Kickbacks are most likely not the case. Why would a billions of dollars a year in profit company need to pay people to adopt tech? It is highly unethical and probably a fire-able offense for a sales person at a US company to bribe (aka kickback) potential customers to buy their stuff. Think about that for a minute.

Just like you and your peers have a culture of liking Open Source, macs, etc. he/she likely has a strong bias (culture?) towards Microsoft solution stack.

See if you can get some time on the persons calendar and ask open ended questions about the shift in technology. Rewriting an entire product or changing an IT stack from one tech to another is costly, even more so if 50% of the staff turn-over.

* Does management see this as cheaper?

* Do they value having a vendor they can call and an SLA support contract? Lots of large companies like this - "you can't be wrong in picking IBM" is a joke phrase for a reason.

* Is there some vision they have where they were convinced some tech will enable it? I've seen this too, they get convinced of some new way of doing things by consultants for a company, which comes along with using that companies tech stack. But mgmt doesn't care about the tech stack they care about how it can help the business.

* Does this person view Open Source tech like Node, Go, PHP as "amateur hour"? They could have a strong bias of using stuff from name brand companies.

It probably boils down to the IT Director having a different world-view than you and other devs.

> Kickbacks are most likely not the case. Why would a billions of dollars a year in profit company need to pay people to adopt tech?

A lot of comments here echo this sentiment and yeah, it's not Microsoft, but there are plenty of shady Gold Partners and Solutions Providers out there, as well as shady execs purchasing tech for companies.

I saw a company once hire a VP of IT who came in, fired most all the java devs (it was a java shop) and mandated .net. That was a dumpster fire, spectacular failure, company went under. The company was in trouble anyway, and .net transition was part of a bid to turn it all around. I always suspected that guy got kickbacks for the ms server and sql server licenses, but never knew for sure.

Ok so something like a buddy has a "Gold Partner" reseller license or something, IT exec is partnered behind the scenes financially. Then goes to JavaShopCo, becomes IT Director and mandates .Net, from the reseller they have a financial stake in, and profits from it.

That's shady and probably violates JavaShopCo's ethics rules, but people that would do that won't care.

Single vendor driven solution for all stacks (at least with Microsoft being the vendor) is more scaleable and easier to manage and support than shuffling multitude of open source fragments and solutions all over the enterprise.

If it's not a mom-n-pop shop trying to save pennies and dimes - it makes sense from CTO standpoint.

I've read multiple articles here describing single stack solutions as being a pipe dream. In the rare cases where they were successful, you need majority company buy-in. This is clearly not the case here, where this ramming-in of .NET and VS and Windows servers are causing massive fractures with our senior devs. Many are now resorting to doing P.O.Cs to show we are just fine without the Microsoft products.

Additionally, this actually harms our recruiting efforts, because the majority of senior C# devs are accounted for in this town, as they work for the larger 3 corps in the city's downtown district.

It might be easier to configure, but aren't you giving an awfully lot of leverage to that one vendor?

If you have SLAs with your customers, it would be pretty much mission critical to have SLAs with your vendors as well, open source is great until you are stuck in the middle of the night with a major system down and no vendor support...

You could pay for some kind of 24/7 linux / nodejs infrastructure support if needed I'm sure.

And if you are talking about bugfixes. Microsoft? That .Net or OS bug ain't gonna be fixed in a hurry just for your lil' shop.

You might be surprised about what the big corporations will do for their preferred clients...

The fastest solution is to publicly accuse a higher up of receiving kickbacks from Microsoft with no proof. I 100% guarantee you won't have the problem of working at a company where Microsoft is being forced in any longer.

ok smart alec, how do you get proof? should I hire a P.I?

No, you either keep your mouth shut or find a new job.

I worked at a large natural gas company in the US where the MS sales reps had accurately analysed the IT director to have Imposter Syndrome causing professional insecurity. By taking the IT director out to lunches - away from everyone else - and letting this person know what a smart choice they were making, how wonderful the .NET platform was, etc. they were able to persuade the company via this person to redesign all internal software from scratch using MS's UML design and coding tools. You might be in a similar situation, where the kickbacks are social and emotional rather than financial.

Separating decision maker away from distracting and legacy-invested lieutenants is wise approach and a win by itself to have a focused conversation.

I doubt its a kickback.

It's probably a more strategic decision to standardise on one stack.

I don't think this is how businesses work. Its like trying to get a teacher to not teach a certain lesson because you don't want to learn it. Aren't they paying you to do a job? Not the other way around. If you have problems adapting they might consider someone else who'd do your job instead, is it worth putting your career at risk because youre not comfortable with change?

You completely missed the point of the post. In no way shape or form do our dev's, including I feel like we couldn't use C# if we had to. The problem is the having to part seems abnormal, and against our company culture, and counterintuitive. We deal with change on a constant basis, so no, I am fine with change. I want the change to be rational, however.

Time to find another job.

It's almost certainly not kickbacks driving this.

Then why are shady tactics being resorted to?

"I am sure if you were the CTO, you would have wanted your favorite stack to be adopted by as many people under you as possible."

I find this to be a very dangerous attitude and inappropriate for a mature professional like you would expect a CTO to be. Every technology stack had its pros and cons and which one is right for the job depends on so much context a large part of which is what your team is experienced with and what you already have in place. To move to a entirely different stack that the team is not used to requires do pretty solid reasons. Personal preference especially by someone who doesn't even touch the code should not be one of those.