A lot of this rings very true but I think it's missing the actual nobel intent of DevOps that is still true even if it's been hopelessly corrupted. He touches o

A lot of this rings very true but I think it's missing the actual nobel intent of DevOps that is still true even if it's been hopelessly corrupted. He touches on a lot of the counter examples that lead to the rise of DevOps. Things like ops/admin teams making themselves a gatekeeper or bottleneck to delivery. That's a classic problem in traditional IT departments. Dev is incentived to ship features, Ops are incentived to avoid downtime. The two goals conflict. DevOps says we all work together to ship features that don't cause downtime. That's a philosophical aim and not a new discipline. The maturity and sophistication of the tools and practitioners is orthogonal. If you hire a team and set them apart from Dev and give them an incentive to avoid downtime and call them DevOps then you've accomplished nothing. If you hire SREs or platform engineers or whatever else you call them and align their incentives to dev and dev to them then congratulations.