This is also, what this article is actually about. It's just from a more "hermeneutic" perspective, rather than a bottom-up approach based on an analysis of the hardware.
I agree... what I think they meant to say is something along the lines of software defaults are already optimized to maximize and take advantage of the hardware's abilities so work is completed faster. The 'with the software baked in' should be changed to reflect the value proposition that Oxide is alluding to.
It's context dependent. If you manage all hardware as a team, that statement is wrong. However, if this means your hardware integrity can't be guaranteed, you have bigger problems.
That I agree with :) It's a business concern, not a technical concern. I've just been told the opposite, so I thought it was a good thing to clarify it!
You're right. I wanted to abstract away from specific hardware and express that in the requirements. I definitely failed at that. See other comments for specifics and details on the device.
Point it out all you want -- it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
If said discussion was asserting integrity at a hardware level, you would have a point. But it doesn't do that. There is a reason it is narrowly prescriptive.
reply