As for the RTFA implications, many people saw right through his silliness. Developer in an ivory tower thinking his world is grand and majestic and lauded above all other disciplines. I guess that explains some of the crap in Python (but I digress).
I've been in this business since before the bubble. I have done systems work dating all the way back to the 80's. At that time there were many silos with few bridges between. The first iteration of "devops" I remember seeing can be quantified as developers seeking root access. Even to this day, the answer is continually a resounding "no". Why? Are devs automatically rejected due to what specific tower they are residing in? Are they rejected because of the "separation of powers" or because of "politics"? Are ops folks just dicks with a chip on their shoulder?
I think a number of things have happened and if you'll indulge me, perhaps we can break this conversation out more to see what's going on today.
Back in the day, we had an operations team, systems team, qa team, and dev team. Loosely defined, these were the folks in the NOC monitoring everything and pushing ticket events to the right teams via triage, doing prints and getting them ready for the requestor, managing backups and access to the computer room, etc... general "operational" tasks. Day to day "operations" of the center of computing for your facility. At some point, this title got applied to anything that smacked of someone whose fingers touched anything made of metal. When this seemed to change? Late 90's-ish. I don't have specifics, but that's my recollection. Remember also that different sections of the country progress at different rates, so YMMV.
Then there was the "systems team". Different sites had different monikers for this team from "engineering" (which PEs got pissed about) to "architecture" to "Systems Admins" to... well, whatever title HR thought was appropriate and met their organizational/talent distribution goals, but the work was generally the same. Storage, systems (mid range, intel, mainframe, etc.), capacity planning, backup systems and strategies, disaster recovery, and a myriad of other specializations within systems work. This is the specific "field" of systems work that breeds organizations like SAGE/LOPSA, etc. Those in these organizations dig into the very nuts and bolts of admin as a career and a field of expertise, following current research and methodologies and bettering themselves each and every day. I would offer that while dev folks can be quite competent in various systems tasks, they're just not a sysadmin (much less an engineer or architect). They really have no place in this area REGARDLESS of their quality at it.
Many times I've heard dev get bent out of shape because "ops is being a blocker" or "we can't get anything done because ops is saying 'no'". It's unfortunate to be that myopic and that selfish. What many devs don't understand is the ops person they're dealing with is supporting sometimes as many as 10 different DEV teams operating on the exact same hosts or clusters of hosts and one or two of those environments is the pet project of VP #13 that agreed to a bunch of junk on the golf course that isn't in the statement of work, but is being offered "on the sly". They don't understand that dev #22, who has relationship with VP #11 and can essentially get what they want has forced you to introduce "whiz bang package or library 126.96.36.199" while the safe, researched, CERT recommended package is 188.8.131.52 (and, incidentally is the one all the other dev teams are using) but because this high-horse, ivory-towered, "connected" dev has enforced his will, all the other devs are screwed because those two packages are incompatible and cannot coexist on the same hosts. Now, all the work that was being done on the systems has to cow-tow to other requirements. Now, ops guy is stuck between two warring factions and has to figure out who to please 1) to keep his job and 2) to make working with everyone involved pleasant (at the very least). "Only approved packages" implemented as per ops, anyone?
Development is a wonderful career. I always say "I am not a developer and I don't play one on TV"... It's a specialization, a craft. I am not a craftsman in this field. I don't even pretend to be. I count on the development teams to know how best to execute their craft. However, they need to reciprocate. I have been fortunate to be in this precise same situation and am grateful for it. They count on me to "do my thing" and I count on them to "do their thing" and we have a pleasant, amicable relationship. I think this is how it should be.
On the subject of "devops"... this depends on your environment. Some folks mean one thing and others mean something else. Point is, even the "devops software" people don't really agree 100% and it all comes down to workflow. What workflow MOST keeps security, stability, and repeatability in place for systems while providing speed, iteration, and flexibility for software development? That's it. And it's specific to you, your culture, and your environment. This simple structure to conform your particular workflow around works in each and every environment I've ever been in. Fitting a company's culture around this sort of workflow WILL make things better. Politics and religious arguments should be set aside when building this. Devs shouldn't be quick to gallop away toward 'give us full root everywhere" and systems should not be quick to impose their view of the world on development and actually *listen* to what they're trying to accomplish. Many times, a little extra work by YOU on the front end can make for happy, fulfilled devs that are excited that they can concentrate on the thing they REALLY excel at: writing great code. If you take the time to implement your infrastructure in code, you get to spend much more time on considerably more interesting things, not the least of which is concentrating on refactoring and making your own code better (whether scripts, recipes, manifests, or whatever). Everyone wins in this scenario and everyone gets better.
I'm certain I'll have a lot of disagreement here, but I've seen it work, it works well, and devs & systems folks really actually find out they like each other to some degree. (shudder!)