> For reasons that are complicated and that I don't fully understand, the software development community in the eighties and nineties developed a culture of anti-capitalism
This goes back to an earlier age of software, in the 1960s and 1970s, when much more software was being shared, among research groups and labs in Academia and industry, as it had not been commoditized and commercialized as such. As this gradually changed, it also motivated an embattled, somewhat-delayed, backlash in the form of the Free Software movement.
> and liberal values
Problematic term, because it means very different things historically vs. in current political discourse in the US.
> The idea of free software, for example, has led to a software economy where you, the user, are no longer the customer, but the product.
The author accepts as granted the foundational assumptions that:
* Users are customers, basically and originally.
* Software is a commodity, to be sold (as a product or service).
* Users are fundamentally disjoint from developers, and these groups of people interact through commercial entities.
Proponents of Free Software with an anti-Capitalist perspective would be to differ.
> The idea of open source, too, seems largely defunct as a means of 'sticking it to the man'.
While commercial corporations co-opt FOSS as much as they can, it has still, and is still, sticking it to the man: Billions of people, given only access to a computer, can now enjoy a huge variety of software to meet their needs and interests, without having to pay for it. A salaried software developer, sitting in some tech-rich organization, may fail to appreciate what a tremendous achievement this is. And there's the no less important ability to partake in development, and to build on the existing software with something new - which is much less accessible than plain use, but infinitely more accessible than with commercial closed-source software.
> You're expected to 'contribute' to open source software. Why? Because employers want employees who are passionate about their craft.
I don't know what employers expect. But we, i.e. users and developers of FOSS, need your help to add features and fix bugs and write docs and file bugs, for the software we use or want.
> Would you like engineers to be passionate as they design new bridges?
I hope they could be. This is less likely the less in touch they are with the people and groups who need their bridge; and the more alienated they are from their work in general.
> passionate... I'd prefer that they keep a cool head and make as rational decisions as possible.
This is a false dichotomy. The dispassionate programmer is more often than not the disinterested programmer; the "I just work here" programmer; the programmer who is writing software to meet arbitrary goals set by far-away managers, not to have the tool they need or to help their friends and colleagues.
> This was back in my Microsoft days, so I suggested that they institute a training programme for the employees. To give it structure, they could, for example, study for some Microsoft certifications.
Ah... well, indeed, living in the Micorosft certified-whatever world will likely take care of your excessive passion problems.
> If I teach you something that improves your productivity, your employer benefits, too. I think that your employer should pay for that.
This, I agree with. But instead of "being dispassionate", I suggest we be _unionized_! Make those companies pay for this kind of professional development and meandering exploration of new knowledge and skills.
(And also remember that a lot of, or most of, FOSS isn't necessarily what you do in your day job anyway.)