I don’t doubt this but the criticism has to be rooted in facts and the current state of affairs, and you have to consider conflict of interest. It’s not too different to what you can read here. No one ever talks about whether C# offers good cohesive experience when solving a specific task, or what are the pros and cons of its build system, or how a typical .NET team looks like in a particular region. No.
Instead, the complaints you will read here are about what the authors think .NET’s problems are without ever verifying if any of that is true in hopes of making swipes for god knows what reason, because posting something accurate requires knowledge on the subject and the results of a cursory search usually do not support cheap arguments.
(and I see this as an embarrassment because you can learn a lot from doing research instead of repeating the same tired phrases you heard elsewhere)
My point is that there was no "conflict of interest" when it comes to Miguel. If there was one person in the entire F/OSS ecosystem that ever wanted .NET to succeed, it was him. That is also why he spent so much time and effort trying to get Microsoft to not do things that alienate the community and harm .NET uptake.
Speaking for myself, I happen to like .NET from the technical perspective. While both the language and the stdlib have a lot of cruft from days of yore, it can mostly be ignored, and that aside it's a fast runtime with a decently expressive type system giving one considerable flexibility to pick the right tool to model different domains. It also has great tooling around it. But this all is separate from the question of how open .NET really is, and its long-term prospects in that department.
I don't think we can survive another rename haha. It doesn't seem to have helped PHP either. But we could use a newer .NET language with better lambda lowering, dependent types, HM type inference, structs as the default data type, improved lifetime analysis and different tradeoffs w.r.t now that we're going to have zero-cost-ish non-suspending async calls.
Instead, the complaints you will read here are about what the authors think .NET’s problems are without ever verifying if any of that is true in hopes of making swipes for god knows what reason, because posting something accurate requires knowledge on the subject and the results of a cursory search usually do not support cheap arguments.
(and I see this as an embarrassment because you can learn a lot from doing research instead of repeating the same tired phrases you heard elsewhere)