gains resilience through diversity, i.e. monocultural tendencies are dangerous to long-term survivability.
While superficially attractive, the desire for the OS equivalent of a monoculture is wrong-headed. Windows OS is a real world demonstrator---albeit a pretty crap one---of the dangers of wanting everything to 'just work' by being 'the same'---it simply opens the door to large scale attacks and the rapid propagation of faults generally.
A highly diversified system where there is always an alternative way of getting something done is inconvenient and apparently 'inefficient', but only when taking a short term or localised view.
The old fashioned 'Unix' way of small open source tools doing one thing simply and well, that can be strung together in any number of arbitrary combinations is still one well worth hanging on to.
It allows anyone to sit down and craft the tools they need, if what is on offer commercially or in house isn't quite scratching the itch. And it keeps the ecosystem lively and diverse.
If that applies at the local level it applies just as much, and even more importantly on a global scale. We really don't want to make ourselves even more vulnerable to pwnage than we already are.
There are no panaceas, but I would put up with a fair degree of 'inconvenience' for the sake of a robust diverse application/OS ecosystem that actually inconveniences the state/criminal scum and assorted other ratbags by an order of magnitude.