Of course not and I didn't say any such thing. The original comment "People use IIS?" is clearly a passive-aggressive dig at MS, its tech, and those that use it (as is so often the case in tech circles). It's quite pathetic and childish. If I misunderstood that, then I apologise to the author, but I'd argue it still adds nothing to the discourse even if it was asked honestly.
It doesn't mean you can't hold an opinion on the relative merits of any one piece of tech. But this "my computer is better than your computer" immature schoolboy nonsense is pervasive in tech circles and is extremely tedious.
I have no love for IIS, but it's a perfectly capable webserver and is clearly still used. The idea that the .NET world have all moved over to .NET Core is also a wishful one unfortunately, I still maintain my open-source libraries for the legacy framework as I know there's plenty of places that can't just 'flip the switch' to .NET Core. It's not quite as bad as Python's V3 moment, but it's up there.
Feels a bit snarky, but not too aggressive. Windows is not a popular choice for cloud platforms and those users seem to be overrepresented here. I can imagine someone being genuinely surprised it's used for more than serving documentation that's already on a Windows server.
That said, as I mentioned earlier, it's hard to find a use case where IIS (or Windows) is a better choice than any of the popular open source http servers and app platform runtimes.
There is a colossal corpus of .NET Framework code out there and I wouldn't be surprised it achieves the status of COBOL (but with a lot less charm) at some point in the future - where code on it is maintained ad infinitum even though almost nobody would deploy a greenfield app using it.
