I'm aware of the point you're trying to make with the microwave. I'm making another analogy; one you're not getting. And either way, yes, I think you should be able to change the software on the microwave. It is your microwave. Do whatever you want with it. Why should Samsung or GE have the right to say what you can or cannot do with the things you own?

If we want to talk microwaves, Microsoft is the microwave manufacturer. Users installing CrowdStrike are people sticking a giant ball of foil and paper towels in the microwave and turning it on for an hour. You're arguing Microsoft is liable for the things people stick in their microwaves, and that Microsoft should put in place guards to prevent people from putting whatever they want in their own microwaves. That Microsoft should control the things people put in their microwaves. Only Microsoft tested and Microsoft approved foods in Microsoft microwaves. And the microwave needs to ensure only the proper cook time applies to the properly signed food products to make sure it doesn't get burnt. Sorry, Microsoft hasn't fully validated Red Gold potatoes, it can only cook Russet potatoes.

That is the same logic as Microsoft is liable for the third-party software people install on Windows machines and that Microsoft shouldn't have allowed the third-party software to run.

Why should Microsoft be able to say what antivirus software I choose to install or not? Why should Microsoft be able to say what browser I install? If I install some software that breaks my Windows machine, is that the faut of Microsoft or the fault of the software maker? If I stick foil in the microwave is the ensuing fire GE's fault?

I'm aware of the point you're trying to make with the microwave. I'm making another analogy; one you're not getting. And either way, yes, I think you should be able to change the software on the microwave. It is your microwave. Do whatever you want with it. Why should Samsung or GE have the right to say what you can or cannot do with the things you own?

If we want to talk microwaves, Microsoft is the microwave manufacturer. Users installing CrowdStrike are people sticking a giant ball of foil and paper towels in the microwave and turning it on for an hour. You're arguing Microsoft is liable for the things people stick in their microwaves, and that Microsoft should put in place guards to prevent people from putting whatever they want in their own microwaves. That Microsoft should control the things people put in their microwaves. Only Microsoft tested and Microsoft approved foods in Microsoft microwaves. And the microwave needs to ensure only the proper cook time applies to the properly signed food products to make sure it doesn't get burnt. Sorry, Microsoft hasn't fully validated Red Gold potatoes, it can only cook Russet potatoes.

That is the same logic as Microsoft is liable for the third-party software people install on Windows machines and that Microsoft shouldn't have allowed the third-party software to run.

Why should Microsoft be able to say what antivirus software I choose to install or not? Why should Microsoft be able to say what browser I install? If I install some software that breaks my Windows machine, is that the faut of Microsoft or the fault of the software maker? If I stick foil in the microwave is the ensuing fire GE's fault?

Yes, you are arguing for that microwave when you argue Microsoft should approve the software you're allowed to run on a Windows box and be liable for its performance. Should Microsoft also have to approve what browsers you're allowed to run, should they approve what chat applications you're allowed to use?

And sure, why shouldn't you be able to modify the software on hardware you own? It's your microwave. If you modify the software on it and that causes it to burn up don't go to the manufacturer when it burns your house down. But that's true if you open it up and rewire it as well. Which, sure, feel free to open it up. It is your microwave.

Are you arguing you shouldn't be able to modify the things you own?

> Thanks for adding so much to the conversation

I mean it seriously seems like you're arguing MacOS and Linux are immune to third party software crashing the system. Do you agree or disagree that third party software can cause MacOS and Linux instability, especially when the user chooses to run it at root level permissions?

> we guarantee we won't wreck

Microsoft didn't wreck these machines. CrowdStrike wrecked these machines. Every Windows machine that did not have CrowdStrike installed was unaffected by this, which is 99.4% of Windows machines.

> what happened in the real world

And yes, look at those bug reports, those are crashes happening in the real world not something theoretical. Kernel panics happen!

You're arguing for a microwave that would only allow you to put in foods approved by the manufacturer in it.

And yes, in the real-world, third-party software can and does cause Macs to crash.

8.5M machines...out of what, 1.4 billion? That's what, 0.6% of machines?

> Microsoft allows

Microsoft should have no say to decide what software I am allowed to run on my computer.

> Mac, linux don't have this problem due to how THEY architected the system.

You're joking right? You're arguing kernel panics can't happen on Linux? FFS, the CrowdStrike sensor caused kernel panics on multiple Linux distros in the last few months! Linux is not immune to kernel panics for buggy kernel modules.