This article’s argument is like saying seat belts can be removed from cars because hardly any accident victims are ejected from their vehicles these days.
The only reason threats have shifted to social engineering is because the tech has been pretty well locked down by these and other security tools that update almost constantly.
That really is and should remain the province of the operating system.
Allowing 3rd party software direct access to the kernel is asking for trouble.
No, it’s saying you don’t need wear a helmet in your car because it already has seatbelts and airbags.
The 3rd party virus scan thing was always of limited value. Half the software packages suck (McAffee, Norton, I’m looking at you). They slow your computer down a ton. And now Windows comes with actually pretty good virus scanning all on its own. So having a second system on there really does nothing except slow you down, and make you vulnerable to bad updates.
I agree with this response. I am in the business and the article is dead wrong. A more appropriate statement is that a software monoculture is a dangerous model and companies that don’t practice thorough testing before deployment are dangerous.