[alex-nt]

It's never that simple. There is a strong herd mentality in the business space. Just yesterday I've been in a presentation from the risk department and they described the motives around choosing a specific security product as `safe choice, because a lot of other companies use it in our space, so regulator can't complain`...the whole decision structure boiled down to: `I don't want to do extra work to check the other options, we go with whatever the herd chooses`. Its terrifying to hear this...

[lmm]

The whole point of software like this is a regulatory box-ticking exercise, no-one wants it to actually do anything except satisfy the regulator. Crowdstrike had less overhead and (until now) outages than its competitors, and the regulators were willing to tick the box, so of course people picked them. There are bad cases of people following the herd where there are other solutions with actually better functionality, but this isn't that.

[yodelshady]

OTOH... I remember an O365 outage in London a few years ago.

You're down? Great, so are your competitors, your customers, and your suppliers. Head to the pub. Actually, you'll probably get more real value there, as your competitors, customers and suppliers are at that same pub. Insurance multinationals have been founded from less.

That didn't affect any OT though, so it was more just proof that 90% of work carried out via O365 adds no real value. Knowing where the planes are probably is important.

[owl57]

You say that as it's some bad thing, but it's just other words for "use boring tech".

Yes, there could be reasons to choose a lesser-known product, but they better be really good reasons.

Because there are multiple general reasons in the other direction, and incidents like this are actually one of those reasons: they could happen with any product, but now you have a bigger community sharing heads-ups and workarounds, and vendor's incident response might also be better when the whole world is on fire, not only a couple of companies.