As a person with a career of over 30 years in the industry, I watched the rise of DevOps and other buzzwords first with some curiosity and then alarm.
Your article touches only glancing on the people issue in the equation and what it really means.
The entire purpose of development and operations is to create an entity or tool for people (customers is another name for them) to use. If, for any reason, the tool is not usable, useful or available that purpose fails.
Making sure of availability (operations) doesn't garner kudos, in fact if done correctly, in time the question of "why do we even have you" rises.
Making cool new things, using the latest buzzword tools, that benefit the business (and it's customers) is VERY high profile and garners MANY kudos; the faster we get the new tool out, the more opportunities for kudos as we can make more cool new tools... Fix it or enhance it if the customers don't like it? That's not fun and usually has less opportunity to be high profile and garner rewards (see operations above).
THIS is the entire people issue of devops. Small wonder so many operations people want to be developers. Even smaller wonder that developers look with disdain on operations, dismissing the goals of availability.
Unfortunately, devops simply panders to this, trying to hide it and does NOT cure the issue, pretending instead that it doesn't exist.
I absolutely LOVE the seriousness quote from "The Rise of Meritocracy"... A 1958 SATIRE. It's like quoting Animal Farm and saying is supports that method of governance.
The article DOES make the point that concept meritocracy isn't even debated, but even that point is glossed over.
Lots of organizational buzzwords. Not much thought.