The desire for convenience is a powerful motivator. That's why we push for standardized formats, universal remote control devices, even a single email client. We may not always settle on the best design, superior technology, or the smartest protocol, but we end up with something that's easy to fix, easy to replace, and easy to administer.

Of course, not everything is standardized. Your Sprint PCS phone is useless outside the USA, your Windows software won't fly on the Macintosh; and if try to use your New York City subway tokens outside the five boroughs... well, fuhgeddaboudit. (I'm a native New Yorker, which gives me the right to write that last line.) Still, market forces and popular demand make a persuasive case for homogeneity. Simply put, the buying public stays on the sidelines when there are competing standards; they open their wallets once a single standard emerges victorious.

But maybe it's time to rethink our behavior, especially as it relates to software, where homogeneity is leaving us vulnerable to an emerging breed of viruses. The initial wake-up call came courtesy of 1999's Melissa virus scare, but the sirens really started wailing two weeks ago, when the Love Bug virus hit, causing more than $2 billion worth of damage worldwide. The worm, and several copycat variations that sprang up within hours of the initial infestation, attacked only systems running Microsoft Outlook and Windows. Mac and Linux users proved immune. But since the Outlook mail client is fast becoming the de facto standard, the virus was able to replicate itself and spread with impressive speed and efficiency.

The parallel to the noncomputer world is sobering: Biological viruses, when introduced into homogenous groups, can savage a population in a matter of days. That same virus in a more diverse population is seldom as lethal. Ditto for computer viruses, which can't do nearly as much damage in a mixed computing environment. So what do we--with our Microsoft operating systems, applications, browsers, and email clients--do?

Two weeks ago in my column, I pooh-poohed the concept that Microsoft dominated the digital universe, citing the explosive growth of Web-based applications as a sure sign of Redmond's waning influence. I stand by my analysis. However, as I readily admitted at the time, Microsoft does have a stranglehold over the desktop. And suddenly that has made all of us susceptible to mean-spirited virus writers who would practice their black art upon our inboxes. Certainly Microsoft must share the blame for the mess we now face. The company designed all its applications to take advantage of Visual Basic and accompanying scripting language VBScript, which lets developers and users exercise great control over tasks on the desktop. The downside: Rogue viruses using VBScript can exercise similar control. Outlook's address book, for example, is particularly compliant around VB scripts, a vulnerability the "I Love You" worm exploited to great effect. And Microsoft's practice of tying applications, including the browser, to the operating system, provides an easy avenue for viruses to infiltrate the system, doing nasty things to both the operating system and any complementary applications in the process.

Mind you, this is a deliberate design decision we're talking about, based on customer demand. Visual Basic and Microsoft's Active X technology (another common point of attack) provide enormous flexibility and make the products easier to use, at least in a perfect world. Most people don't want to bother about security; they'd rather just click their carefree way through the day. So Microsoft went out and built what customers wanted, the software equivalent of an SUV: spacious, powerful, and comfortable. SUVs are turning out to be pretty dangerous vehicles, especially for other drivers, but the fill a market need, safety be damned.

Other operating systems have taken a more conservative approach, sometimes putting security above features or interface. Security experts point to Linux, the programming language Java, and similar solutions as more reasonable models, capable of offering greater protection against the code-slinging bogeymen of the world. Customers, and IS departments--which often set company-wide software standardization policies--have responded to these alternatives just as you'd expect, opting for the easier-to-use, easier-to-administer Microsoft product set.

The events of the past year, though, might change some minds. Sure, we can make a better effort to keep our virus scanning software up-to-date; we can bludgeon Microsoft into closing the most glaring security holes; we can educate users on safe computing, maybe even paint a scarlet V on the chest of anyone who opens an unknown email attachment. But the smart approach is to encourage diversity in the software we use.

Here's an idea: Let's start small and not force employees to standardize on a single email client within companies. Though destandardization would not be convenient--especially for the unfortunate souls who'd have to install, administer, and troubleshoot multiple software clients--such an approach would slow the inevitable spread of not-yet-created viruses and keep entire companies from being shut down upon attack. Embracing software diversity could also spur software innovation, and it just might make life a bit more interesting to boot.