[core-questions]

> Our company only want Windows OS for Prod (not linux)

This is a very strange decision. You pay a licensing cost to use Windows; the purpose of this is to be able to use Windows software and development tools. It's not going to be in any way better than using Linux directly if the goal is to host Linux containers.

I would heavily question this, if I was in an environment where my employment was safe to do so.

Otherwise - who gives a shit if it's "ready for production"? The decision has been made. Spend your employer's money and if they have made a bad choice (and they have), it's on them.

[nwmcsween]

But then some poor soul is hired x years down the road and gets to deal with the frankenstein mishmash. For example I wouldnt use samba as an AD simply due to the fact AD admins are generally going to know Windows systems and there are is loads of documentation, how-to's, etc for windows AD, the same argument can be applied to containers on Linux.

[whydid]

Fear-driven boomer bosses thinking that Windows is easier than Linux, and that workers who know Windows are more fungible.

The reality is that a relative few people outside of Microsoft are actually experts, and that running Windows in large scale production is considerably more difficult than Linux.