Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Web 3.0

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the worth-your-time dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 316

SpunOne writes "Apparently Jeffrey Zeldman is as sick of Web 2.0 as many of us have become. In his latest article, titled "Web 3.0," he really sticks it to the Web 2.0 fan boys, and dispels a lot of the hype generated by our young new friends. It's easy to grow apathetic when a new idea gains so much traction so quickly, but his points are clear and accurate, and deserve consideration."

cancel ×

316 comments

3rd post (-1, Offtopic)

mediokra (946515) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489962)

First post

Oh boy. (1, Offtopic)

CCFreak2K (930973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489970)

Oh boy, a new industry bing word. Your website isn't cool without all the stuff like Web 3.0 and XML.

How much you wanna bet this kind of stuff starts off in a marketing think tank?

Re:Oh boy. (3, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490069)

Slashdot should jump the bandwagon and incorporate Web 4.0

(its just like Web 2.0 but duped)

Re:Oh boy. (1)

jd142 (129673) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490143)

No, Web 4.0 is Web 2.0 squared. And of course Web 8.0 where it's really at: Web 2.0 cubed.

So.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490082)

Didn't bother to read the article then huh?

Re:Oh boy. (5, Funny)

MountainMan101 (714389) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490125)

Web 3.0 is for Fedora fan-boys. Debian users will continue with Web 1.0 (or rather 1.1), which has the same interface as 1.0 but all of the security fixes of 2.0 backported.

Correct term (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490195)

Oh boy, a new industry bing word.

I believe the correct term is industry mandated bling bling

pfft.. (4, Funny)

tont0r (868535) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489978)

Web 4.0 will kick his Web 3.0's ass. He needs to get with the times.

Re:pfft.. (-1, Offtopic)

greenagain (890853) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490162)

Screw that! I'm waiting for the PS3. Oh, what?

Re:pfft.. (1, Offtopic)

geofferensis (808339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490213)

Web Nukem Forever is going to be really awesome. Ya now, when it comes out. Soon. Very soon.

Re:pfft.. (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490214)

I'll wait for Web 4.1. Initial releases are always buggy nowadays. If you take a look at Web 1.0 (why hasn't anyone ever relased an update?) you can clearly see what I'm talking about.

what's (5, Insightful)

iogan (943605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489980)

What's web 2.0?

Google? (1)

Cougem (734635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490074)

Well according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] it's:
what some people see as a second phase of development of the World Wide Web, including its architecture and its applications
Sounds a bit crap really

Re:Google? (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490094)

I was really expecting "Web 2.0" to come with "Internet 2.0," but it seems someone has been inventing buzz words again to note progressions in the technology.

Re:what's (5, Insightful)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490106)

It's a lot like Web 1.0, but with JavaScript instead of Flash and RSS instead of RSS.

Consider a web site you visited 10 years ago. Now replace all the boring HTML with exciting AJAXified scriptaculosity!!

Also RSS is really important to Web 2.0, even though it's been around for 10 years and still has glaring flaws that remain unaddressed since that time. (How do I indicate something's been updated or deleted without triggering duplicate entries in everyone's feed reader?)

Re:what's (2, Informative)

feijai (898706) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490300)

AJAXified scriptaculosity!!
For that hillarious made-up word alone you should be modded 5.

Re:what's (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490114)

Wikipedia - web 2.0 [wikipedia.org]

Posted anon to prevent karma whoring. (Or redundancy mods if someone gets before me! ;-)

As you can see, it means just about what you want it to!

Re:what's (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490154)

ipv6?

It is a way to get another bubble (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490172)

Oh okay maybe that is over cynical. However what was the first bubble? Was it perhaps that the world believed that somehow a combination of tech was going to change the way we lived our lives?

Well yeah. EVERYONE had to have a website. Didn't matter what you sold you had to sell it online as well. Billions were invested in making everything available online. Clothes, food, pets, toys. Some made sense (porn) most did not.

Yet at the time it was claimed that the Information Superhighway (remember that one?) was going to totally change the way we lived. The new economy because the old one was just not the way to do it anymore. You actually had companies loosing stock value because they had not announced an internet strategy. Profits? Who cares.

In hindsight of course it all seems perfectly silly. Snail mail disappearing as email takes over. Eheh, tell that to the poor guy slumping a ton of mail with all the christmas cards. Brick and Mortar stores a thing of the past? Oh sure, tell your girlfriend that there is no need to go shopping with her, she can just browse on the laptop while you play Battlefield 2 and it will be just the same.

So the bubble burts, a few companies survived and things more or less went back to business as usual (wich it always does).

Ah, but surely the failure was because the tech was not ready for it? Well now we know better and we are ready for another try. Instead of portals now the buzzword seems to be social networks. Whatever those may be. It is again a combination of tech that has been around for a while but been buzzed up and vague promises about a social revolution.

Bloggs probably are part of it as well.

So what is it? Old tech in a sexy skin and hype. Is it bad? Hell no! I loved the bubble. Fat paychecks, easy going atmosphere and nobody in charge who had a clue as to what it was what you were doing. Websites with a dozen visitors written in code that would crash at the 1000th post and running on sun hardware and oracle databases. The job ads promising a company car have appeared again. Just hope that the geeks this time get proper regonistion and the sex from gullible girls that we so richly deserve.

Re:It is a way to get another bubble (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490277)

sex from gullible girls that we so richly deserve

Isn't that what MySpace is for?

Just In Case... (3, Funny)

millahtime (710421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489989)

Just In Case I make My websites with Web 8.0. This should keep me good for at least 2 or 3 more months.

Re:Just In Case... (2, Funny)

infomagic (866125) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490232)

That's not cool. The cool thing these days is Web 3.1415926....

That's all well and good. . . (5, Funny)

igibo (726664) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489994)

. . .but here is an indisputable rebuttal.

http://www.parm.net/web2.0/ [parm.net]

Come on people, we're all sick of buzzwords, but you can't deny the reality of Web 2.0!

Igi

Re:That's all well and good. . . (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490063)

That was funny, you didn't deserve the flamebait rating. :-)

Re:That's all well and good. . . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490123)

Yeah, mods please mod this guy up Funny or something with Karma, that page is nice!
xtracto

Web 2.0: Hype or Real?? (2, Interesting)

jg21 (677801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490148)

>>> we're all sick of buzzwords, but you can't deny the reality of Web 2.0!

Just so. Indeed, may I just offer, amid all this indignant debunking, a simple metric based on fact rather than prejudgement?

One of the many blogs hosted at SOA Web Services Journal [wsj2.com] is one by Web 2.0 Workgroup member Dion Hinchcliffe. In terms of page views, the blog [wsj2.com] crossed the 500K mark after just over 90 days...here are the exact stats:

Hits since 24 Sep 2005:
502,587
(4,786.54 per day)

Total Blog Entries:
55
(0.52 per day)

Total Comments: 396

The topic of Web 2.0, and related offshoot movements like Identity 2.0, TV 2.0, Democracy 2.0, Law 2.0 [abanet.org] is a major grassroots topic of interest. It's as simple as that.

To the detractors one can only remind them what Bill Watterson used to say: "It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept."

Re:Web 2.0: Hype or Real?? (2, Funny)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490259)

We clearly need 2.0 2.0. It's just like 2.0 1.0, but it's totally interactive ans dynamic and socially collaborative with Ruby tags all over the place. It also has rounded corners.

Re:That's all well and good. . . (1)

spectrumCoder (944322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490166)

I deny the reality of Web 2.0. People just invented it to sound cool.

Then came the geeks who didn't know what Web 2.0 was, but were so sure that they were more tech-savvy and more web gurulike than everyone else they decided to become the confusers instead of the confusees, and lo, Web 3.0 was born.

Incidentally, I favour static html and frames.

Re:That's all well and good. . . (3, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490242)

Yes, I agree more or less with you.
I HATE "WebForms" and all that things that try to resemble Windows like interfaces using a browser, I hate also "server based" processing, Damn, we have processors that run at 3 Ghz!!! give them some use. And third, I hate having to put my data on others places. What is all that nonsense??

That's all well and good. . .Behind the 8-ball (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490248)

"Come on people, we're all sick of buzzwords, but you can't deny the reality of Web 2.0!"

Here's a way to look at it.

Web 1.0: What I know.

Web 2.0: What my counterpart in India knows.

NSFW?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490335)

What exactly does masturbation have to do with Web 2.0.

start thinking about usability and design (5, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489997)

more often than not, big teams have slowly and expensively labored to produce overly complex web applications whose usability was near nil on behalf of clients with at best vague goals.

We need to immediately have a meeting to discuss reducing complexity, increasing usability and clarifying our goals.

Re:start thinking about usability and design (5, Funny)

ladyKae (945309) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490051)

But... Meetings are bad for you [slashdot.org]

Re:start thinking about usability and design (4, Funny)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490146)

More to the point, our potential to leverage dynamic interfaces and drive seamless infrastructures leaves us needing disintermediate clicks-and-mortar methodologies to synergize back-end metrics. We are then able to synthesize e-business infomediaries while maintaining a aggregate efficient convergence.

Brought to you by the fine people at http://www.robietherobot.com/buzzword.htm [robietherobot.com]

Patented business methods -- find me some VC! (2, Funny)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490178)

I have replaced you with a shell script. You are no longer needed.

However, I have just replaced myself with two shell scripts: the one above and one taking my venture-lent millions and IPO'ing. Further, I have a patent to the business method of replacing employees with shell scripts and will IPO it to make millions. Then I'll write a shell script -- most likely in a different language, Ruby, Haskell, PHP, perhaps -- to do the same as a Web 2.0 thing before reinventing myself for Web 3.0 (there exists a business method patent for reinventing the same business methods again and again, but it's being contested by religions and crime syndicates).

P.S. Word to the wise about Web 3.0: it won't be stable until 3.1 and then 3.11 will bring real connectivity to the Web...

Web XP is where it is at! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490004)

This will beam web content right into your brain! Then.. to enable the DRM, a thug will come to your location and give you a hit or two upside the head with a sledge hammer.

Only problem I am having is getting people to access Web XP a second time :(

Re:Web XP is where it is at! (1)

szrachen (913408) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490315)

The other problem is that it's uptime has been reduced to 80%. Surely that should be sufficient. Just make sure and download the 3 updates a day and reboot.

don't forget about wankr (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490015)

You know, so the web 2.0 folks have something to do once 3.0 hits [parm.net] .

Paul Graham (5, Interesting)

torunforever (930672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490020)

Paul Graham's take on Web 2.0 [paulgraham.com] is a good read.

Re:Paul Graham (1, Informative)

swb (14022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490140)

Most fanboys think that Paul Graham's take on his latest turd is a good read, too.

Which isn't to say that it might not be, but the cult-of-personality surrounding Paul Graham kind of gets old after a while.

More like 0.2 than 2.0 (5, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490029)

From A List Apart [alistapart.com] :It soon appeared that "Web 2.0" was not only bigger than the Apocalypse but also more profitable.

The only difference between 1.0 and 2.0 comes down to the languages used to generate the content. Switch from C++, Java, and Perl to Ruby On Rails, PHP, and Python, change HTML tables to XML, use AJAX liberally. Result? OK, you get Flickr and the like, but it still runs on the same tired architecture. "Web 2.0" doesn't become a reality until "WWW: Then Next Generation" comes to pass, where security and efficiency become the flavor of the day.

Re:More like 0.2 than 2.0 (5, Funny)

click2005 (921437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490127)

"WWW:The Next Generation"... Aren't you a bit ahead of yourself there?

WWW : The Markup Protocol
WWW 2.0 The Wrath of Kazaa
WWW 3 The Search for Social Networks
WWW 4 The VRML Homepage
WWW 5 The Final Flickr
WWW 6 The Undocumented Context

then we get to WWW:TNG

Re:More like 0.2 than 2.0 (1)

geofferensis (808339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490231)

and then WWW: Darknet 9

Re:More like 0.2 than 2.0 (1)

thelonestranger (915343) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490263)

Surely before we get to WWW:TNG there should be WWW:DOS somewhere.

Re:More like 0.2 than 2.0 (3, Interesting)

Spurion (412996) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490338)

I completely agree. Switching from "1.0" to "2.0" technologies loses you as much as it gains. You win:
  • Some portability. I reckon AJAX is little more portable than Java (if at all) because no two Web browsers are ever quite the same; you're just dealing with differences between browsers rather than differences between OSes.
  • No installation step. Users can launch your application just by following a hyperlink.


You lose:
  • All the accessibility mechanisms that OS GUI frameworks have. Everyone loves GMail, but navigating around it without a mouse is a real pain. No hotkeys, and an unpredictable tab order.
  • Proper control of the layout of your UI.
  • A whole lot of performance.


Of course, you could implement the missing parts yourself, but the extra layer of abstraction that is "Web 2.0" remains pointless. To my mind, a far better approach would be to push the advantages of AJAX down onto the platform, rather than push the advantages of the platform up into AJAX.

For example you could use things like Java Web Start [sun.com] , or the OSGI framework that underpins Eclipse, to simplify product installation. Once you've got that, you can build a much more flexible application that integrates better with the host OS and runs that much closer to the hardware.

I strongly suspect that the whole "Web 2.0" idea is only creating any hype because Web designers have now realised that they can create relatively complex applications without having to learn anything new.

Big Deal (2, Funny)

Give Me a T, Give me (946517) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490045)

I was surfing the web 2.0 on my Commodore 64

hold on a bit longer (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490050)

Everyone knows that it won't reallty be usable until it hits Web 3.1.

Damn, still a long wait until 2095 (1)

Dareth (47614) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490118)

when we get to have Web (20)'95!!! Took Diablo to get me to upgrade last time... wonder what will prompt me to upgrade from 98 this time?

Re:hold on a bit longer (2)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490170)

The Web ain't done 'til Firefox won't run.

Re:hold on a bit longer (2, Funny)

phuked (675016) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490250)

Just wait for Web for Workgroups (WfW) 3.11, it'll have networking!!11!

Didn't Read TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490057)

What the hell is everyone talking about? Did I miss some versions of the internets or something?

Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems? (5, Insightful)

germ!nation (764234) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490062)

I imagine many people will bite here, however this is not a troll post.

Having worked in web development for many years now, I really find that, today, Javascript is a solution looking for a problem to solve. It seems to have only legacy relevance to today's development requirements.

AJAX? Why?

Well, I guess in the 'war' between Gmail and Hotmail, fancy AJAX front ends might make something of a difference, if all other things are pretty even, however for your average developer, how does it apply.

Yes, some people might get a bit of internet fame for creating some bit of software that has rounded corners and gradients, and you can update stuff without the page refreshing, but in my development cycles if I were to propose this:

Planning Phase
Development Phase
Testing Phase
(now we have a working, accessible application)
Development Phase 2 (AJAX it up while maintaining accessibility)
Testing Phase 2
Release

I would be having serious questions asked of me in terms of whether the extra time and cost would ever justify the "benefits". Bear in mind that when we have discussed AJAX implementations at work the first response was "well, aren't people kind of used to page refreshing now anyway? so aren't we potentially confusing people the other way? They expect a page refresh as an indicator of something having changed or happened".

Flame on... I'm gone (but not very sweet)

Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems? (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490128)

People are still under the impression that web applications can duplicate the "feel" of a native desktop application. Ignoring all those pesky browser buttons that would destroy any AJAX application, JavaScript does make many web apps feel snappier. The app still breaks the second two backbone ISPs have a slap-fight [slashdot.org] , you refuse to pay another $30 for wi-fi access at a Starbucks, or some moron starts BitTorrenting Linux ISOs at work.

Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems? (1)

adnonsense (826530) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490153)

I'm sitting in front of a nascent project right now which is suffering exactly this problem. The main developer is hot onf AJAX-enabled forms and the management are lapping them up like they're the best thing since sliced bread. Only thing is, the time he's spending fiddling with the forms isn't being spent taking care of boring, Web 1.0 things like the DB backend, which will ultimately make or break the application.

Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems? (4, Interesting)

BRock97 (17460) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490180)

Damn, I'll bite....

First, where did you get your development cycle and why would you not implement XMLHTTP to begin with (the first development phase)? No wonder your ideas are getting shot down ;-). My college profs would have been steamed if I proposed something like that....

But, I digress. To be honest, I have been using XMLHTTP going on three years now, since well before it was known as AJAX and there are problems that it, and Javascript, solve. I would imagine it all has to do with the type of problem. In my case, I was involved in a project that implemented JSR-168 portlets in a Jetspeed environment. Unfortunately, we had requirements that each portlet had to refresh with data, some at 5 second increments, some updates would be 5 minutes. So, you have a user configurable portal and each portlet had to be dynamic. Sure, you could use a full page refresh, but that would require the refresh time to be set to the shortest duration. Plus, some of the data we presented would require a sizable pull from our Oracle database. Doing that every 5 seconds would have been a nightmare. So, each portlet has its own Javascript implementation that inherits a base XMLHTTP class. Works like a charm and met every one of the customer's timing requirements.

Additionally, I wrote an image looper that worked a great deal like a media player that would update itself with data as new images arrived (it was a weather project). Instead of refreshing the popup window, XMLHTTP was used to retrieve a listing of images and add any new ones to the list. It was pretty cool stuff.

Should XMLHTTP be how we do all web solutions? No, I totally agree with that. But it does present the developer with some unique ways of doing things.

Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490260)

First, where did you get your development cycle and why would you not implement XMLHTTP to begin with (the first development phase)? No wonder your ideas are getting shot down ;-). My college profs would have been steamed if I proposed something like that....

<bragging deleted>

Should XMLHTTP be how we do all web solutions? No, I totally agree with that.

Great job on insulting the guy and then agreeing with him. Way to go, prick!

Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems? (2, Interesting)

kthejoker (931838) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490211)

While I tend to agree that there is a bit of pomp and fluff to a lot of the Web 2.0 technologies, I think that the divide between websites of 2006 and websites of even 2003 is just as large as the divide between the Geocities websites of 1994 and the websites of 2003. In short, web development is accelerating and telescoping like all good technologies.

At their heart, Web 2.0 technologies are being used to improve accessibility and information through standardization and better dissemination modules. But you can also look at the overall shift in the Web of today versus the Web of yesterday:

You can take the Web of today with you.
You can personalize the Web more than ever, with greater precision, on every site.
You can find content on the Web easier, and can regenerate content based on keywords and searches effortlessly.
You can "tag" any information you find on the web, making things easier to sort, easier to filter, easier to find.

In short, the real power of Web 2.0 is that it can put 100% control in the hands of the users. All that junk about breaking back buttons is just noise, a smoke screen that suggests almost as much about the complainer as the complaint.

Everyone should go read what Clay Shirky has to say about Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Seriously, it's bigger than one web method or flashy new language.

Problem is not with refesh (3, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490236)

It is with the back button. Try it with gmail and opera. It doesn't work as expected. Refresh don't matter, gmail does a "loading" thing and if your on a fast con you don't really see the refreshing anyway.

But the back button is the accepted way to back out of an unwanted action and if it is not handled as expected or at least disabled AND warned about then people get confused.

I do not and most web developers don't because we usually HATE the back button as it can really mess with your web apps. Use the fucking cancel button already.

Nonetheless your website has to work as expected.

I used non-refreshing pages for a long time. One of them was a long list of songs where I wished to cue songs to be played. Rather then load it each time you "selected" a song by clicking on an image and javascript would then request a new image wich was a script wich queed the song and returned an image to indicate it had been queed.

Granted AJAX goes a lot further and is very nice BUT I hardly see it as a web 2.0

Ofcourse I never was any good at getting millions needed to finance an upstart either.

If Web 2.0 gets the investment money flowing again then good luck to it. The bubble at least had the economy running. Something like the second law of thermodynamics, energy is never lost? Neither is money. For everyone who lost money in the bubble someone else earned it. Me! And frankly that is all that matters.

Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems? (1)

tooyoung (853621) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490237)

Yes, some people might get a bit of internet fame for creating some bit of software that has rounded corners and gradients, and you can update stuff without the page refreshing, but in my development cycles if I were to propose this:

Planning Phase
Development Phase
Testing Phase
(now we have a working, accessible application)
Development Phase 2 (AJAX it up while maintaining accessibility)
Testing Phase 2
Release
That doesn't seem like a good development cycle for an AJAX application, having worked on several. The refactoring alone would be a nightmare. People tend not to just "AJAX it up" a little bit, what would be the point? If you are smart about using AJAX, it should probably be built into the core of your application. The correct development cycle should be:

Planning Phase (planning for AJAX)
Development Phase (setting up a strong AJAX framework)
Testing Phase

AJAX is one of the technologies that a lot of people are ragging on right now, simply because people think it is the second coming and are throwing it into every webpage. In reality, you should use the technology that is right for the project, not just to "AJAX up" your cousin's band's webpage.

Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems? (1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490256)

Two things.... (not here to flame though)

AJAX is NOT a new thing people are so hyped over what some stoopid object that MS thought up ages ago but people have actually caught on and figured out that is in fact useful. Further to that there are ways to do the same thing as AJAX without utilising the XMLHttpRequest object. Like hidden iframes for instance (i know nasty as it is and sounds).

Second thing, usually doesnt the webs development cycle these days work more like this;

while(developing) {
   if(client==HAPPY) {
      break;
   }
   if(client==WASTES_TIME) {
     overallcost++;
   }
}

sendClientInvoice(client, overallcost);

But aside from that dry level of humor i've attempted to bring to my comment i would like to mention that AJAX isnt a very costly system to implement on a development side of things. If done correctly by having a few standard bits of code that you just drop into the clients site, building AJAX elements into site can infact save a lot of time.

Get over yourself already (4, Insightful)

darjen (879890) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490065)

This rant is no better than someone bragging that they liked such and such a band before it got popular. Then they proceed to complain that the band sold out and no longer writes good music. Oh please!

Re:Get over yourself already (1)

Harbinjer (260165) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490126)

He really doesn't have anything insightful to say at all. I guess he has one point, that we've all heard before: the "Web2.0" buzzword is just that. It doesn't gaurantee anything good, but some good things could be labeled "Web2.0", as the term has been applied(buzzed). Really nothing new and exciting here. Just go read Pual Graham's article as someone else said. You may not agree with him, but I always find a few interesting thoughts in his essays, whether he's right or wrong(75%-25%, respectively, IMO).

Where are the facts? (4, Informative)

shoolz (752000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490072)

The summary suggests that he really "he really sticks it to the Web 2.0 fan boys". But really, the article seems like nothing but a pissy rant. He doesn't put forward the issues and talk about them methodically.

As far as I can tell, the only salient point made is that wire-framing a site with AJAX is difficult.

Re:Where are the facts? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490099)

+1

Screw that, I wrote about Web 4.0 (2, Interesting)

pHatidic (163975) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490083)

If anyone is interested, I recently put up an essay on why Web 2.0 is worthless as currently defined by the technology, and redefined it in a way that makes it more useful. The problem with the current definition is that it can't be used to make predictions, and the definition isn't concrete enough to be actionable. This is because it is defined vaguely in terms of "something something AJAX."

Instead, I propose that:

Web 1.0 is about allowing individuals to create and share ideas.
Web 2.0 is about allowing groups to create and share ideas.
Web 3.0 is about allowing societies to create and share ideas.

The article speculates about the future of blogging and how digital identity will have a much more profound impact on the Web than AJAX and that stuff. This is because, as Howard Rheingold said, "The "killer apps" of tomorrow's mobile infocom industry won't be hardware devices or software programs but social practices."

Anyway, if you are interested you can read the rest [alexkrupp.com] .

Re:Screw that, I wrote about Web 4.0 (5, Insightful)

romiir (874939) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490171)

Quote:
Instead, I propose that:
Web 1.0 is about allowing individuals to create and share ideas.
Web 2.0 is about allowing groups to create and share ideas.
Web 3.0 is about allowing societies to create and share ideas.
Actually it's quite the opposite...

Web 1.0 is about allowing societies to create and share ideas.
Web 2.0 is about allowing groups to create and share ideas.
Web 3.0 is about allowing individuals to create and share ideas.

Yes, from day 1, anyone could put up a simple webpage, but dynamic content, and truely meaningful webpages which can actually get some readers were reserved for only businesses with lots of money. Now today with opensource languages which are free to use, and operate on a free OS, you can run your own webserver with dynamic content for nearly free (the cost of your internet connection).

Re:Screw that, I wrote about Web 4.0 (1)

spectrumCoder (944322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490230)

Hmmm. A simple, neat definition. The only problem is that the rest of the world uses a different definition of Web 1.0 and 2.0. But hey, invent your own private language if you like. In fact, you should probably become a consultant.

Marketing baloney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490089)

When a report starts "Apparently..." as though it had never occured to the author until just a moment ago, you can rest assured that you are reading PR

Don't waste your time with it.

In any case I'm waiting for Web 4.3

feeds n' tags (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490093)

Just make feeds and tags for everything on your site and that should about do it. Anything else web 2.0 requires will be picked up by the jerk On Rails(tm) in the article's automated web 2.0-based robot. It comes to your site and integrates with everything, disables your browser's back button, and leaves a pile of buzzwords in your guestbook.

I have to disagree (1)

openfrog (897716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490100)

The author creates a strawman as easy to shoot as the proverbial elephant. It is a pamphlet, not a well constructed argument. As much as I had found O'Reilly intelligent in his careful and well informed elaboration of his ideas on Web 2.0, obviously a concept, like all others, subject to abuse, as much I am sick of nobodies trying hard to position themselves in the counter position.

Web 2.0 doesn't really sound like the web (4, Insightful)

Cougem (734635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490107)

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :
'Proponents of the Web 2.0 concept say that it differs from early web development, retroactively labeled Web 1.0, in that it is a move away from static websites, email, the use of search engines, and surfing from one website to the next, to a more dynamic and interactive World Wide Web.'
Moving away from email? Email has absolutely nothing to do with the WWW. It's a completely different service. It sounds more like Internet 2.0. You'd never call an email a webpage.

I see the problem: (0, Flamebait)

aug24 (38229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490266)

You seem to have confused the 'edit this page' button on Wikipedia with the 'reply to this' button on Slashdot.

Hope this helps!

Justin.

E-mail is a lot like a webpage actually.. (1)

romiir (874939) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490298)

Quote:
Moving away from email? Email has absolutely nothing to do with the WWW. It's a completely different service. It sounds more like Internet 2.0. You'd never call an email a webpage.


Actually most e-mail now-a-days is exactly like a webpage. Its just not publicly avaliable (Like a page on a webserver; But not all webservers are publicly avaliable either). You get e-mailed pictures and forms all the time I bet. If you can see the pictures before having to unpack them as an attachment, then its a webpage. Its talking about the move to dynamic content. E-mail used to be flat text, now its all about content, I get e-mail all the time with forms in it, from sweepstakes to mailing lists. Not all e-mail supports the great content yet, so most places are still slow to start useing the non plain text mail, but many places already use it. The difference between the new e-mail and a webpage is the way you retrive it. A webserver (the content source) is either public or password protected and you logon and see a webpage. In e-mail, the server (content source) connects to your e-mail server, and sends you the page, which you then login to, in order to view. It is very similar although e-mail uses a different protocol. I would like to see the release of SSMTP for SSL encrypted e-mail for the web 3.0. These are the kind of improvements we are talking about, the switch to dynamic content and away from flat text.

Web 2.0 brought on some interesting solutions... (1)

romiir (874939) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490110)

Modern problems such as dynamic content used to only be avaliable to the big companys who could afford to license server software to run specialized scripts. Now that there are open source web scripting languages which are even more powerful then the older asp and jsp (such as PHP) the internet has become a completely different place. Now you don't need $1000's of dollars to launch a web based company, you only need to learn a simple easy to learn language and have a couple helping hands with backgrounds in webdesign. Now you can build as you go, instead of having to build a skyscraper to get started. Web 2.0 has issues which need resolved, like the rss vs atom content war. I can't wait to see what will come out of Web 3.0. As a modern webdesigner I can not emphasize enough how important PHP and AJAX have been to me. AJAX opens an entire world of new dynamic content for coders smart enough to make it work on all the browsers :)

Re:Web 2.0 brought on some interesting solutions.. (2, Insightful)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490193)

Apache, mod_perl, and PHP have always been Free as in Beer Speech FLOSS FLUSH, and they were used for all the "Web 1.0" apps. People have been hacking on them since the dawn of the Web. How did you ever "need" thousands of dollars to start a company before, where you don't now? Stupid VCs will flush money down the drain almost as readily now (blogs! community! sticky eyeballs! contextual ads!) as they did then (portals! community! sticky eyeballs! banner ads!).

Did I miss something? (1)

DeusExMalex (776652) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490111)

Is it just me or does he never talk about why he hates Web 2.0? All he does is rant about some lardass at an oversold event who kind of talks about Web 2.0, and thus it turns into hate by association.

Can somebody summarize the article? (1)

Max Threshold (540114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490116)

I lost patience after, like, three or four pointless pages.

Re:Can somebody summarize the article? (1)

romiir (874939) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490186)

He doesn't like web 2.0.

weak (1)

Tachikoma (878191) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490129)

web 2.0? 3.0?
my web 3.0 is bigger than your web 3.0, and thats all that matters

Pronounced? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490130)

How do you pronounce Web 2.0? Based on the URL's "web3point0", Jeffrey Zeldman's vote goes to "web two point [oh|zero]" Any other preferences?

Just a question... (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490139)

Who is this Jeffrey Zeldman?

And, as Rasmus Ledorf [theaimsgroup.com] said, ". Lots of people have been using similar things long before it became "AJAX"."

Jeffrey Zeldman (1, Informative)

Tune (17738) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490258)

Jeffrey Zeldman is the author of Designing with Web Standards [zeldman.com] (and who was somehow never adequately punished for writing that book; please look inside [amazon.com] to see what I mean).

I recently made the mistake of buying that book a while ago, as it seemed to present information on ... well ... designing with web standards, you know, xhtml & css. Instead, I found it's a 400+ page rant on oldfashioned non-standard design. There's no information at all about design and hardly anything helpful on web standards.

So, though Jeffrey himself may think differently, IMHO it's silly to regard him as a authority on anything web related.

i am still waiting... (1)

majello (643443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490160)

I guess i'll be holding out and wait for web 3.11 for workgroups. Or Web NT 3.1. Or Web System 10 including cocoa butter. cheers Majello

Worst... (-1, Redundant)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490163)

The Web 3.5 patch is already in development...

If you can't explain it in fifteen seconds... (5, Insightful)

AEther141 (585834) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490164)

It's probably bullshit. The world is full of concepts which aren't really concepts - big balls of fluff that proport to be explaining this hard-to-explain idea but are really just hiding the total lack of substance. Web 2.0 is very much one of them. Web 1.0 is trivial to explain and the concept of hypertext really was revolutionary. A simple idea excecuted well that allows people to do something new, or do something old in a radically new way. Same goes for pagerank, same goes for ebay, same goes for every billion-dollar idea that didn't go out with pets.com. Web 2.0 has no meat, no heart, no simple revolution. Smoke and mirrors for marketers and dwellers of the blogospheric ghetto.

Absolutely: Web 2.0 is like XML but less so (1)

djkitsch (576853) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490239)

This reminds me of this time a few years ago, when XML was the big new thing, and every middle manager was insisting that their crappy little development project used it? It still seems like some have yet to realise that XML is about as exciting as when CSV files were invented. Useful and an improvement, yes - saviour of modern technology, no.

It's refreshing, in this article, to finally read a well constructed comment on the reality of the big loada bull that is "Web 2.0" - the whole concept has caused me such a headache. Every time my boss asks whether "we need to be using Web 2.0 for this?", I have to bang my head on a nearby wall.

I wonder....does anyone have more of an insight into why apparently intelligent (technically-minded!) people have this tendancy to strap a new name on a collection of pre-existing technology and tell us all that it's revolutionary? Was it still revolutionary when we were using AJAX-type stuff before anyone thought of the name "Web 2.0"?

Ideas, anyone?

Re:If you can't explain it in fifteen seconds... (1)

Snap E Tom (128447) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490316)

Exactly.

Two years ago, "Web 2.0" meant XML and RSSing everything.
Last year, "Web 2.0" meant web services and putting up a WSDL/API to everything.
Now, "Web 2.0" means AJAXing your site.

Which one is it? Fuck you, buzzword proponents and marketeers.

We've forgotten (1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490176)

Web 360, Web Vista, Web IIe and lastly Web v1.2.3pre4(alpha-build5)

Web 2.0: Battle of the time-wasters (1)

snowwrestler (896305) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490210)

Sneeringer's maxim of online communities: When users have the power to determine a site's content, the site's content will be determined primarily by those with the most time to waste.

Without some sort of editorial check, the signal to noise ratio of any community-driven online content continously drops. I've seen it on Usenet numerous times. I've seen it on sites like PhotoSig (where the most porn-ish images always get voted up regardless of quality), Boatertalk (where they had to create a whole new forum just for the trolls), and now Digg.

As the need for user filtering becomes more and more pronounced, the value of the site goes down. Why bother going to Digg for my tech news if I have to search the first 3 pages to find something new or interesting?

There are plenty of people out there who care about the sites they participate in and try to make them better. Unfortunately these tend to be busy people, since by nature they care and work hard. As a result their efforts can only be distributed over so many sites. That's why you get great deep discussions on Slashdot, and interesting and accurate content on Wikipedia, but you get mostly crap on most community Web sites. It's why the "Web 2.0" concept is fundamentally not scalable.

Re:Web 2.0: Battle of the time-wasters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490229)

web 1.0 r3 =D

The harsh reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490217)

IE won't support Web 3.0 so this article is moot.

Slow down (1)

squoozer (730327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490222)

I've still not fully figured out Web 1.0 yet.

Ajax & serverside frameworks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14490273)

Recently, a lot of (serverside) frameworks have more or less attempted to add 'easy Ajax!' to their feature list. The problem ? Instead of having to work out user problems with serverside configuration problems, which are relatively easy, they now face a horde of new, ajax-loving users with a huge set of specific clientside related problems, which are far more difficult to solve.

Ajax returning a great RoI, better usability, faster, more desktop-like webapps ? All true, if you happen to have a team of Javascript gurus laying around. If not, prepare for a little surprise at the next browser/framework/.. update.

A fool and his money? (4, Insightful)

SloppyElvis (450156) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490283)

It seems everyone in this forum is clear on the fact that Web 2.0 isn't the revolution VC's want it to be. At best, its hopeful it will displace the real estate bubble as the bubbliest bubble around.

Ironic that there seems to be some emphasis on usability, as if this weren't possible with the antiquated Web 1.0. What a pant-load! I find Google to be usable. In fact, there are many "old fashioned" sites that are perfectly usable.

People don't go to Netflix because it has "dynamic content"; they go because they want movies mailed to their house. They visit ebay because they want to buy or sell stuff. Am I going to visit ESPN because now there's more crap floating around the screen screaming at me to click-it? Nope, I visit only to see the scores of last night's game, or possibly even to read some commentary. The experience has never been good enough to be a draw in and of itself. Heck, there's a new IMAX theater in town, and I won't even go there until a decent show is screening.

The same basic tenet applies to all versions of Web x.x...

If your site is useful or entertaining people will visit. Dynamic content can help A LITTLE BIT in IMPROVING a site, but they cannot make the site good just by their being employed.

In other news... (2, Funny)

NardofDoom (821951) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490284)

In other news: Only a very few people will get rich and everyone else will continue to have to work for a living, many of them in jobs they don't like.

Since when has not being a multi-millionaire been a bad thing?

There's _three_ now? (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490286)

So... What's Web 1.0?

Dispatch AJAX and Warlock... (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490293)

On the subject of AJAX, has anyone tried to use it from (for want of a better term) 'first principles' - i.e. not just using a toolkit to do the heavy lifting, but written a mini-project to find out what AJAX is fundamentally about?

I did this. The overall impression I get is that AJAX is the term for what is a really ugly kludge. The old RAF terminology for what AJAX is is 'graunching' - forcing components together that don't really fit. It doesn't feel elegant, it feels nasty. It feels like forcing HTTP to do what it was never designed to do. Even a simple interface has performance reminiscent of Windows 3.1 on a 386 when it's running on the latest dual Xeon workstation. Javascript generating fragments of HTML to build a user interface in particular feels like a very blunt instrument, sort of like finding a big enough hammer to pound a screw into a piece of wood instead of just drilling a pilot hole then using a screwdriver.

Dumb Terminals 2.0 (4, Insightful)

cyberjessy (444290) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490297)

The real problem with Web 2.0 is that it completely ignores the power of the client machines. Even if you have a screaming processor with a gigabyte of RAM, it is just the same as if you had a 3 year old machine. While its ok, even ideal for documents and general reading is that what we desire from Applications, which is what Web 2.0 is about? The Web has not really grown up from HTML Docs.

In my Web 3.0, I want applications to use my machine. I want applications to be sandboxed, I want to run them securely, and they need to be fast and capable. Java applets (although everyone hated it) is much closer to Web 2.0 than anything we have now. As much as the Slashdot crowd might hate it, the next version of the Web might come with Windows Vista, with Xaml (SVG like) applications, hardware accelerated 3d graphics, and running with limited permissions. I hope there are alternatives too.

Before you start flaming me, think about cycles wasted per second.

Where's my magnifying glass? (0, Troll)

Porchroof (726270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490318)

I didn't take time to read everything here mainly because it's a lot of crap. But I would have liked to have read the article at http://www.alistapart.com/articles/web3point0 [alistapart.com] , which apparently started all of this.

BUT I CAN'T READ 4-POINT TYPE.

WebXP (1)

Hank Chinaski (257573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490323)

I for one am waiting for the new and improved WebXP
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...