"What resulted was an expansive suite of programs and utilities (collectively, software) that were written in Linux, for Linux - much of which was never ported to Windows. One example of this is the popular version control system (VCS) called git. Developers could have written this software to work on Windows, but they didn't. "
Technically it's correct. It's just really odd in tone; it almost sounds like it's unusual or negative that these utilities were not written to be completely cross-platform, as if that would be a norm.
Yeah, the wording is ambiguous. It could be construed to say Git is an example of a utility that wasn't ported, or just that it was a utility that was written in Linux, for Linux.
"What resulted was an expansive suite of programs and utilities (collectively, software) that were written in Linux, for Linux - much of which was never ported to Windows. One example of this is the popular version control system (VCS) called git. Developers could have written this software to work on Windows, but they didn't. "
It's just wrong.