> CrowdStrike's mess up is CrowdStrike's fault, not Microsoft's.
Disagree. It is everyone's fault. It is CrowdStrike's fault for not testing their product. It is Microsoft's fault for allowing CrowdStrike to mess with kernel and not vetting such critical third parties. It is the end customers' fault for installing crapware and not vetting the vendor.
We expect different things from the OS we use, I guess.
My main machine is a Macbook Pro and one thing that annoys me a lot is the way Apple handles apps that are not notarized. I don't use iPhones because of the system restrictions (file access, background running, etc) and because I can only install what Apple allows on their store. You can see why I don't want Microsoft to hold my hand when I use Windows... it's my machine, I paid for it, I should be able to install crapware and extend the system functionality if that's what I want especially when I pick an OS that allows me to do that.
In this case, enterprise customers decided to use an OS that allows them to also use CrowdStrike. Maybe Microsoft could handle this stuff better and not show a BSOD? I guess so, but I won't blame them for allowing these tools to exist.
Don't get me wrong, there's a place for very restrictive operating systems like iOS or ChromeOS, but they're not for everyone or enough for all tasks. Windows is a very capable OS, certainly not the best option for everyone, but the day Microsoft cripples Windows like that, it's the day I am forced to stop using it.
> be Microsoft could handle this stuff better and not show a BSOD?
How would the OS differentiate between a compromised agent and a faulty one ?. Do you want the OS to continue boot when it is potentially compromised ? That is likely to cause a lot more damage than yesterday did.
so now we're vouching for more restrictive operating systems? the last thing I want is an operating system that can only install vetted apps, and that these apps are restricted even if I provide my root password.
Allowing an application to run with privilege is different than allowing an application to crash the kernel. These are two different things.
CloudStrike is effectively running as a Windows kernel module. Which in Windows, might as well be the Windows kernel itself. There should be a deliberate difference between things that a bare operating system needs to function vs. things which are allowed to execute in a privileged manner.
This isn't a restrictive operating system. You have to trust your operating system vendor just a little more than you trust the 3rd party software installed on it.
Disagree. It is everyone's fault. It is CrowdStrike's fault for not testing their product. It is Microsoft's fault for allowing CrowdStrike to mess with kernel and not vetting such critical third parties. It is the end customers' fault for installing crapware and not vetting the vendor.