to chap: i am not a developer, beside of that i don't think there is anything to give "preis".
to the author: i don't know this book he was reading and mentioning in his article. who knows what is in there besides the strange quotes. anyhow the notion "it's business" is still strong out there. ( see malmoe and burg) even after the burst of the old century bubble, and how many years of open source?, free software, open systems and whatsoever? if they are going on with this notion they will pretty soon say: it was all about business and wonder again, why they didn't earn a dime.

i am listening do an interview where someone explains how the crap of modern architects made it to be excepted even today. oh well, nice analogy somehow.

also related: transparent weblog: "Weltfremde Träumer versus Geld scheffelnde Realos? Diese Polarisierung beruht anscheinend auf dem derzeit um sich greifenden Fatalismus, der sich mit der neoliberalen Weltsicht abfindet. Jedenfalls fällt dabei unter den Tisch, daß gerade die Überhöhung der Technologien (die auf eine Zeit zurück geht, als das Web noch weitgehend Männersache war) oft mit einem Ausblenden von gesellschaftlichen Fragen, von unterschiedlichen Zugängen zum Web einher geht. Das ist aber nicht zwingend - es sollte doch noch möglich sein, über das Internet als sozialen Raum nachzudenken. (Gerade wenn man Konferenzen über Weblogs abhält....)"

it's a question of perception: i wasn't thinking about an obviously absurd scenario that someone has to praise a developer over and over again. nope. In this case i also can't identify a lack of recognition: he was asked, the application is used, it is not identified as bad, it seems it fulfills some needs, its usable, ... that's more recognition than you can't even expect in some other areas.
what strikes me is that it is still not understood when someone is frankly stating: hey, i am interested in the development of this tool. punto. that's in my opinion a honest statement and far from fishing for gratitude. but it seems, after all that years - since when are computers around? - that the author of this article doesn't even try to understand that the development of a piece of software has its challenge. by frankly saying my interest lies in the field of development tobi got the reply that he is ignoring a chance and danger of communication. to translate this makes it even more wired - äh: weird.
so the chance he is missing - when i understand the article right - lies in ignoring a business opportunity. shame on him. and there is some kind of unidentified danger ¿? the interest of the article is somehow far away from the questions tobi had to answer and for me an example, that someone is simply pretending to report about and be interested in technology. the developer simply plays the role of an alien in the whole story and i believe nowadays that should be kind of a strange role. i mean marketing and business people had their chance and failed.

sure there are still parts missing in antville, as you pointed out, but if it would have been written as bad and weird as this article, i wonder if someone would be interested in using it.

chapeau, mme motz!

the general issue behind this is that some journalists are not even slightly interested in their work. thus, they often leave their job to their interview partners. and simply ask the wrong questions. it's up to the interviewee to put these questions straight to give at least some meaningful answers (determined by the time one has to fill in the gaps and probably the moon phase).

and in the end this is not even enough for an adequate result. so it seems the journalistic accomplishment lies in persisting on an initial lack of knowledge. or as dogbert would say: "you do not need experience if you got attitude" (thanks, slauti).

if i had some dignity mixed with the right portion of arrogance i should have refused the interview just at the point where he asks "what are weblogs" or at least when suddenly a private weblog is mixed up with a strange question about lack of adminstrative presence (and now for something completely different – and totally weird).

obviously, i do (or at least did) not have that dignity, nor that arrogance. moreover, the lack of recognition would not be decreasing by a refusal. sure, now we (whoever that is) could simply live with the result. but a few chose to "lament" about it, as someone with expertise says here. well, that's the nice thing with weblogs, too: one has the option to do so. and suddenly i realize i feel better than james brown.