Imho. We are too laissez faire about our dependence on computers.
Currently doing disaster planning for compliance. What I really want to put in the docs is “If power or internet goes down we are just fucked. No planning needed. “
We are a small medical practice. It would cost approx $15k in batteries to give us about 3 operating hours. Not economically viable.
But do you think something like an airport would have enough diesel capacity to contiune operating in a power out?
I mean disaster planning is about finding ways to mitigate things like power or internet going down to minimize or eliminate their impact. That said, accepting the risk of downtime because alternatives are too expensive is a perfectly valid decision as long as it’s an intentional one.
It depends on the industry. Some industries have very critical systems that can’t go down period.
Much, much more care should have being taken by all parties.
Microsoft should not have given kernel access to crowdstrike. Crowdstrike should not have being able to push a killing update.
Edit: Hindsight is 20 20
I don’t think a OS should ever be LESS open about what a user can do. It should be on the user to do their due diligence and have high availability systems setup.
Only reason Linux wasn’t affected as much was luck. this could just as easily have happened to Linux systems if the broken update targetted Linux.
We (this community especially) criticize windows for not being more open like Linux, and all of a sudden we’re saying it should’ve been more like Apple?
