Complexity increases exponentially in large organizations, for a number of reasons.

…and just how many PCs do you intend to “reboot into safemode delete one bad file and then reboot again”? Manually, or do you have some remote access tool that doesn’t require a running system?

Yes, yes it is if you run bitlocker with external verification.

It’s even harder if the server you use for the verification itself is down.

Southwest uses internally built and maintained systems called SkySolver and Crew Web Access for pilots and flight attendants. They can sign on to those systems to pick flights and then make changes when flights are canceled or delayed or when there is an illness.

“Southwest has generated systems internally themselves instead of using more standard programs that others have used,” Montgomery said. “Some systems even look historic like they were designed on Windows 95.”

SkySolver and Crew Web Access are both available as mobile apps, but those systems often break down during even mild weather events, and employees end up making phone calls to Southwest’s crew scheduling help desk to find better routes. During periods of heavy operational trouble, the system gets bogged down with too much demand.

I don’t know what “look historic” is supposed to mean, but if it looks like it was developed on Windows 95 that’s 99% of the time because it was developed on Windows 95. Mobile apps “are available” wasn’t as definitive as perhaps the author intended - meaning what, exactly? It’s an option?

If it’s a homegrown app (and good for them if so - every weasel IT manager in the world has been trying to bring them down for it since day one I’ll bet), and it was written originally for Win95 and it’s still in use, the bet would be it’s run inside a VM on whatever they use now. Should whatever they use now go into a boot loop - theoretically - they could run it natively if they had to.

All speculation of course.

The fact that they are also available as mobile applications should further make it clear that no, these applications are not running on Windows 3.1 or Windows 95.

That kind of language will get you kicked in the balls by engineers. Sure. It should make it “clear” that they’re not running on *this OS or that OS.

And what should also be made clear is that statement is an assumption. A probable one, IMO, a reasonable one, but an assumption nonetheless and therefore no one can call it a fact unless they just want to pretend to be right.

I ojbect to using language like “it looks like a thing so it’s OBVIOUSLY a thing, you morons” being presented as irrefutable evidence of some sort.

The fact that it’s an assumption should further make it clear that no, this is not a fact, and stating it as a fact is bullshit or deliberate misrepresentation.