I'm just tired. On the last post about having Linux at our work, many people that seems to be an IT worker said there have been several issues with Linux that was not easy to manipulate or control like they do with Windows, but I think they just are lazy to find out ways to provide this support. Because Google forces all their workers to use Linux, and they have pretty much control on their OS as any other Windows system.
Linux is a valid system that can be used for work, just as many other companies do.
So my point is, the excuse of "Linux is not ready for workplaces" could be just a lack of knowledge of the IT team and/or a lack of intention to provide to developers the right tools to work.
oh geez. I've done Windows desktop support for many years, and that is so VERY not true. Even if you discount the fact that win95 software would be written for 32-bit architectures, they don't account for UAC or file permissions, often fail to let you move installation files to better locations, and universally have shitty automated installers. Often they depend on hardware, eg dongles that no longer exist or CDROMs that have long since gone to hell.
Usually we'll airgap a machine and run Windows XP 32-bit, which is generally the highest you can reliably get a win95 program working with. Sometimes a VM will work. Sometimes you can mount an ISO and fake a CDROM. It's a challenge.
Linux is so much easier. You have more options for getting old stuff to work, even if you have to do a lightweight VM with an old OS, you can sandbox it better.