Beta
×

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 2.0 Goes To Work

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the about-time-you-started-pulling-your-weight dept.

100

An anonymous reader writes "News.com is reporting on analyst predictions that Web 2.0 has begun meeting up with enterprise software in the business world." From the article: "Buttoned-down IBM, which mainly sells to businesses, on Wednesday detailed QEDwiki, for example. The project is meant to let people assemble Web applications using wikis, really simple syndication (RSS) and simple Web scripting. Similarly, the grassroots direct-marketing techniques of the consumer world are starting to be used to tout enterprise software, analysts said. The enterprise software market, once the hotbed of innovation, is starting to catch up to the consumer Web, where people are becoming used to melding data from their desktop with services online. It's a shift that could shake up the traditional enterprise-software model, experts predicted. "

cancel ×

100 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Web 2.0 Goes to Work (-1)

clem (5683) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221690)

Snoop Webby Web -- need to get youself a jobby job!

Re:Web 2.0 Goes to Work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221884)

That was so lame.. like.. beyond gay.

Re:Web 2.0 Goes to Work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222001)

There are different degrees of gayness.

There's gay.

Then über-gay.

Then finally, Sorbo [wikipedia.org] -gay

I don't know who made this up, but trust me, next time you're at a party and somebody starts in with the Web 2.0 talk, you can turn to him and say, "that's Sorbo-gay!" and the girl next to him will start talking to you.

Who am I kidding, there are no girls that such parties.

asdf (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221701)

first post!!!! becca is a winner!

Risk Managment (3, Interesting)

RunFatBoy.net (960072) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221703)

The enterprise will always be behind for the simple fact that any new sort of technology assumes a certain amount of risk and that risk is most apparent when that technology is new.

Even something as straight forward as a wiki will be seen as a risk. When wiki's were first being utilized, I'm sure every PHB out there was asking the statement, "There's no way we can trust our customers to provide documentation, at least not without some sort of oversight by us!"

Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ [runfatboy.net] -- Exercise for web 2.0.

Re:Risk Managment (5, Interesting)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221817)

From the article: However, Smith said that a lot of Web 2.0 software still has serious technical pitfalls, like security, which should worry corporate customers. "If I'm mixing AJAX and wiki technology, I'm really creating a hacker's paradise," Smith said.

And that right there is the risk a lot of IT managers will not be willing to take, until these technologies can prove they are robust enough and secure enough to keep someone from gaining easy access to their systems. Companies spend vast amounts of time building defenses and aren't about to hand out the keys to the back door if they can help it.

Re:Risk Managment (1)

bigpat (158134) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222157)

until these technologies can prove they are robust enough and secure enough to keep someone from gaining easy access to their systems.

In this case "technologies" really means coding practices. Because we are talking mostly about something you do rather than something you use. The technologies can probably be used both securely or insecurely, there are benefits to both approaches. What it is really about is giving enough time for best practices to float to the top. Which means a lot of writing on messgeboards and mailing lists, and sharing experiences... and book writing.

I think they mean the 'solutions' aren't ready. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222412)

Actually I think "technologies" here really means "solutions" (a real buzzword-of-buzzwords); basically people are saying/complaining that if they went out right now and grabbed an AJAX package and a Wiki package, melded the two of them together, it would be insecure.

I don't think there's any debate that if you planned it well, you could make a secure web-delivered application using AJAX and which had some wiki-like functions (at least as secure as any other web delivered application), but a ground-up coding effort isn't what most PHBs (or really anyone else) wants. They want something that's basically COTS, and they can basically roll out, customize a little with their logo, and be done with. "Production ready," in other words.

Notwithstanding the naiveté inherent in this ideal, I think what they're saying is that the technology is not quite there because nobody has sat down and designed something that would be secure, but none of the potential users really want to do that. They'd rather just call it "not ready" and "immature" until somehow the work gets done, and they can turn around and deploy it.

Re:Risk Managment (1)

OctoberSky (888619) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222100)

"The enterprise will always be behind for the simple fact that any new sort of technology assumes a certain amount of risk and that risk is most apparent when that technology is new."

That's funny, I never thought about the risks of new technology holding them back. I just thought that the Enterprise was slow because it was crappy technology. Now give me a Wraith Hive Ship or Spaceball 1, and it's Ludicrous Speed and we can talk technology.

"Lonestar: It's Spaceball 1.

Barf: They've gone to plaid!"

Re:Risk Managment - not just PHB (1)

daveb (4522) | more than 7 years ago | (#15224019)

I'm sure every PHB out there was asking [how can we ever trust this

It's not just the Pointy Headed Boss that should be asking this. Any sys-admin through to junior technician that's worth their salt should shy away from implimenting bleeding edge technologies or ideas in a mainstream production environment.

I might be able to cope with using apt-get or SUS to download and install patchs FULL without testing (who has the time or resources to thourghly test every patch?? We test on a disposable server to see if it crashes on install - end of story). But any IT person who races to impliment the latest fad in their corporate infrastructure is an incompetent boob. In my experience the PHB (business boss not IT manager) needs the technicians to reign in their enthusiastic urge to "lets do it".

Already released? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221708)

I thought Web 2.0 was still in beta.

Re:Already released? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222158)

Yeah, I heard it is going to be release later this year. right?

Re:Already released? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222190)

Web 2.0 is the same as Web 1.0 but with "sexy" results.

Re:Already released? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222251)

Are you sure you're not thinking of Google 5.0 [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Already released? (1)

Directrix1 (157787) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222590)

Web 2.0 is still in the annoying buzzword with no actual meaning phase. The next phases of Web 2.0 are: bickering over its meaning, widescale uninformed implementation, related budgetary over allocations, failure to live up to its promise, radical reduction in usage, and finally elminiation resulting with a very very small practical subset of the originally planned rollout. So yeah, in Google terms it is still Beta.

Re:Already released? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15224213)

Yes! But the next beta will include the "paradigm shift" API, "a free market calculator", the "interactive innovation" feature, it will use the brand new "core assets and intellectual property evaluation algorithm" and of cource - the long avaited "asynchronous digitally automated remastering" feature for interactive XML pr0n (aka. the next-next-next generation podcast).

Not to mention, when 2.0 goes stable it will be fresh frozen and available at K-Mart for the low, low price of $9,95! For commercial use you may license the source code for $20,000 only! But there's more - you get 2 hours of FREE online support!

Of cource, you could just use plain'ol HTML but we don't recommend it because we wouldn't make money on it and Web 2.0 has been proven to be nearly 238% more secure.

Yours truly,
    The Web 2.0 PR department

(Please gaaawd shoot me NOW - these cheezy buzzword yuppies have infected me!)

Ugh (4, Interesting)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221719)

For example, Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs and AJAX are starting to show their potential behind corporate firewalls, analysts said.

Ugh. If you are going to use a buzz word, at least try to use in the right way [wikipedia.org] . I keep a blog [wellingtongrey.net] and there is nothing 2.0 (collaborative) about it.

-Grey

Re:Ugh (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221777)

But corporate blogs typically are collaborative. Even if each person has their own they interlink to other employees. And collaborative departmental blogs are also becoming popular. They were simplifying by just saying "blogs", but how they're being used by companies is relatively new.

Re:Ugh (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222189)

We're having terminology problems. Collaborative doesn't mean 2.0 either. Web 2.0 means making xmlhttp requests (aka Ajax), and most blogs don't.

Re:Ugh (3, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222233)

AJAX means AJAX. Web 2.0 mean collaboration: "Web 2.0 generally refers to a second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that lets people collaborate and share information online." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2)

Re:Ugh (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222766)

Somebody just went and made that up. It's not authoritative. Web 2.0 is a stupid marketing term with no clear definition, and anyone that uses it demonstrates their utter lack of tech cred.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that's the truth.

Re:Ugh (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 7 years ago | (#15224320)

It's good to know that you are the passer-outer of tech cred. Can I have your home phone number, so I can request tech cred? Thanks!

Re:Ugh (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#15224545)

I actually work through a clearinghouse that outsources all the background checks to a Pakastani firm with Indian management. There's no working phone lines as yet, but just reply to any of the spam you get with your personal information and it'll be on the way in a jiffy.

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229913)

"Web 2.0 generally refers to a second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that lets people collaborate and share information online."

What a horribly vague blanket term we've allowed marketting departments to deploy around the gaping mouthes of the business world. Collaborate and share information online? In its most rudimentary form, this is possible with less than, likely, a hundred lines in whichever web scripting language you opt for. When you consider how pointless a definition like "collaborate and share information online" is, try and honestly tell me what is so "Web 2.0" about, for example, MySpace or "flickr". I have been programming in a myriad of different languages and mucking about with various web technologies for years and I can honestly still assert that "Web 2.0" bears nothing concrete beyond rounded CSS corners and pretentious doublespeak.

Web services? AJAX? These are all great technologies, but they aren't even present in 99% of the websites which claim to be focal points of "Web 2.0" ingenuity.

Defining Web 2.0 as "collaboration" is utterly retarded. Guestbooks with malformed HTML from 1997 with an embedded looping soundclip of the Batman theme song are "Web 2.0" by such a definition.

Re:Ugh (1)

Quizro (143975) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222239)

Also, the collaboratve nature of blogs emerges in the form of comments. Take, for example, what we're doing right now - Slashdot users create much of the site's value through their responses to the articles and to one another.

People who promote public-facing corporate blogging argue that it creates a (BUZZWORD ALERT) conversation between the enterprise and its customers.

Re:Ugh (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222305)

(BUZZWORD ALERT) conversation

I hope you're not calling conversation just a buzzword. I think it's real and pretty darn important.

Plus "conversation between the enterprise and its customers" is very important too.

Re:Ugh (1)

Quizro (143975) | more than 7 years ago | (#15224013)

Oh, no - conversation is real and important! And one of the great things about blogging is the way it connects companies and customers. In the context of Web 2.0-driven marketing, however, the word "conversation" has become a buzzword in much the same way that "quality" was in management circles a while back.

Re:Ugh (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222334)

They were simplifying by just saying "blogs"

Right, and by simplifying they strip the word of meaning. That's what I have an issue with.

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Let's be realistic (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#15223689)

Yeah, but the word we're talking about is 'blogs.' It's main purpose as a word is to help people who would feel sissy about keeping a diary keep a diary. It's not exactly an important word we're dealing with here.

Re:Ugh (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221979)

From the linked Wikipedia article:
"The term may include blogs and wikis."

Re:Ugh (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222420)

From the linked Wikipedia article:
"The term may include blogs and wikis."


Not for long.

brb

Re:Ugh (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222616)

From the linked Wikipedia article: "The term may include blogs and wikis."

Allow me to introduce you to my friend Venn Diagram [wikipedia.org] .

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:Ugh (4, Insightful)

c4seyj0nes (669515) | more than 7 years ago | (#15223166)

I keep a blog and there is nothing 2.0 (collaborative) about it.

Funny that link at the bottom of your blog looks collaborative: "Leave a comment".

Re:Ugh (1)

Dolda2000 (759023) | more than 8 years ago | (#15225528)

Surely, you cannot expect people to actually know what Web 2.0 means? I mean, that tends to be rather hard about words which have no defined meaning...

What's changed? (5, Funny)

Marlow the Irelander (928776) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221721)

It's a shift that could shake up the traditional enterprise-software model, experts predicted

When haven't they predicted this?

Did I miss the boat here? (3, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221726)

All I read about Web 2.0 is that it's a bubble, a new name for already working technologies... but with all this new publicity I ended up knowing nothing.

Can anybody tell me WTF Web 2.0 is (supposed to be)?

Re:Did I miss the boat here? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221791)

The Register explains Web 2.0 [theregister.co.uk]

Re:Did I miss the boat here? (4, Interesting)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221798)

> Can anybody tell me WTF Web 2.0 is (supposed to be)?

Unabashed, unvarnished hype. Anything new-and-cool.

I think XMLHttpRequest is pretty neat, I'm rather fond of AJAX, but Web 2.0 just makes my knee jerk so hard I want to turn it into a snap-kick at anyone plugging it.

It's starry-eyed technology evangalists.

It's the new bandwagon.

It's social networking, and the new dot-com bubble. Myspace sold for 580 million, possibly it could pull that. Facebook thinks itself worth two billion. That's with a B. The tulipmania [wikipedia.org] hasn't gone so far as to find anyone insane enough to take that price though.

Re:Did I miss the boat here? (5, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221802)

Wikipedia can [wikipedia.org] .

And it's not a bubble. It's a conglomerate of technologies. Each will stick around. It's the corporate hype that's the bubble.

Re:Did I miss the boat here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222473)

All I read about Web 2.0 in the wikipedia entry is that it's a bubble with a wikipedia entry, a new name for already working technologies... but with all this new publicity I ended up knowing nothing.

Can anybody tell me WTF Web 2.0 is (supposed to be)?

A bubble. AJAX is a bubble. Some retarted corporate morons who just discovered wiki and are trying to convince other morons to buy books with buzzwords, because Web2.0 is a goldmine. Nothing to see here. What I don't understand is why slashdot underestimates its readers (sic) so much and we get Web 2.0 stories every day.

Re:Did I miss the boat here? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221828)

Go find out for your fucking self, you're like the people still wondering what .NET is all about.

Re:Did I miss the boat here? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221868)

Go find out for your fucking self

That'd be OK for me, if there wasn't a sea of DISINFORMATION around.

(BTW, thanks to the guy who provided the link to wikipedia)

Re:Did I miss the boat here? (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221930)

You'll want to check out these two [andrewwooldridge.com] links [emptybottle.org] for the latest information on Web 2.0.

Web 2.0!!! (0, Redundant)

AssCork (769414) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221755)

That's an automatic Digg!

Latest Web 2.0 project definitely goes to work! (0, Troll)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221760)

A friend has been working incredibly hard (heh) to get his latest project up (fnar) and pumping. (Ooer!)

Yes, it's Smutr [trollied.org] , the fully Web 2.0 automated smut delivery system. Has pastel shades, rounded corners, beta status, AJAX and all that jizz, sorry, jazz.

(It was another friend who created Wankr [parm.net] . Maybe I should look for new friends...)

Hope so.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221767)

and finally, we can see some change from same old MVC over EJB stuff in entriprise web apps... enough of it!

Re:Hope so.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15224224)

Yeah, adding enhanced javascript features to a site totally changes the technology you use on the server side.

Save this tripe for a rant on your blog or something, smart guy.

Say wha? (0, Redundant)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221788)

The project is meant to let people assemble Web applications using wikis, really simple syndication (RSS) and simple Web scripting. Similarly, the grassroots direct-marketing techniques of the consumer world are starting to be used to tout enterprise software, analysts said. The enterprise software market, once the hotbed of innovation, is starting to catch up to the consumer Web, where people are becoming used to melding data from their desktop with services online.

Ok I'm a web developer working every day with "web 2.0" concepts and applying them in practise. But hell if I have idea what the hell the summary means.

Good luck reaching consumers with stuff like that.

Re:Say wha? (1)

castoridae (453809) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221861)

Depends who the consumers are. End users don't have to read that mumbo-jumbo. They just have to use the pretty web site.

My customers are the wanna-be entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs, and "Web 2.0" and this kind of language is working wonders as far as sales & marketing goes for my consulting services.

Re:Say wha? (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221997)

Part of the underlying beauty of Web 2.0 is that most Web 2.0 business plans sound like a parody of Web 2.0.

Re:Say wha? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222000)

The technical part sounds like a collaborative interface to something like the Google Homepage platform, applied in an enterprise environment. The meta-marketing part sounds like "Enterprise software makers are starting to use astroturf posting on web discussion boards to promote their products." Neither of them sounds like an enormous deal that is worthy of much hype. But the, big change is just the aggregate of lots of minor evolutionary steps, a lot of times.

Control changes to the User (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221810)

Remember when PCs first showed up in enterprises, being carried in secretly because enterprises had explicit rules that those "toys" were not to be brought in?

People did anyway, because of tools like Visicalc that gave unprecedented power to the individual, compared to the then-prevalent mainframe where the "gods of IT" had the power only.

Web 2.0 is the equivalent for Network Computing.

Sheesh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221816)

Web 2.0 Goes To Work

Ahw.. come on.. where is the site with news for nerds where they don't need to care about buzz- and powerwords?

I've had heard slashdot is such a place... But that's LONG ago...

Re:Sheesh.... (1)

Orrin Bloquy (898571) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222725)

C'mon, this is Slashdot. To most of us, "Work" is still a buzzword.

Pageflakes anyone? (3, Informative)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221866)

I hate the Web 2.0 hype as much as anyone, but if you havent checked out Pageflakes at www.pageflakes.com, you dont know what Web 2.0 is, or can be. Very cool implementation (no, I dont work for them, or know anyone who works with them) and some of their stuff was done with .NET. Go figure?

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221914)

and some of their stuff was done with .NET. Go figure?

The "magic" of Pageflakes has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with the server. It's all about client-side javascript. The server side can be kept relatively simple.

Don't get me wrong. I hate .NET [msversus.org] . But pageflakes isn't a good selling point for it.

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221988)

I'm aware.

I only remembered reading that their site was developed using Microsoft's AJAX plugin called Atlas. I only mentioned .NET, because as far as I know, its the only popular Web 2.0 app that I know of that has anything at all to do with Microsoft's dev tools, even though AJAX is supposedly their invention?

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222129)

That's a good point. I haven't heard of any other popular AJAX/Web 2.0 sites built with .NET either.

Re:Pageflakes is a phishing site (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221950)

If you enable javascript, it asks for your Gmail user/pwd! What a piece of shiite shite!

With javascript disabled Pageflakes hangs with the message "Loading Framework 1 of 2...". "View source..." shows tons of Javascript and the .NET framework info (VIEWSTATE et al). A piece of sunny shite!

Great! my imageword is "PULSING"!!!

Get a clue (5, Funny)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222040)

How many AJAX sites do you expect to work right if you DISABLE JAVASCRIPT?!?!?!?

Shit, did you go to DeVry or something?

Re:Get a clue (1)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222166)

How many AJAX sites do you expect to work right if you DISABLE JAVASCRIPT?!?!?!?

All of them really. They should degrade properly so that the site still "works".

Nice joke though :)

Re:Get a clue (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222320)

Good point, but in most of these Web 2.0 sites, isnt the javascript kinda the whole point?

Maybe I could degrade my sites to a redirect popup that says: "You have 30 seconds to enable Javascript in your browser, before a full screen popup opens with an image of horrible gay porn."

Re:Get a clue (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222374)

I use noscript for Firefox; there's no Javascript in my browsing unless I turn it on specifically for a given site.

I don't trust Javascript or the script programmers, sorry.

I don't install executables all willy-nilly either.

Expecting people to enable javascript to see your site at all is limiting to your market.

Re:Get a clue (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222521)

Not really. We run a rather large website, and the amount of our visitors that don't have js enabled is smaller than visitors using browsers pre-v4.

The website still works, but it's not quite the same... Not "optimal" at all. The only real reason why we make sure it still works without it is for the people using TTS and such (blind or otherwise).

As for the paranoid that think javascript is evil, will hack their PC and install spyware and all that, then too bad, they can go elsewhere.

Honestly, >95% of the websites nowadays make use of js, and quite often for very good and valid reasons. Things like onchange validation of forms (saves you a postback or more to know that something's wrong). The errors will still be caught server-side and displayed, but you're only making your life harder for nothing. js is used extremely often for things like this. We also use it a lot for things like FCKEditor or FreeTextBox and other such very nice components that make it much better (otherwise you can have the crappy plain text version and lesser components).

If you want to use noscript on our pages, too bad. You're the one that's missing out (big time- especially that we're adding more async goodies that truly rock to our apps). Don't like it? You can go elsewhere, we truly don't mind (like, all 3 of you).

You say you don't trust the scripts (or scripters). That's borderline paranoia. What exactly do you think will happen? It'll make your PC crash, hack your bank, and your wife and dog will leave you? It's quite harmless really. The chances of something "bad" being done with it a very, very remote, and extremely minimal chance, while it's being very very useful daily on tons of sites (and increasingly). Next thing you'll be stripping html tags too, just in case it could be used for some buffer overflow or whatever... Rendering 99.99% of the web useless, while saying "I don't trust markup or people that write markup"... How silly.

Only 58% of Sites Use JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15224275)

Honestly, >95% of the websites nowadays make use of js, and quite often for very good and valid reasons.

Quit bullshitting, Dot.Nethead - you're out of your league.

Securityspace has statistics for javascript penetration at sites in their Technology Penetration Report. [securityspace.com]

But who knows how many sites use javascript properly? And despite your woeful claims, javascript is a security risk.

Re:Only 58% of Sites Use JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15225198)

Thanks for calling me a "dotnet head". Hopefully I won't have to learn the framework if I ever want to use it (you make it sound like I'm already an expert at it anyhow). All insults and such because you don't have a point and you're pissed off you've been proved wrong, and don't like it.

That survey's junk. Based on a small sample (relative to the total number of websites) - of any kind... Already makes it mostly pointless. In other news "58% of myspace/geocities/aol/whatever hosted pages by n00bs who don't know how to write javascript don't use javascript" - duh. (nevermind either that it's mainly used by web apps and not plain static html sites, and a good amount of those sites don't have a single web app or dynamic content of any kind)

Check the big, common, well know, reputable websites. Slashdot, google, amazon, digg (eh), ebay, banks, gov't pages, whatever, and you'll see it's perhaps even higher than 95% (I hardly visit any websites that don't use js at all, most likely I can count them on my fingers).

How many use it properly? Of those common big websites? Most. And a very good portion of medium/small websites too. Your head's just too far up your ass to know. And I keep getting amazed by all the new functionnalities that get implemented like that. The other day I was suscribing to a forum on a very small site, and as you type your desired username the javascript checks for availability, saving me dozens of postbacks. Yeah, I know, they must have been clueless and I was *THAT* close to getting my bank account hacked or something... Sheesh.

Idiots like you won't ever be happy with anything. Even if it was javacript-less, then you'd whine about css selectors or that the markup isn't as semantic as it should be, or whatever else. javascript is a very commonly used technology that's quite safe. There's that remote possibility of something bad happenning, but go right ahead and block it, crippling most websites (even slashdot uses it, for things like tagging beta and what not - not to mention wicked web apps like google maps). Don't step out of your house either, you could be hit by thunder or whatever too... You can't even be too safe. </sarcasm>

Re:Get a clue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222398)

You're being pedantic. Someone whines that if they disable javascript (for no particular reason), the AJAX stuff doesn't work anymore, and then somehow they'd have to enter their gmail l:p for it to work (duh - somehow he thinks gmail will just hand off his email without auth first so it can generate the page or something).

In that sense, that website DOES degrade properly. It's using the only other possible mean for them to fetch the email (don't like it? check gmail by hand or don't disable javascript just for the sake of complaining)

And GP's point - "work right" - reffered to the AJAX stuff. If you disable js, then that won't work anymore. Yes, it can degrade, but it will NOT quite be the same no matter how well it does it as it's just impossible (that's the reason why I'm "accusing" you of being pendantic).

Expecting AJAX stuff without javascript *IS* stupid. If it was google's product, then they could easily get the mail in another way, but here it's clearly not an option. You can't expect miracles. His point was akin to whining about why can't google get my hotmail account's email magically? And because it can't, then it just sucks (regardless of technical issues or that it's a very good and useful site otherwise)... Nice logic!

Looks like the joke's on you...

Re:Get a clue (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 8 years ago | (#15230125)

I don't know if you deserve an INSIGHTFULL or a HOW STUPID rating ;D

As long as JavaScript is not really save on clients it s wise to disable it. So, ofc AJAX applications wont work anymore. however the web site offering the AJAX application still could ... but I guess it would be very crippled then.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (1)

hey (83763) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222014)

Yes, its neat but its scaping content from other sites which is rude. Isn't it?

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222114)

I dont know, I guess it depends on what deals if any they have with their feeders. I think the way they handle RSS is nice, but who ISNT grabbing content from other sites these days?

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222062)

I hadn't seen it before, but looking at it, it doesn't seem a whole lot different than any of Google's personalized pages (and it seems less responsive), so I don't see why its an "If you haven't seen this, you haven't seen Web 2.0".

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222192)

Wow! PageFlakes is awesome! It's new! It's innovative! It's unlike anything that "My Yahoo" or all the other "personalized aggregation portals" did in 1996 because ... er ... it uses JavaScript differently!

Web 2.0 is a bold new world of fresh opportunities. I'd better get my patent monkeys cranking out registrations, e.g. "Patent describes a unique and proprietary method for performing business transactions ... on the Web ... with AJAX!" This changes *everything*!

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222248)

Wow! PageFlakes is awesome! It's new! It's innovative!

LOL. Why do I have the feeling that this has been a self-promotion?

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222583)

because you're stupid and the sarcasm flew right over your head?

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222236)

Very nice implementation IMHO. I must start brushing up on AJAX methinks.

Work will never use it though - I can run javascript on a web page when it's on the net, but Explorer blocks it when the page is stored locally. Seems to be the wrong way round but hey ... they (the IT crowd) can't do php either.

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222685)

At first using Opera and after 2 minutes it still said "Loading your start page...". I have to say it's a totally awesome implementation of whatecver buzzword you give to losing the visitors interest.

Turns out it's one of my ad filters (proxomitron) causing the issue (not Opera) but I have nothing amazingly aggressive blocked. To me this just demonstrates how fragile Web 2.0 websites are, I mean it didn't even have a failsafe so I could see something.

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222750)

Damn pressed submit. This site also break my middle click (new tab) behaviour and therefore poses an annoyance in my otherwise familiar my tabbed browsing experience. It use hyperlinks does it not, so why are the href's not filled in with valid URL's?

There is also another issue, the top of the window that comes up for article viewing can be moved so that the top bar is outside of the browser viewing area and therefore the window is essentially 'lost' and can no longer be moved back into any other position. The only way to fix this is refresh.

I've only tried to use this site for a few minutes and found issues that will stop be from ever using it in it's current state. The problems with AJAX and Web 2.0 techniques are well documented. Personally I feel it's more trouble than it's worth.

That said, Pageflakes looks like a rather attractive website so props to the designer.

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (1)

saltydogdesign (811417) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222847)

You know what's funny to me? The only time I ever hear the phrase "Web 2.0" anymore is when someone is bitching about the hype.

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (2, Interesting)

scwizard (941758) | more than 7 years ago | (#15223562)

Has anyone looked at their error console after loading this site. Console2 for FF gave me 72 warning and errors for javascript + css (a lot of them were relating to it trying to change my cursor...)

Re:Pageflakes anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15227285)

Do they really expect people to type in their gmail password on some random 3rd-party page? It's not even encrypted!

BUZZWORD BINGO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221890)

assemble Web applications... wikis... RSS... Web scripting... grassroots direct-marketing... enterprise software... hotbed of innovation... consumer Web... melding data... services online... shake up the traditional enterprise-software model...

And that's just the excerpt that slashdot copied. Reading the article would doubtless be an even more hilarious delve into the wacky world of web 2.0 buzzword bingo.

I dont know... (3, Insightful)

j3one (949806) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221918)

No matter what technology is employed, people are once again realising that the online world is the place to be. So people want money right? Right. And if you can think of somthing first and make it work first, you could end up with a giant pay out + fame and fourtune right? Ok, maybe.

So, while we may be anoyed with all the buzzwords and hype, realise that the world is moving forward with 2.0 so quit whining, and get out there and develop stuff so we dont have to live with what IMB thinks is web 2.0

Daisy (2, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222563)

so we dont have to live with what IMB thinks is web 2.0

IMB. Is that like HLA?

What was wrong with the old one? (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#15221926)

Obligatory b3ta [b3ta.com] post.

Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15221989)

WTF is Web 2.0?

Coming soon: (2, Funny)

crerwin (971247) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222002)

Web 2.0 Goes to Camp
Web 2.0 Goes to Jail

Re:Coming soon: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222082)

Web 2.0 Does Dallas?

Clarification for the stupid, please... (0, Offtopic)

StankyG (928592) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222087)

"...analyst predictions that Web 2.0 has begun meeting up with enterprise software" So has Web 2.0 begun meeting up or are analysts just predicting it has begun meeting up? And what kind of technology writer uses phrases like "meeting up" instead of something like: "matrix frictionless markets" "mesh granular solutions" "transform interactive models"

Re:Clarification for the stupid, please... (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222171)

A technology writer who wants readers.

Re:Clarification for the stupid, please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222381)

Back to work! You're not innovating hard enough!

Web 2.0 at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222160)

I met Web 2.0 at the all-hands meeting last week, and I have to say he's a real jerk. Talk about a megalomaniac.

web2.0 business apps (3, Interesting)

steveb3210 (962811) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222243)

I work at a small financial services company and we're currently replacing the in-house contact management system that was written in Access/VB. Our new replacemenet is in Ruby On Rails /w an interface that mimics that of a real operating system. Views all of edit tags taht spring up boxen that can be moved around like real windows, edit you data, hit save, ajax updates all the fields on the view page all your dialog box closes. To the users, its quick and mimcs the interface their used to while completely negating the problems of being tied to the office/VPN/db connections/ODBC connections, etc.

This is the revolution.

Re:web2.0 business apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15223093)

Web 2.0: ``What is is??? Ruby on Rails, Wiki, Blog, Flickr, Google, The Internet in 2006! Yes ladies and gentlement. Despite the fact that we wanted to turn the internet to WebTV, it evolved into something else! And we call what it has evolved into "Web 2.0" because it is != what was predicted. And now we want to announce this new produce to *YOU* dear customer. We made Web 2.0 because we *invented* its name. We and Al Gore.''

Like business enterprise software is even ready (1)

ScottLindner (954299) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222303)

I like how this writer acts like the business world has successfully figured out enterprise architectures and SOA for such a long time, and now even regular home users that are nothing more than hackers are doing the very same thing.

Riiiggghhhtttt.... I'd like to see this writer's experience with enterprise architectures. The book for the business world is just at the beginning of being written. It's far from closed.

Oh-no! (1)

OYAHHH (322809) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222404)

> the grassroots direct-marketing techniques of the consumer world are starting to be used to tout enterprise software

I hope that doesn't mean unwanted phone calls just as you are about to eat dinner.

This stuff has been in enterprise for a while (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15222619)


  Just not in a cross platform way. I have seen enterprise software companies use complex DHTML, xmlHttp Request etc... since 1999, but there is a catch-- they were often software packages, and they were IE only. The concept of "Open" dynamic applications is new--- i.e. not linked to a specific browser.

To list one example, General Interface (if I remember correctly, as they were bought by tibco this year) Produced a complete, webservices aware javascript toolkit so sophisticated its IDE was built with it(in javascript) Their first release was in 2001 or so. The catch was it only worked in IE and you had to pay enterprise rates for it.

And don't forget (as much as people may not wish to acknowledge it) outlook web access, which displayed a lot of this technology for the first time, was never fully developed. (its far more sophiticated on IE than firefox, of course) If outlook/exchange s not enterprise, I'm not sure what is.

Its very true that internal IT departments can be very hesitant to try new things in the risk-reduction environment they live in, but within enterprise software there is sometimes more willingness to try some things because you have much more control over the platform.

Web 2.0 == multiple cooperating web servers? (2, Interesting)

peter303 (12292) | more than 7 years ago | (#15222858)

My impression of Web 2.0 is that no single web site has to engineer every one of its part, nor there must be a hardwired master-slave anymore. A travel site might get its presentation services from google-maps, its hotel list from Sabre, financial transactions from citibank, and so-on. There will be all these services sitting around- presentation, search, news, banking, streaming video, etc., etc. which can be easily glued with utilities like xml, AJAX, etc.

Be afraid (1)

PietjeJantje (917584) | more than 7 years ago | (#15223087)

"It's a shift that could shake up the traditional enterprise-software model, experts predicted."

Funnily it's the tradional enterprise software experts who rage against the "unsecure" "hype" "for which the technology is unfit" that is web 2.0. I doubt their motives, but the marketeers feed them plenty of hype word ammo.

Wiki = Web 2.0? (1)

blueapples (614410) | more than 7 years ago | (#15224820)

How is a wiki based application an example of Web 2.0? WikiWikiWeb was first created in 1994 and wikis have been somewhat programmable for quite some time. Not saying it isn't a cool idea, just saying it isn't Web 2.0. Unless of course Web 2.0 just means "everything we do from now on". Sigh.

Re:Wiki = Web 2.0? (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15226137)

Wikis embody many of the core concepts in Web 2.0, that is: collaboration, user-contribution, and 'radical trust'--as Tim O'Reilly puts it. 'Collaboration' certainly isn't a new concept, neither is 'user-contribution'. But it's only now that we're seeing these concepts becoming a consistent trend in a new wave of successful, mainstream web applications.

Wikipedia, Flickr, Del.ico.us, etc. all rely on user-contributed content. These web services provide a framework for users to create this content in, but it's still the users who are creating the actual content that drives the sites. The idea of 'trust' is demonstrated through Wikipedia's policy of letting pretty much anyone edit the content. In other sites, tagging replaces conventional taxonomy of site content, thus entrusting the control of content organization to the users.

It might be helpful if you read Tim O'Reilly's explaination of what Web 2.0 is [oreillynet.com] .

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>