>>108909673
Well linux supports other languages, which have their own package/dependency managers.

>>108909673
.NET was for corporate stuff mostly. i.e in-company apps, corporate web apps and the like. They never touted .NET as a replacement for C++ for actual Windows apps and they never rewrote their apps (Office, etc) in .NET managed C#.

Today corporate dropped .NET in favor of web apps written in Angular.

>>108909673
Well mono was .NET for Linux.
Then Microsoft bought mono and Linux hasn't made it since.

Linux has POSIX.

>>108909673
jvm

>>108910298
>POSIX.
Absolute shite. Single handily has hold computing back a decade.

>>108910319
Best answer. Crazy it took so many replies for it to be mentioned. There is no "Linux .NET" that would be categorically better than the JVM.

>>108909673
>It seems like the problem of dependencies on Linux can all be boiled down to the fact that it does not have its own .NET framework.
WTF??? .net on windows is basically only used for some boring warehouse management software or unity games, which can work on linux anyway because unity ships its own il runtime
Linux has its problem for shipping but this is the most retarded take i've ever read

>>108911028
i'll tell you what the problem is:
when you compile a program using gui toolkits it's easy to link to shit that prevents forwards compatibility because it's versioned and they often break abi i.e. lib libsystemd libffmpeg etc, also if you link dynamically there's great probability of symbol conflicts with the system libraries that are recursively pulled in.
Curiously games are mostly unaffected by these issues because most of them only link to few libraries like sdl or openal which have stable ABIs and sorts out many of that shit for then

>>108910511
wouldn't glib be more apt, since it's more linux centric