface drivers. Java, the butt of all jokes, is responsible for a number of the key stack components, and C++ might not be a lingua franca of the startups, but foundational components are written in it.

Can someone name a major OSS project/tool/database/etc that is written in C#?

illuminati1911• 8 years ago

When people say "Oh but now Visual Studio is free for small scale use, .NET core is officially supported on linux" etc. I really just have to ask one question:

So what?

This whole conversation somehow reminds me of the old iPhone vs Android conversations about 5-6 years ago when Android phones started catching up on iPhone in features such as non-lagginess etc. and people were like "So now Android has it too and you have no more excuses not to change to Android now!"

Well...hahah...it doesn't really work that way. Even if Android could do everything that iPhone could...why would I still change? Why would I see all that trouble just to gain _NOTHING_. It's same with MS tech stack. Why would I change from tools I know and trust to MS stack when it would take time and money, but I wouldn't get anything?

In addition MS has been fucking over people for about two decades and just because they have been seemingly friendly for last few years why would I trust them?

Also if one were a software engineer, more or less experienced, and was thinking what tools to use, what do you think? Would he pick the tools used by top engineers and tech companies or embarrasing enterprise tools designed for senile bankers and municipality sinecures who are afraid of tech and want to use tools made by big company they have been repeatedly told since 1980s?

Where did the Microsoft tech stack disappear?

Related Stories