When we moved into our apartment we hired a contractor to build bespoke cupboards for a few niches that we wanted to use optimally. He built perfectly fitting, nice cupboards that make those areas look nice and clean while allowing us to store all kinds of stuff. And he took great care doing it.
Even after the job had started he kept explaining us why certain decisions we thought were smart might have been not so smart and offered solutions – often without charging extra. He wanted to build something that lasts and that makes us happy – while being fairly paid of course.
This s a privileged position: Being able to afford hiring an expert, finding one in your vicinity is not available to everyone. And not everything needs to be bespoke. Sometimes a well-thought, well-built off the shelf item is absolutely fine and a bespoke solution wouldn’t add anything but cost.
But what this extreme illustrates is the level of care that goes into building something well: The care a person takes in doing a good job but also understanding one’s work for someone else as a level of care towards that person. If you ask me to do something for you, me doing it means that I also take care of you to a certain degree. We have even codified that to a certain degree for many products where someone selling you something needs to give you warranty or other guaranties about whatever they sold you – mostly in order to try to protect people against capitalism’s tendency to make everything worse.
Software is an interesting product category in that a lot of software these days is no longer optional: It’s not a video game you can use or not but it’s the infrastructure that allows you to get paid, get government services, sign your kid up for school etc. These days we are mostly forced to use software whether we like to or not – often even software we cannot have any control over. This also means that building software should be increasingly more focused on people’s wellbeing and security: If you force people into something you need to make sure they are taken care of.
Of course we know that that’s not how things are. The quality of software we all interact with each day is perceivably worse than it used to be (we use MS 365 at work and boy is that a for of torture done to us by one of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world). Windows (and to a degree MacOs) is getting so bad that people are actively looking into running Linux. 1.0 versions of software neither mean that they work nor that they are feature complete, they are just whatever MVP compiled at the previously defined release date. You can always patch things later right? Well patches have gotten so bad that many people actively avoid installing them fearing what they might break.
It would be deeply unfair to just chalk that up to “AI” making software worse. Software was doing bad before, standards of quality being largely nonexistent. But “AI” and the promise that you can just magically create software is pouring gasoline on the fire: We are generating code way beyond our ability to ever review and ensure the security of. The developer of OpenClaw, the very hyped “AI” agent thing kept on proudly shouting on X, the everything Nazi app, that he’s constantly releasing code he never checked into the wild and into people’s personal infrastructure and data.
It’s the most visible rejection of care in software: People proudly saying how much the software they work on is “vibe coded” or “written by Claude” underlining how there is no pride in or responsibility for the work one not only put out but actually forces on people. It’s like a chef loudly stating that they didn’t even taste the menu they now want you to pay 200 EUR for. Like a doctor saying that they just describe you whatever medicine the computer tells them to without even looking at your test results. It’s a statement making clear that you do not give a shit. That you do not care.
Not every good can be produced artisanally: Furniture or clothes take a long time and skill to make, and in order to make them well you need good and expensive materials. It doesn’t scale up to the actual current need (which is way below the need that companies try to trick you into) and it’s too expensive for most people (That is a decision we as societies made when we forced people into jobs whose pay isn’t adequate to have a decent life. We could choose differently.)
But at least for software that is different. Digital goods (aside from “AI” which works differently) are characterized by 0 marginal cost meaning: Your costs don’t really go up when “producing” another copy of a software you already wrote.
This is where I see FLOSS – free and open source software – having their niche. Because in that space we can build situations and contexts where an artisanal mode of production, a mode based on care for the product and the people using it is feasible. Where not some millionaire or billionaire needs to squeeze out another few extra percent of profit every year by degrading the quality more and more.
I think FLOSS should embrace the small-scale, artisanal mindset. To build a stack of sustainable, high quality components while the rest of the world is trying to see how low the race to the bottom in software quality can go.
Writing software for people is important. It can also be fun. Especially when you get the time and (head)space to move carefully and intentionally. In that situation, software is just one way to show care for one another and act upon that display of love and respect.
We all deserve more software made with actual love for people.

Liked it? Take a second to support tante on Patreon!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.