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!

The Best of Web 2.0

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the so-shiny-and-useable dept.

228

Fennie writes "Designtechnica has published their 2006 Best of Web 2.0 list. Some of the sites include Flickr.com, Vimeo.com and Writeboard.com. From the piece: 'The next generation of the web is here! With new kinds of desktop-like applications being released left and right, how will you know where to go and what to use? That's why we're here: To show you the best of Web 2.0 sites that you can get the most out of. No matter the task, video, audio, or photos, we have a site that works great for what you want to do and uses all the great features of Web 2.0 technology.'"

cancel ×

228 comments

FP Beeyotches (-1, Troll)

eosp (885380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797556)

Frosty piss...can't do anything about it.

Worst Piece of Jargon (5, Insightful)

ARRRLovin (807926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797559)

1) Web 2.0

Re:Worst Piece of Jargon (1)

Directrix1 (157787) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797836)

Yes please let that term die, along with the dumbass that coined it. Not only is it completely irrelevant to anything real, it also belittles all the real progress that has gradually been happening over the years. Anyways real versions aren't nice and round like 2.0, they are big long non-decimal strings like 2.6.16-rc4-mm2 or 0.9.10.

Re:Worst Piece of Jargon (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14798195)

Pfft. That's nothing compared to my kernel:

# uname -r
2.6.12.6-xen-skas3-v9-pre7-skas3-v9-pre7

If you're wondering, I misused Debian's make-kpkg, and I haven't bothered to find out what I *should* have done, but it works for me.

Mod article -1 Marketing (2, Interesting)

MrNougat (927651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797861)

So what "version" was the web when Java applets became popular? What about frames? What about annoying midi background music? What about inline images?

It's fairly obvious that "Web 2.0" and "blogosphere" and the like are marketing terms. The real questions are: What marketers are coming up with these things, and who's paying them to do it? I'm thinking it's The Carlyle Group, or the Bilderbergers, or the Knights Templar.

Re:Mod article -1 Marketing (1)

sumday (888112) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797984)

Yeah, anything that doesn't make sense must be sinister. I'm with you on the Bilderburgers. Web 2.0 is all part of their diabolical plan for world domination.

On a side note, nice signature.

Re:Worst Piece of Jargon (4, Funny)

rs79 (71822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797926)

Fixed in Web 2.1

Great (1)

RedHatLinux (453603) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797573)

We'll get pets.com, shovelyourdrivemaam, and other nonsense companies all over again, as this time, they're selling on Web 2.0

Re:Great (2, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797729)

It's not that those are bad ideas. Just not multi-million dollar ideas.

That's great! (1)

bran6don (693931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797576)

But what are these great features of Web 2.0 technology ?

Re:That's great! (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797736)

Dot Com Bubble 2.0

Re:That's great! (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797767)

I can't speak for the rest, but I'm working very hard to make sure that porn is searchable in ways once thought impossible. This isn't just some silly tagging scheme folks, if you like, you'll be able to write SQL queries to return only those pictures where the girls legs are spread more than 45deg...

(For the love of god, will you let us use a few goddamn entities Taco? & deg; would be nice, you know...)

Re:That's great! (1)

handslikesnakes (659012) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797906)

that's what unicode is for, silly.

Re:That's great! (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797987)

Laptop, so no numeric keypad. Copied and pasted a straightup degree symbol, previewed, still didn't show. Not sure what's going on, but it was stripping the the thing, and it seemed to do it no matter what formatting I chose.

Re:That's great! (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798056)

that's what unicode is for, silly.

Here's a degree symbol in Unicode: [] Oh, wait, Slashdot won't display it. It shows up fine in the text area...

Next suggestion?

Re:That's great! (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798189)

Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

That's what entities are for, silly.

In Soviet Russia (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797581)

In Soviet Russia, 2.0 WEBS YOU!!!

*tweet*, flag on the play. (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797583)

> Designtechnica has published their 2006 Best of Web 2.0 list. Some of the sites include Flicker.com,

Attention! Article submitter is guilty of W2C (Web 2.0 Consortium) standards violation. "Flickr", not "Flicker". If a domain doesn't end in ".us" and spell an English word, you must drop a vowel.

We realize you correctly linked to flickr.com, and we're not trying to be offici.ous; we're just asking that you use a Web-2.0-compliant spelling-checkr.

Re:*tweet*, flag on the play. (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797611)

we're not trying to be offici.ous

Clippy sez: "Did you mean officio.us [officio.us] ?"

Re:*tweet*, flag on the play. (1)

jtorkbob (885054) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797668)

Please tell me you didn't _just_ go and register that...

domain propagation is pretty fast these days.

Re:*tweet*, flag on the play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797803)

it actually used to be a site-- del.icio.us tool, don't remember what it did though.

Re:*tweet*, flag on the play. (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797688)

> > we're not trying to be offici.ous
>
> Clippy sez: "Did you mean officio.us [officio.us]?"

Yeah, but now that you mention it, Clippy, I'd like to:

  • Register officio.us for domainsquatting purposes
  • Live just long enough to be there when they cut off the heads of the GoDaddy.com marketing department and stick them on pikes, as a reminder to the next ten generations that some 30-second spots come at too high a price.
  • And whisper into their lifeless ears... "don't show me that commercial again!"

Re:*tweet*, flag on the play. (1)

JahToasted (517101) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798163)

What commercial are you refering to?

FlickEr.com (1)

Thieflar (889105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797590)

Bartender, give me a Flicker! http://www.flicker.com/ [flicker.com]

This list can't be accepted... (3, Funny)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797596)

they forgot the True Incarnation of web 2.0 [parm.net] , the embodyment of what "Web 2.0" means, the body and soul of the movement.

Re:This list can't be accepted... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797731)

I wonder if they have a seperate support network for the xml crowd?

Re:This list can't be accepted... (1)

imjustabigcat (715029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797937)

You owe me a keyboard :-)

I can just hear the marketing people now...."but, it doesn't have rounded corners on the box thingy!"

I'd be more interested.. (3, Insightful)

Mowie_X (600765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797598)

..in a best of developer technology list..
Stuff like AJAX, .NET Fx, Rails that is really making developing for the web much more fun.

Re:I'd be more interested.. (1)

ScottyH (791307) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797833)

What is .NET FX?

Re:I'd be more interested.. (2, Funny)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797975)

Probably Ruby# on Rails.NET.

People use these? (3, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797603)

Total number of these webpages I've ever used.... 1, Google Maps.
Total number of these webpages that even remotely serve a need.... 2, Google Maps and maybe Google Local.

And for directions, google is easily beaten by Rand-Mcnally. Only the satelite maps feature gives it a good use.

So whats all the hype for? If I take a photo, I don't want it indexed to the world- I send it to the 2-3 people who might give a shit. Same with video. Back when I used IM (before all my friends stopped using it) I used Trillian to the same effect as they use Meebo, with awesome side features (chat logs). I sure as hell don't want my bookmarks searchable to the world.

Looks more like a set of pop favorites for the under 20 crowd than it does actually useful sites.

Re:People use these? QWZX (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797674)

Back when I used IM (before all my friends stopped using it) I used Trillian to the same effect as they use Meebo, with awesome side features (chat logs). I sure as hell don't want my bookmarks searchable to the world.

[old man voice] Back in MAH day, we didn't need no fancy CEEdees, we had wax cylinders! And we liked 'em JEST fine! We didn't need no COLOR on cars, we had 'em in good ol' BLACK. It's all a buncha flashy NONsense, dang it. Where the HE-ELL is mah godDAMN geritol, damn kids these days...

Re:People use these? QWZX (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797696)

I used IM for one purpose- to keep track on existing friends. Not to chat with random people on the web. As my friends spent less and less time on it due to rl, so did I. Eventually it hit the point where I'd see someone on once a week, and I just uninstalled the damn thing.

Re:People use these? QWZX (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797781)

Meanwhile, other people still use IM as a means of communication. I don't think it's the second coming or whatever, but Meebo has been a nice thing to have in the past weeks on third-party computers I just didn't want to clutter with Miranda or Trillian. Like at work, I can just log into Meebo when I need to talk to an acquaintance. The alternative is ICQ2Go (or whatever it's called), but Meebo is just more lightweight and elegant.

Re:People use these? QWZX (2, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797812)

If I had mod points, you'd get 'em. I've been skimming these comments, and it seems like one curmudgeon after another.

You'd think Slashdot would be full of people interested in innovation, not the other way around, but it's all stuff like:

"We had usenet, and we liked it! What's this RSS crap!

"We could write personal diaries! Of course we had to hand-code the HTML, including all the links, and we couldn't do it from anywhere in the world just by loggin in from a web browser, we had to telnet onto the server and type it in vimacs, but it was good enough for me, I don't see what the big deal is with all this blogging nonsense.

"Interactive HTML? Hah! The only thing that should interact is the Submit button! You hear that, Web 2.0? Submit to me like a good little program! Hyah! Hyah! Hya-- *cough* *hack* *wheeze*"

Re:People use these? QWZX (0, Redundant)

bfioca (695852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797914)

I'm with you. I have mod points, but I already posted in here. Drat.

Re:People use these? QWZX (4, Insightful)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797955)

You'd think Slashdot would be full of people interested in innovation, not the other way around

For the most part people here are VERY interested in technological innovation. Problem is, "Web 2.0" is at least decade old technology. You'll find here people aren't too excited about marketing droids going on and on about faux innovation, however any real innovation is another story.

Re:People use these? QWZX (2, Insightful)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797967)

Slashdot would be full of people interested in innovation

This article isn't about innovation. It's about buzzword fanaticism and marketers having wet dreams over The Next Big Thing without realizing that those techniques have been around for years.

Re:People use these? QWZX (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798005)

Then again, considering how amazingly fast the internet (especially the most popular browser) has traditionally been at properly adopting technologies like CSS, PNG or the application/xhtml+xml MIME type it's no wonder that years-old technology is going to be the Next Big Thing. The next Next Big Thing is probably going to be CSS3. Somewhere around 2010.

Re:People use these? (2, Insightful)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797737)

Am I just paranoid? Why would I enter my IM account info to a beta web site I know nothing about, like meebo.com?

Re:People use these? (2, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797901)

If I take a photo, I don't want it indexed to the world- I send it to the 2-3 people who might give a shit.

And just because YOU aren't interested in things like Flickr, nobody else can or should be either?

Re:People use these? (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798030)

Note that outside of the USA, the UK and Japan Google Maps and especially Google Local serve pretty much no use whatsoever. The European mainland? No maps, no high-res sat shots. Mainland Asia? You won't even find the capitals. 85% of the world? Nada. Niente. Zilch.

So, if you are actually living outside of the USA, the UK or Japan all you get are toy sites with usually clunky interfaces. Go Web 2.0. Rah rah rah.

Re:People use these? (1)

geekd (14774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798199)

So, if you are actually living outside of the USA, the UK or Japan all you get are toy sites with usually clunky interfaces. Go Web 2.0. Rah rah rah.

There are people outside of the US, UK and Japan? I thought that was the mutant zone.

(I'm JOKING, PEOPLE! I've been to the mutant zone, the people seem normal enough. And Absinthe is legal. They use it to keep the mutations in check.)

AJAXify (4, Insightful)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797606)

Does a boring, old "Web 1.0" site become an Exciting, Hip, New & Improved Web 2.0 site just by using a little CSS & the XMLHttpRequest, er... sorry..., AJAX?

Re:AJAXify (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797795)

Add VC money?

The complete list (1, Informative)

Life700MB (930032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797613)


The list:

* Flickr [flickr.com] * Vimeo [vimeo.com] * Del.icio.us [del.icio.us] * Digg [digg.com] * Bloglines [bloglines.com] * Netvibes [netvibes.com] * Writeboard [writeboard.com] * Google Maps [google.com] * Google Local [google.com] * Meebo [meebo.com]
--
Superb hosting [tinyurl.com] 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

What exactly is web 2.0? (1)

counterfriction (934292) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797616)

I don't get what that site is trying to say. If I was looking for a certain web service, I might consider querying google.com [google.com] , which I notice isn't listed in TFA (google maps/local is, but not the search engine). Nor is wikipedia, which could fit quite congruously under the Start pages section, or even a section of its own.

It is interesting however to consider that "To some extent Web 2.0 has become a buzzword, incorporating whatever is newly popular on the Web" -From wikipedia's definition [wikipedia.org]

An audio indicator (1)

bxbaser (252102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798032)

Its a audio indicator that indicates the person using "Web 2.0" is clueless.

Its a way to sell something to the same person that you couldnt sell to last year.

Digg... (4, Insightful)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797637)

Just don't say Digg! It's like reading Slashdot with the filter set at -1. Only worse.

Re:Digg... (1)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797756)

Dolemite sez.. Digg! Web 2.0!

Re:Digg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797951)

Far as I'm concerned, Digg.com is what slashdot would look like if there weren't editors making story selections. Every time someone on slashdot whines about wanting story voting, I think of the hundred-per-day lists of "COOL FREE SOFTWEARS!" and "CSS TUTORIALZ!" on digg.

Having said that, I also hate that I see most things on Digg appearing on Slashdot three days later.

Re:Digg... (2, Insightful)

shish (588640) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798096)

But digg is the perfect example of web 2.0 -- it's just like web 1.0, but the useful content has been replaced with pretty CSS, AJAX tricks, and gradient filled rounded rectangles!

Even the community around it is very web 2.0 -- it encourages participation from all, no matter how unskilled or ignorant of the subject at hand~

Come to think of it, I think Web 2.0 is a metaphor for the modern world :(

Re:Digg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14798145)

Most insightful comment I've read on Slashdot in years. I don't understand why anyone would submit themselves to the idiocy that is Digg. Everything from the atrocious programming behind the site to the community itself is horrible.

Web 2.0? (3, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797638)

I never use something that has a version number ending in .0! That's always the buggy release. Besides, I've yet to hear of a single "feature" of this purported 2.0 that wasn't being done with HyperCard and couldn't have been done on Ted Nielson's Xanadu (if anyone had developed it). I see no reason to dignify bugfixes with a change in the major version number.


"But what about blogs?" What about them? People were writing diaries on USENET long before the CERN webserver ever came out. (Was CERN Web 0.0? And would NCSA or Apache be considered 1.0?) Cross-referencing and searches existed in Gopher and WAIS.


"Dynamic HTML?" There were perl scripts for emedding msql queries (not MySQL - msql) into web pages long before anyone had imagined you'd be doing anything other than CGI and many years before HTML 3 came out. Indeed, if you want merely programmable web pages (not database-generated pages) then the mere existance of CGI is enough.


"User-defined web pages" Oracle's "Powerbrowser" included a built-in web server which could serve a limited number of pages to external users. That was back in 1996, if I recall correctly.


Let me know when something worthy of a "Web 2.0" comes out, and THEN I'll pay attention.

Re:Web 2.0? (3, Funny)

Radres (776901) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797680)

"Every idea's stolen these days. Why the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron with a phone attached!"

- Grandpa Simpson

Re:Web 2.0? (3, Funny)

Angostura (703910) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797686)

I've just upgraded to Web 2.0.1 So far it seems a bit snappier.

Next week: Web 3.0, it's when you can actually download all of the active content onto local storage and run it while disconnected as something they call "An Application". Wild.

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798041)

You fail it. The successor of Web 2.0 will be Web 3D. There's nothing after that, but everyone will be talking about how cool it will be wenn Web Forever comes out.

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797687)

you fail to relize the The Internet does not equal the World Wide Web.

Not that there is anythng happening now that wasn't happening 10 years ago...

Re:Web 2.0? (2)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797763)

You can take your Web 2.0 and stick it up your information superhighway!

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

danharan (714822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797878)

Yeah, I really see no difference between the good ol' pico and this newfangled gmail.

Check the Web 2.0 DNA [techcrunch.com] stuff. There's a lot of hype, but some real advances in there as well. two-point-oh is cringe-worthy, but we need some way to label all this newish stuff.

Re:Web 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14798107)

Yeah, I really see no difference between the good ol' pico and this newfangled gmail.

Except pico is easier to use and doesn't have an unnecessary dependance on a web browser.

Re:Web 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14798022)

You miss the point. The whole fuss about AJAX is that you don't have to constantly create the whole page for every request. I.e. you can simply create real application feel and not the crappy web wank fest we have now, and without ghastly plug-ins and fscking useless client side javascript that invariable breaks across various browsers and versions.

Re:Web 2.0? (2, Insightful)

symbolic (11752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798064)

I hate to break this to you, but without client-side javascript, AJAX doesn't exist.

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

AliasMoze (623272) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798104)

"Web 2.0" to the web what "auteur" is to filmmaking. Sure, it's a loose term, but to those with a taste for it, the term definitely describes something.

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798206)

In that case, you'll have to give up using Java, all versions of which are now "dot oh".

oe4! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797677)

is perhaps fucking numbers, iS busy infighting create, manufacture

This is the best? (3, Interesting)

SJasperson (811166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797685)

I've been forced to use Writeboard as part of our corporate Basecamp installation. It's got to be the least-functional wiki implementation out there, with very few formatting choices, almost no documentation, and slow response time. Oh, but wait, it comes from a sexy Web 2.0 company, so it must be good. There are better wikis (almost all of them), better AJAXified word processors (Writely), better collaborative tools that let you choose between wiki markup and WYSIWYG (JotSpot), so how did this dog get on the list? Perhaps the writers hang out at the same trendy coffeehouses chortling over their Web 2.0 antics...

Web 2.0 technology? (0, Redundant)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797694)

Stop! I'm sick of it. Its just a little javascript and some XML. It isn't "desktop-like." They're just web sites. This isn't new technlology. Give it a rest.

I think I am going to shoot the next person who says "Web 2.0."

-matthew

Re:Web 2.0 technology? (2, Funny)

Radres (776901) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797701)

Web 2.0

Re:Web 2.0 technology? (0)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797748)

When you least expect it...

Re:Web 2.0 technology? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797834)

What a fucking dumbass.

Re:Web 2.0 technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797842)

BANG!

Re:Web 2.0 technology? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797739)

You know I never even heard of web 2.0 until a few months ago on slashdot. I asked plainly wtf is web2.0?

The response was a website with buzzwords and nothing more. I heard its the new thing today in software development. Just throw buzzwords and let the salesman tell the user what your product actually does.

I dunno.

Its silly and I agree. At least the hype with ruby on rails, or some other new thing is that its an actual product. Not a vague concept blown out of proportions. A site is just a site as far as I am concenred.

Re:Web 2.0 technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797908)

what, and google maps isn't an actual product, with real advantages over eg. mapquest?

you miss the point (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797745)

Web 2.0 is just a way to bring investers back. That is it. The people who came up with it know this, everyone else just blindly says "it's better" because it's 2.0

Re:you miss the point (1)

bfioca (695852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797841)

There's nothing wrong with bringing the investors back. We NEED investors. If they get their kicks from clever marketing, so be it. It keeps us employed.

The above are all... (0, Offtopic)

bfioca (695852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797770)

the stodgiest comments I've ever seen. This isn't flamebait, it's informative.

Balthasar (1)

PCeye (661091) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797773)

I bet Balthasar are googling for the latest and greatest web goodies to sick their lawyers against.

sheesh (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797777)

Is there anything more entertaining than watching Slashdotters talk trash about Ajax? Yeah, we know, you were doing all this back in 1986.

2.0 (1)

ben_1432 (871549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797799)

The best thing about 2.0 is all the little kiddies will get over it once puberty finishes, allowing "web 3.0" to return back to being "web pages" instead of social experimental data mining ajaxified phenomenons and crap.

Do I care if
- requests are made in the background (aka ajax)
- the page posts back and re-renders (non ajax)

No, no I don't. I'm yet to see a single ajax feature I couldn't live without.

Re:2.0 (2, Insightful)

bfioca (695852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797857)

"No, no I don't. I'm yet to see a single ajax feature I couldn't live without."

That's absurd. So, who cares about progress? Screw HDTV then, it's just fancy TV. Forget about Java, it's just fancy C++. The internet is just fancy radio.

Like the terminology or not, "Web 2.0" is progress. Progress is good. God bless America, and so on.

Re:2.0 (2, Insightful)

sumday (888112) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797884)

you'd care if you were a webmaster for a large database-driven site.

"what will be kinder to my servers? Sending this user the entire page again, or just sending that little bit at the bottom that needs to be updated? hmmmm...."

ajax stands to save people quite a bit of money in bandwidth fees and processor time.

Re:2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797966)

I'm not an admin, and I still care - gmail is BETTER than hotmail, more responsive, because of AJAX, because it doesn't have to reload the whole fucking page just to see the next message. Yes, latency is extremely important in user interfaces. This is not news.

Re:2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14798071)

I'm not an admin, and I still care - gmail is BETTER than hotmail, more responsive, because of AJAX, because it doesn't have to reload the whole fucking page just to see the next message. Yes, latency is extremely important in user interfaces. This is not news.

If it's SO important, use a regular, stand alone email program.

Re:2.0 (1)

Debiant (254216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798149)

I'm sure there are lot techologies and solutions some people find godsend. Still, it doesn't mean that each or any of those will blow everybody elses mind.

Isn't this just one of those 'silver bullet' ideas that has lot good argument for it? IT and programming field has lot of those, and their problem is that while some solutions are good solving certain problems, very few solve all the most pressing problems average designer encounters.

I think one should go for WEB 2 if one is learning to do webdesingn first tme. But if you have already well learn tools and skills, majority of webdesigners will not feel learning it mandatory. It's not must.

There is also lot of legacy code that isn't turned to WEB 2 overnigth. And I think moving there isn't even cost effective if ít doesn't enchance something that is worth of the time sacrificed for it.

WEB 2.0 != Internet 2

Re:2.0 (1)

ben_1432 (871549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798174)

you'd care if you were a webmaster for a large database-driven site.

I am, for multiple sites, and ASP.NET allows you to only process things in the initial page load, with different (or no) behaviour for posting back.

Caching prevents even more processing time, and browser caching saves a lot of bandwidth.

I'm not "against" Ajax, I even use it, but it doesn't magically make a page better.

In other news... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797809)

Linux is STILL for fags.

Web 2.0 label technology-centric, not user-centric (2, Insightful)

lazzaro (29860) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797854)

I was surprised to see YouTube didn't make the list -- it's the sort of unfiltered snapshot of the world you rarely see on the Internet anymore. It reminds me of 80's-era Usenet but for movies.

Then I realized that sinces its movie delivery is Flash based, and its UI is AJAX-free, it probably doesn't qualify as "Web 2.0" in their book ...

Which made me realize that it's really a technology centric label and not a user-centric one.

"Web 2.0 technology"? What's that? (1)

imjustabigcat (715029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797873)

What utter crap.

Please, someone give the marketing people sedatives before they hurt themselves.

Every time I hear one of these clueless clowns talk about "new technology", it just reminds me of how shallow their historical perspective is. I'm not sure what's worse -- listening to these idiots or watching them get funding for what is nothing more than a pretty website with a bit of Javascript masquerading as The Next Big Thing(tm). And of course, this will all be the rage until next month, when we throw everything away for The Next Big Thing 2.0(tm).

Of course, we all know it's not about technology -- it's about publishing articles, books and white papers, holding symposia, forums, trade shows and meetings where we can all pay to hear someone pontificate about The Next Big Thing(tm). Let's not forget all of the advertising real estate made available by all those magazines, books, symposia, forums, trade shows and meetings.

Heaven help you if you even quietly ask exactly what all of this does for the customer, or why it is that their Next Big Thing(tm) cratered after a year and $25 million.

No, I'm not a curmudgeon. I just sound like one.

Web 2.0? (1)

Pegasus (13291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797905)

I'm fine with HTML 2.0, thank you.

Web 2.0: e're still (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14797960)

Now if we could just get companies to spell check their Web 2.0 sites with tools like this [inspyder.com] we'd be all set.

Taken from www.writeboard.com:
Everthing that was deleted will be grey and struck, everything that's new will be highlighted green.

Huh? (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797962)

Only a few months ago we were told that "Web 2.0" was being created. Is it here already? Even without new HTML/CSS/Ajax(tm) standards in place? Even without new browsers to implement them?

What is there in this "technology" that is in any way significant? Or is it just a bunch of stale hype?

Vimeo (2, Funny)

stateofmind (756903) | more than 8 years ago | (#14797983)

I'm still not sure what Web 2.0 is (other then some js,xml,ajax,etc..), but at least it lets me listen to a aussie chick complain about petrol and an id.

Upset about petrol [vimeo.com]

cant read the article (2, Funny)

bxbaser (252102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798009)

I got no time wife 2.0 is complaining 11.0 that we never watch tv 3.0 together, its snowing 12.0 here and i have to get up early tomorrow 14,321.0 to shovel car 9.0 out of the snow to goto job 7.0

Wake me up when Client/SOA hits (4, Interesting)

Baldrson (78598) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798014)

Harry Fuecks has an insightful article on the two kinds of AJAX [sitepoint.com] "HTML++" and "Client/SOA":
HTML++

AJAX is used to enhance existing HTML forms / user interaction but the fundamental paradigm is still the same as "normal" web applications. Some key smells of this style;

  1. Page reloads still happen frequently
  2. It's possible (if you make the effort) to degrade gracefully to non-supporting browsers / browsers with JS turned off.
  3. Session state still resides on the server.

In practice this is what everyone's doing right now, with varying degrees of success.

...

Client / SOA...

Some of the key smells with Client / SOA;

  1. Page reloads are rare, if at all. The application tends to run in a single browser window.
  2. It's practically impossible to degrade gracefully, without maintaining seperate code bases.
  3. Session state is largely handled by the client.
  4. Javascript and the browser are acting as a runtime in the same sense as the Java or .NET runtime.
  5. It's going to require specialist developers
I don't think Web 2.0 is going to get really interesting until Client/SOA hits.

#irc.troll7alk.com (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14798023)

u=sers all over the

web 2.0 is way behind aol right now (1)

bxbaser (252102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798039)

Aol is at 9.0 i think.

Damn them aolers they must be driving flying cars and have robotic servents right now.

All you need to know about Web 2.0... (4, Informative)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 8 years ago | (#14798046)

can be found here [somethingawful.com]
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...