Raising the is–ought fallacy here i s a category mistake that weakens the author’s argument.

“Software is about people” argues:

> I used to think software was fundamentally about code. Experience taught me that I was mistaken. Software is fundamentally an artifact made by people, for people’s purposes, and its success depends on them.

“Software ought to be about people” says:

> Software isn’t necessarily about people, but I believe it should be.

You may argue the latter, but I think the OP believes software is already shaped by humans .