// , “It is not so important to be serious as it is to be serious about the important things. The monkey wears an expression of seriousness... but the monkey is serious because he itches."(No/No)
This is sort of a variant of the accessibility question. And it's a matter of product management.
It's "valid" to ask them to install a non-PKCS#11 compliant HSM, sacrifice a newborn Le Potato under the full moon in homage to an obscene Aztec ritual, follow well reasoned production hardening guidelines, and (more likely) in the ultimate frustration of access, ask them to pay millions of dollars.
The motivations for such things can range from well meaning avoidance of "foot guns" in products, all the way to intentional effort$ at incompatibility.
Are they gonna do it? Maybe.
Is it a good idea? Not if it can be at all avoided, because it's better for everybody if things just do what they say on the tin. That's the motive behind many of the principles of the design of Python, HashiCorp Vault, and toys whose manufacturers thoughtfully include a warranty and some cheap batteries in the blister pack. If your application has misleading defaults and is easy to accidentally use wrong, those failure modes aren't your fault. And unless we want to make some sort of huge chilling effect on the industry, we shouldn't consider them your fault. But some schmawt boiz at companies like HashiCorp still consider those failure modes annoying and common enough to be worth coining the term "foot guns."
This is sort of a variant of the accessibility question. And it's a matter of product management.
It's "valid" to ask them to install a non-PKCS#11 compliant HSM, sacrifice a newborn Le Potato under the full moon in homage to an obscene Aztec ritual, follow well reasoned production hardening guidelines, and (more likely) in the ultimate frustration of access, ask them to pay millions of dollars.
The motivations for such things can range from well meaning avoidance of "foot guns" in products, all the way to intentional effort$ at incompatibility.
Are they gonna do it? Maybe.
Is it a good idea? Not if it can be at all avoided, because it's better for everybody if things just do what they say on the tin. That's the motive behind many of the principles of the design of Python, HashiCorp Vault, and toys whose manufacturers thoughtfully include a warranty and some cheap batteries in the blister pack. If your application has misleading defaults and is easy to accidentally use wrong, those failure modes aren't your fault. And unless we want to make some sort of huge chilling effect on the industry, we shouldn't consider them your fault. But some schmawt boiz at companies like HashiCorp still consider those failure modes annoying and common enough to be worth coining the term "foot guns."
See, it just so happens that it's also valid for all them users to tell the devs to "The power of Stallman compels thee! Go back to the subreddit from whence thou came, demon!"