Falcon provides many levels of protection (in principle - in practice, given the extreme incompetence demonstrated in this case, I doubt they do much more than

Falcon provides many levels of protection (in principle - in practice, given the extreme incompetence demonstrated in this case, I doubt they do much more than sell snake oil), some of which have OS-native alternatives, some of which do not, and most of which Linux definitely doesn't have built-in. For example, the Linux kernel team doesn't have a DB of known malware signatures that the kernel or init system runs or shell runs any new software component against - Falcon does this. Another example - neither Linux nor any common Linux userspace natively integrates with with a fleet management system to check if the current user is allowed to run a particular piece of software. And there are many other similar questions. Finally, even when the OS does natively provide services like these (Enterprise versions of Windows do provide all the features I mentioned above), it's perfectly reasonable to prefer a different vendor for those solutions. Maybe people trust CrowdStrike's malware signature lists more than they do Microsoft's, for example: a good reason to buy CrowdStrike instead of using Windows Defender. I'm not trying to defend CrowdStrike or Windows here. But I think it's obvious that there are many features that fall under the umbrella of security that you wouldn't want to build into the OS itself, and even when a version of them exists built-in, that a company may wish to source from a different vendor.