In 1-2 words, IMO, the problem is "over-optimisation".
It is perhaps beneficial to be using an easily portable OS that can be run on older computers, and a variety of architectures.
Sometimes older computers are resilient against some of todays attacks to the extent those attacks make assumptions about the hardware and software in use. (Same is true for software.)
When optimization reaches a point where it exposes one to attacks like the ones being discussed here, then maybe the question arises whether the optimization is actually a "design defect".
What is the solution?
IMO, having choice is at least part of any solution.
If every user is effectively "forced" to use the same hardware and the same software, perhaps from a single source or small number of sources, then that is beneficial for those sources but, IMO, counter to a real solution for users. Lack of viable alternatives is not beneficial to users.
It is perhaps beneficial to be using an easily portable OS that can be run on older computers, and a variety of architectures.
Sometimes older computers are resilient against some of todays attacks to the extent those attacks make assumptions about the hardware and software in use. (Same is true for software.)
When optimization reaches a point where it exposes one to attacks like the ones being discussed here, then maybe the question arises whether the optimization is actually a "design defect".
What is the solution?
IMO, having choice is at least part of any solution.
If every user is effectively "forced" to use the same hardware and the same software, perhaps from a single source or small number of sources, then that is beneficial for those sources but, IMO, counter to a real solution for users. Lack of viable alternatives is not beneficial to users.