Running a different OS for each business function is my favorite absurd solution to this problem.
What's absurd about it? It's absurd that I want the software operating my MRI and providing doctors with necessary information during surgeries to be different from what accountants using Excel and video game players use?
What's absurd is congress hoping to solve the fundamental problem by asking the CrowdStrike CEO to come in for a one on one. Even if we took this process at face value and assumed they were earnest it would be laughable.
Meanwhile.. the government is the largest healthcare payer in the world. For not particularly great reasons. This _is_ one of the downstream impacts of that reality.
This has nothing to do with there being a healthy market of operating systems to choose from.
> I’ve seen the fragmentation in edge devices
How many versions and patch levels of Windows exist? How many are currently deployed? How many must stay on the current version because of fragmentation?
> You know how many bugs you have with one stack?
The scenario that started this discussion is a single bug in a single piece of software impacting a large number of businesses, some of which are safety and life critical, all of which are on a single OS.
It's not a question of "how many bugs," because you can't fully eliminate them in any system which is actually updated _ever_, it's a question of "how many people does this single bug impact?"
Will this require more time and labor? Yes, of course. Does that make it "absurd" to consider? No, that's pure hyperbole.