What an infuriatingly poor article, Tom Clarke should be ashamed. > A software update from cybersecurity company CrowdStrike has now taken a large number of th

What an infuriatingly poor article, Tom Clarke should be ashamed. > A software update from cybersecurity company CrowdStrike has now taken a large number of those machines offline. So Tom opens the article with the admission that it is CrowdStrike, not Microsoft. > Thankfully, the update that caused the Microsoft meltdown did not affect these other software families - if it had, the impacts could have been catastrophic. This is such a strawman (like the rest of the article honestly) I don't know where to begin. Inflammatory language. A fucking "meltdown"? A meltdown of Microsoft, no less? Putting aside the fact that Microsoft and Windows are not the same thing, it is again nothing "meltdown" like that Microsoft did or could do. > There are serious questions of course for CrowdStrike. As a leading provider of security software for large companies like Microsoft. Tom, was you paid by CrowdStrike or what? What do you mean "of course"? It is literally the only party that should be answering questions here. I suspect that even if Tom were to "question" Microsoft their answer about kernels, drivers, privileges, and how shipping seemingly untested code into the core of an operating system is a bad idea wouldn't even be comprehendible for him. > The situation may also lead to calls from Microsoft users about what more the company could do to ensure products made for their software aren't going to cause major outages like this one. This is getting absurd now, and I just can't give more energy to this. OK, it could now insist only memory safe languages such as Rust are allowed for drivers. Or outright permanently blacklisting drivers from certain vendors. The bitching and moaning from manufacturers would then, of course, have people like Tom writing articles like "Microsoft is making manufacturers lives harder, think of the poor IT professionals!". > Any engineer will tell you over-reliance on one system leaves you open to a "single point of failure". Critical digital infrastructure has to have redundancy - back up systems - built in to ensure it is resilient. Please Tom, tell us more on your thoughts about memory safe languages, failure recovery modes, the unikernel vs microkernel debate, and how it's just a simple matter of overnight making operating systems "not a single point of failure". This entire article is some kind of exercise in trying to get everything wrong while meeting a minimum word count, and I bet with some ChatGPT thrown in there too. I flagged this post because I think it's far below even the minimum quality level for HN. It's outright clickbait drivel.