My opinion is that this, like many issues were seeing today, is largely an issue with ongoing consolidation trends. The less diversity of systems/solutions we h

My opinion is that this, like many issues were seeing today, is largely an issue with ongoing consolidation trends. The less diversity of systems/solutions we have for a given problem or set if problems, the less chance we're protected from unknown unknowns that creep up. The more diversity you have in systems, the more likely you have some option that is hardened against unknown unknowns when they arrive and the quicker we can work around them. Modern society is all about consolidating systems into a few efficient solutions typically dictated by market forces which I argue, don't concern themselves much with these sorts of problems. As a result, when we run into problems, we're left with fewer options to resort to and instead have to identify problems and develop new solutions on-the-fly. Consolidation leads to complacency and stagnation. Sometimes this is reasonable (and even desirable) for certain non-critical systems, it just doesn't make financial sense to pour resources into system diversity for certain systems we could do without--find the one that works best/most efficiently and use it. If it breaks, it's not critical and the work around can wait. On the other hand, if a system is critical, then I think it behooves us to continue looking at improvements of existing systems and alloting resources to investigating new approaches.