For companies of a certain large size, I guess. For all but the largest companies, though, there's no choice but to outsource software risks to software manufacturers. The idea that every company is going to shoulder the burden of maintaining their own software is ridiculous. Companies use off-the-shelf software because it makes good financial sense.
> And if you cannot actually abandon someone like microsoft that consistantly screws up their QA then it's basically dishonest for you to claim that reliability is even a concern for your desktop platform.
When a company has significant software assets tied to a Microsoft platform there's no alternative. A company is going to use the software that best-suits their needs. Platform is a consideration, however I've never seen it be the dominant consideration.
Today's issue isn't a Microsoft problem. The blame rests squarely on Crowdstrike and their inability to do QA. The culture of allowing "security software" to automatically update is bad, but Crowdstrike threw the lit match into that tinderbox by pushing out this update globally.
As another comment points out, Microsoft has good tools for rolling update releases for corporate environments. They're not perfect but they're not terrible either.
> It's might not be as easy as just deploying the same old platform ...
When a company doesn't control their software platform they don't have this choice. Off-the-shelf software is going to dictate this.
In some fantasy world where every application is web-based and legacy code is all gone maybe that's a possibility. I have yet to work in that environment. Companies aren't maintaining the "wintel desktop" because they want to.