MBAs/consultants hijacked the industry along with an influx of people that only consider leetcode to be sufficient for hiring. The past 10 years has been a major injunction of these people into big tech. The resulting mess is predictable, it'll get worse too which is why we need to break up these companies and allow better more efficient companies to take their place rather than letting them subsidize their failures with their monopolies.

In an environment where bandwidth utilization costs money I think it's a good belt-and-suspenders approach, regardless of the expected behavior of the clients, to enforce policy at the choke point between expensive and not-expensive.

(I think more networks should be built with default deny egress policies, personally. It would make data exfiltration more difficult, would make ML algorithms monitoring traffic flows have less "noise" to look thru, and would likely encourage some efficiency on the part of dependencies.)

Software design is not really my wheelhouse so I can't comment meaningfully on that, but on the networking side I can very confidently say it was a poor architecture. You simply cannot assume that all of your clients are going to be both 1) non-malicious and 2) work exactly as you think they will.

Link saturation would be one of the first things that would come to mind in this situation, and at these speeds QoS would be trivial even for cheap consumer hardware.

> How did it get that we live in a world where you can't trust a client to enforce its own documented behavior?

My guess a combo of economic incentives and weak legal protections.

I realize that answer applies to so many issues as to be almost not worth saving, but I think it's still true here.

Fair enough, but the fact is that until fairly recently most software wouldn't even pretend to care about conserving bandwidth. I certainly would never expect a desktop OS to do this well, even if MS loves their revenue-generating "bugs."

The world where any unpatched system is a guaranteed botnet.