The picture of software dev you paint in the article (great read btw) is of a dichotomy: it's either a Big Tech corporate-politics nightmare, or a startup doomed to be that.

I think there is another option. There are thousands of small software companies that don't have the growth or traction to get bought out, are happily making relatively small amounts of money in their niche (but still enough to pay decent salaries - not SV salaries, but enough to live on comfortably), and care about both their customers and their code. They tend to employ relatively few engineers, who stay for a long time, and have founders who know their market niche really well.

You won't hear of them, because you're not in their specialised niche and they don't market outside their niche because they don't need investment. They're not really interested in going public, or being acquihired, or even gaining a trade sale, though that is the ultimate destination for most of them (when the founder decides to retire). They're not "sexy", except if you like actually practising your craft and building rock-solid products ("software you can love" - good phrase).

That sounds like non-big tech, so normal tech jobs? Sure, but the section with the dichotomy (which admittedly is a simplification, true) was specifically about big tech. It's a counter argument to the idea that if you're a good developer then working for google or a hot startup is the best possible job for you.

Ah yeah, re-reading it it's clear you were talking about Big Tech, I missed that on the first go.

Though I kinda resent the industry's focus on Big Tech, like all we can talk about is these few mammoth dysfunctional nightmares that take up all the room. There's lots of good tech work out there too!