Exactly.
I'm the only one here not paid to develop in any specific language. The choice of technology is completely up to me, based upon real-world evaluation.
You sell .NET solutions, and just (in my opinion) failed the honest salesman test.
Just for the record, do I have it correct that you're claiming there are no critical issues known in the current .NET release?
As you said, it's probably every bit as 'ready for prime time' as XP was at release.
And ya'll vanished the day the 'UPnP' exploit was announced. Bush2k even stayed away for an entire week, then when he came back tried to pretend no exploit had happened.
Once again salesmen selling MS solutions are insisting that there is no downside to a product they're selling. When known problems exist.
You're even insisting that IIS is a quality web server.
My experience proves these assertions to be a blantant falsehoods.
That would be a wrong statement. I work in the commercial and government side of things and can use whatever the task takes. I may have a preference because the usual tasks can make us of MS products, but I also work with Informix, Oracle, and Solaris, daily.
The good news to my clients is that I also can provide, without ignorance or bias, a solid solution using MS products that is seriously cost effective and viable. I would say that I have worked with five times, in dollars, as much non-MS products as I have MS. I can also say that the MS side has outproduced the non-MS side, by far.
Prefernce is good. Bias is bad. I have my preferences.