Hold [insert here your cyber security provider] may probably be more expensive than cutting the pie in smaller pieces. But you could cut the pie different ways: instead of diversifying OSs, diversifying you security providers: say 50% of Windows machines are protected by Crowdstrike, than the remaining ones, by provider B. Will a security breach affect both providers ? Possible but arguably less probable. When it is only going to affect half of your machines, one could complain: if only I chose the other provider for them all(!) - in this sense it's still cutting the pie in two. Sort of, because there's only one OS. The infected machines could infect the healthy ones. Could different OS APIs help ? Perhaps, but in this case I doubt. To the best of my knowledge, Crowdstike's kernel part, was kind of an "interpreter" running a user space [script/binary ?] file. I don't see why the interpreter would be any different on other platforms. After all, whole interpreter code is internal to CrowdStrike, there is nothing API specific here. Sill different OSs could help ? Maybe pushing security update procedures differ so there is one more chance avoiding total collapse like it did. Essentially, I think cutting the pie is good but this doesn't mean Crowdstrike shouldn't be held accountable.

I wouldn't be surprised to find loads of malware in those copies

It is neither absolutely nor completely false. Proton will always be behind win APIs as Windows will keep evolving, hence compatibility issues, but, for verified games, is just install & play. So, for me, it was just as simple as clicking on a desktop icon.

Since you mention Ubuntu, so far, I have never had any issues installing & playing verified games on Ubuntu.

Wonder what's the performance hit fixing them. For servers CPUs Red Hat reported somewhere between 1-20%(https://access.redhat.com/articles/3307751) and, at the same time, ARM reports an improvement up to 20% for new DYnamIQ cores. Would fixing render A75 a mere A73 and A55 ~= A53 ?