> receive side uses a per-packet interrupt to finalize a received packet
This has made much faster systems not being able to process packets at line speed. A classic was that standard Gigabit network cards and contemporary CPUs were not able to process VoIP packets (which are tiny) at line speed, while they could easily download files (which are basically MTU-sized packets) at line speed.
This is stupid clickbait title, and the article isn't even very precise. Yes, that whole fritz.box situation is known and bad. But the problem discussed here doesn't nearly apply to every situation. Specifically, the box's builtin resolver (which is still used by default by a lot of things) knows not to forward fritz.box requests to the outside. That is, `dig google.com.fritz.box` and everything else say NXDOMAIN when you're using the builtin DNS.
I think my critique is somewhat correct in that you seem to suggest that this change was made to allow for expanding the permissions from one product to all products, which I don't think one can derive from the things we know.
I think I was somewhat wrong in that I may have suggested that you said this was the only reason (which you didn't explicitly) and also in that I dismissed that they factually can use these permissions from other products now, i.e., no matter whether it was intended or not, the permissions set for other products is broader now.
Meta: my answer here is probably also a good example of motivated reasoning because I likely read a bit more into what the author wrote than is factually in the blog post. Oh boy.
> [...] though I'm sure they're just beginning to transfer their services to the main google.com domain.
This and the wording across the article imply more than the factual changes. But granted, hooby's comment above is probably more correct than what I wrote.
This is a fantastic example of motivated reasoning. This "change" (which apparently isn't even new) can have so many different reasons, some of which are less harmful and some of which are probably worse (privacy-wise) than the one mentioned here. There is no indication that re/mis-using permissions is specifically what they wanted to do here, there is also no example of them doing it right now. Don't get me wrong, there is also no evidence that this isn't the real reason and that they wouldn't do that in the future. But the blog post basically list a single symptom and jumps right to the one conclusion that fits what the author expects.
I love how they went through all the internal hoops to make this public and consequently put the SECURITY.md in there. Just in case someone finds a vulnerability in GW-Basic after all these years...