The term DLL hell was termed in the Windows world for a reason.
If you stay with what the package manager offers for a well-maintained distro I don't think the user ever sees incompatibility issues in Linux. The distro maintainers (or if you build something custom) sees those issues, but often enough a build time, not at runtime.
Making it easy to produce alternative package repos goes a long way towards having people actually make them. See overlays in gentoo/funtoo and ppas in ubuntu and ubuntu based distros like mint. This is especially important in ubuntu which is not rolling and can be different degrees of out of date especially if you use the long term support versions.
Making it easy to produce a package goes a long way towards it being easy to make one even if its only used by yourself. Arch/Manjaro Funtoo/Gentoo packages are both very easy.
Gentoo/Funtoo use flags make it easy to build an alternative version of a package eliminating the need to build it because the distro maintainer didn't enable the feature you need.
Arch's AUR makes it easy to add a package that can also be produced from source and updated like any other package via aur helper. Can also have alternative builds of the same package.
Of many distros I have used over time I would say that on Arch and Funtoo I didn't have to build anything manually but I did rely on the AUR and overlays + made a package for funtoo which was very very easy.
On mint and ubuntu I ended up with about a million ppas + building some things.
On net I'd say that rolling release + a system where users can trivially create their own packages on something like the AUR is the most versatile while still being accessible. Funtoo was even more flexible but substantially more complicated.
However for various reasons I'm using Void now and have only 2 manually build things. Gargoyle because its not in the repo and I hadn't figured out how to make a package and mpv with a sndio partch.
Organizations just standardize on one thing. CentOS (but not anymore I guess v.v) or RHEL or Ubuntu or Debian etc. Pick an LTS and then install it on all the work-provided hardware and just make sure everything works for your org.
For individuals, (and by that I mean me and like a few of my friends who run GNU+Linux) it's something like:
1. Docker 2. Use Arch Linux
Personally, my setup is:
Machine I use as a PC run Arch so everything is just latest vanilla upstream.
My homelab is ostensibly Ubuntu LTS, but I run docker on almost every host, and have a Proxmox host too, so the Ubuntu layer directly on the machine only really gets used for running ping, dig and nmap (and docker of course).
Sometimes I needed Skype telcos with some customers, recently I needed Zoom for some training. Both have .deb packages that worked. Occasionally I needed some developer tools, but they were generally Linux-friendly and did not cause any trouble.
Yes, I am nowadays selective with what employer I would join. If their IT department is Windows-focussed they are not for me. That greatly limits choice, but reduces daily frustration efficiently.
It’s not worth the hassle. Isolated apps wins every time. Now Windows apps even ship their runtimes bundled (.NET core, C++ runtimes). This is a good thing.
Your choice of software will be limited and almost certainly out of date.
Linux Desktop seems to believe the world must be bifurcated between "stable, predictable system" and "absolute bleeding edge software". What if I want old trusted versions of some things and bleeding edge of other software?