https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-bullshit-jobs#toc43
Shullenberger speaks of an emerging “voluntariat,” with capitalist firms increasingly harvesting the results not of paid labor but of unpaid interns, internet enthusiasts, activists, volunteers, and hobbyists, and “digitally sharecropping” the results of popular enthusiasm and creativity to privatize and market the results. The free software industry, perversely enough, has become a paradigm in this respect. The reader may recall Pablo, who introduced the notion of duct taping in chapter 2: software engineering work was divided between the interesting and challenging work of developing core technologies, and the tedious labor of “applying duct tape” to allow different core technologies to work together, because the designers had never bothered to think about their compatibility. His main point, though, was that, increasingly, open source means that all the really engaging tasks are done for free:
Pablo: "Where two decades ago, companies dismissed open source software and developed core technologies in-house, nowadays companies rely heavily on open source and employ software developers almost entirely to apply duct tape on core technologies they get for free.
"In the end, you can see people doing the nongratifying duct-taping work during office hours and then doing gratifying work on core technologies during the night.
"This leads to an interesting vicious circle: given that people choose to work on core technologies for free, no company is investing in those technologies. The underinvestment means that the core technologies are often unfinished, lacking quality, have a lot of rough edges, bugs, etc. That, in turn, creates need for duct tape and thus proliferation of duct-taping jobs."
Paradoxically, the more that software engineers collaborate online to do free creative labor simply for the love of doing it, as a gift to humanity, the less incentive they have to make them compatible with other such software, and the more those same engineers will have to be employed in their day jobs fixing the damage—doing the sort of maintenance work that no one would be willing to do for free. ...
How accurate is this observation? I think the division of what is usually considered software engineering into "developing core technologies" and "applying duct-tape" has merit, but I have my doubts about the following:
1. Is "duct-taping" really necessary because of a lack of compatibility between core technologies? I would think that some "duct-taping" will always be needed.
2. Does the "voluntariat" trend really hold for Free Software? I remember that this problem widely publicised regarding OpenSSL after the Heartbleed attack was disclosed, but as I see many big corporations do have people hired to work on "core technologies", like Linux, gcc, etc., and in fact people these days complain about a corporate takeover of Free Software.
given that people choose to work on core technologies for free, no company is investing in those technologies. The underinvestment means that the core technologies are often unfinished, lacking quality, have a lot of rough edges, bugs, etc. That, in turn, creates need for duct tape and thus proliferation of duct-taping jobs
What's so wrong about duct-taping jobs? There's nothing wrong with building upon software that achieves much of the functionality needed for the application; there's nothing wrong with further developing software that's not complete for your subjective time-frame. It's not sensible that "the perfect application software" inherently exists for your subjective application; it is only by mere circumstance that "the perfect application software" happens to exist for your subjective time-frame all without any input on your part.
software engineering work was divided between the interesting and challenging work of developing core technologies, and the tedious labor of “applying duct tape” to allow different core technologies to work together, because the designers had never bothered to think about their compatibility.
the less incentive they have to make them compatible with other such software
I have no idea what he means by this. Why does any programmer need to design and develop "compatible core technology" on an inherent basis? It is not sensible for software technologies to be compatible on an inherent basis. The reason why software is compatible is because people intentionally and specifically design the technologies to work together. This implies that there is a predefined and prearranged standard for the software technology to work together; I have no idea why he would think the such compatibility standards would inherently exist for all software.
His main point, though, was that, increasingly, open source means that all the really engaging tasks are done for free:
I already stated that duct-taping jobs for software development has no negative meaning for me. For the case of software development, duct-taping jobs are perfectly normal because the alternatives are the "magical and already perfect software application with zero input on your own part" and "software that doesn't exist in any capacity".
in fact people these days complain about a corporate takeover of Free Software.
The big thing that's important to me is whether the software respects my freedom as the user. Matters of corporations being the major sponsor of development has zero relevance to me. I do not care that there are highly complex free software projects that exist. I believe that having freedom implies taking personal responsibility to invest your own resources.
The corporate takeover of open source needs to happen faster. With the corporate takeover of open source, companies will have control over the whole software ecosystem. Programmers will be reduced to worker drones who are fully disposable and replaceable. This is great because there will be a large supply of programmers who will work for lower wages, and who are grateful to be given jobs.
>>3 So, as workers, why is that a good thing ?
>>4
It is not good for workers, but why do they need to know that? Companies should cooperate to devise strategies to make workers believe that this is all for their long-term benefit. Companies should appear to care for their workers. Workers need to be given optimistic messages that gives them hope for a slightly better future. A good worker is a disposable worker because there will be less single points of failure. Management will have the flexibility to pursue further innovation without being bogged down by all the petty labor disturbances.
Is duct-taping and glue code the same?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glue_code
Pretty sure it is.
heheheheheeheheheheh, "Shullenberger"
kex0rz
TENGET
So essentially programmers are free labor for enterprises. If I want to get a job programming I need to make some software first to build a portfolio, software tnat then will be usedby corps for free if it's useful enough.
Fucking cuck job.