I agree with you plenty that this shouldn't be acceptable, but most of the people I've seen that are against modern practices of decent software teams are not so much examples of the points in this article as much as stereotypical examples of one's grandparents or parents trying to tell you how your job doesn't matter because software isn't "real work" and that their principles work just fine today as it did in the 70s. Or they expect that continuous delivery / CI is a product or feature of something else they bought for 9+ figures and that it's something that you bundle in with services and a license cost because that's literally all they know as how to make anything happen. Doing software projects with people that have more experience in medieval architecture would be probably more pleasant and productive than dealing with leadership that have decades of experience doing nothing but big company projects with more resources spent on planning software than on engineering talent.
If a company is hell-bent on focusing for development and new features over stability / security, that's something that can be fixed by leadership - I've worked with plenty of companies that turned themselves around and have wise leaders that know that it's time to spend the resources to do spring cleaning while trying to keep existing employees excited by feature development happy.
If a company is hell-bent on focusing for development and new features over stability / security, that's something that can be fixed by leadership - I've worked with plenty of companies that turned themselves around and have wise leaders that know that it's time to spend the resources to do spring cleaning while trying to keep existing employees excited by feature development happy.