Build software you can still stand behind in five years.

What the work here actually involves

You work on systems with a long life. The usual rhythm in agencies and consultancies is: start, deliver, hand over, forget. Here the handover is the beginning. Our own product LingoHub has been in production since 2012, and the client systems we look after are built for similar spans. You will read code you wrote yourself three years ago and explain decisions you made yourself. That is the difference between an opinion about maintainability and experience of it.

You carry operational responsibility. We do not only build, we run. Deployment, monitoring, security updates, incident handling — that is part of the work, not part of another department. Anyone who has never spent a night on a production problem develops differently from someone who knows what readable logs are worth at three in the morning. On-call duty here is regulated, documented and paid, and it is shared across several people.

You speak to clients directly. There is nobody here who translates between you and the client’s business unit. You sit in the workshop, you hear the requirement first-hand, you ask the follow-up question yourself. That is harder than working through a ticket and it produces much better systems. Anyone who does not want that will not be happy here — it is not a side task, it is part of the role.

You take part in decisions. Architecture decisions are made here in conversation between the people who then have to live with them. There is no architecture board handing down rules and no group-level mandate forcing a technology. Equally, there is nobody who takes the decision off your hands.

You have time for quality — because we pay the invoice ourselves. Every operations contract reserves a fixed share for structure, tests and clean-up work. Not out of idealism: on our own product we saw what deferred clean-up costs after five years.

What we offer

• A small team in which every voice counts. Both founders have been with the company since 2012 and work on the systems themselves. If you want to change something here, you do not have to convince anyone sitting three levels away.
• An office in Linz and a flexible home-office arrangement. No attendance requirement for the reassurance of management, but also not a company that only knows itself from a chat window.
• Pay above the collective agreement minimum, named openly in the first conversation — details in the section further down.
• Training that fits our work. Budget and working time for conferences, technical literature and certifications, where there is a link to what we actually build.
• Devices and tools of your choice, within an agreed frame. If you work with a tool eight hours a day, you should get to pick it.
• Working hours you can plan around. We cost projects so that they work without permanent overtime. If a week gets tight, that is an exception and it is compensated, not normalised.
• Contracts you can understand. No non-compete clause that pushes you out of the industry for two years, no training repayment agreement designed as a leash.

What we explicitly do not offer

The most honest part of this page. If one of the following points rules us out for you, we both save ourselves an application process.

No time tracking to the tenth of an hour. We record project time because we have to invoice. We do not use it to monitor people, and nobody has to justify where twenty minutes went.

No four levels of hierarchy — and therefore no career ladder. There is no path here from junior to senior to team lead to principal with the titles that go with it. Anyone looking for advancement through formal ranks will find it elsewhere. What does exist: more responsibility for larger systems and more influence on what we take on as a company.

No projects that nobody cares about after sign-off. That sounds like an advantage and it is one — but it also means you will not constantly be starting something new. A substantial part of the work is understanding existing systems, maintaining them and changing them carefully. Anyone who only wants greenfield work will be bored here.

No large training structure. There is no trainee programme, no fixed mentoring matrix and no department that organises onboarding. You learn from two or three people in direct conversation. For people at the start of their career that is either an advantage or too much, depending on the person.

No company culture out of a catalogue. No table football, no sabbatical programme, no informal tone used as a marketing claim. What there is: a team that has worked together for years and owns up when something goes wrong.

No growth story. We do not want to be fifty people in three years. If you are looking for a company you can grow into a leadership role with, this is the wrong company. We grow slowly and deliberately.

No pure developer role. Client contact, on-call duty and writing documentation people can understand are part of it. Anyone who only wants to program will find better conditions for that at a larger employer.

Salary

In Austria, the minimum salary under the applicable collective agreement (Kollektivvertrag) has to be stated in a job advertisement, and we think that is a good rule. The Kollektivvertrag is a sector-wide pay agreement negotiated between employer and employee representatives; it sets a legal floor, and stating it is mandatory. For the advertised positions that minimum is [COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT MINIMUM] gross per month on a full-time basis.

That figure is a floor, not a target. We pay above it — depending on professional experience, technical responsibility and what you bring on day one. We name the actual range in the first conversation, before you invest time in a technical interview. What we do not do: set salaries according to how hard someone negotiates. Two people with a comparable job and comparable experience earn comparable money here.

What an application should look like

Send us a CV and, if you have one, a link to code you are allowed to show. We do not need a covering letter. What helps us: two or three sentences about what you worked on most recently and what did not work about it. You learn more from failure reports than from success stories.

If you are still unsure whether this fits: read how we work, and look at who works here. Both pages describe the same working life from two directions.