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 2.0 As A New Wave of Innovation?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the learning-2.0 dept.

174

Vitaly Friedman writes "In his article in the recent Educause magazine, Bryan Alexander, Director for Research at the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education (NITLE), presents a comprehensive analysis of the rising web 2.0 companies and describes the emerging of web 2.0. From the article: ' ... larger players have entered the field, most notably Yahoo, which has been buying up many projects, including Flickr and del.icio.us. Microsoft is considering a massive extension of RSS. And Google has been producing its own projects, such as the Lens RSS reader and Google Maps. Meanwhile, academic implementations are bubbling up, like the social bookmarking and search projects noted earlier. This Web 2.0 movement (or movements) may not supplant Web 1.0, but it has clearly transformed a significant swath of our networked information ecology.'"

cancel ×

174 comments

So... (5, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468943)

'Web 2.0' is just a bunch of wikis and people pretending to be important right?

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

digitallife (805599) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468952)

I was just about to post 'So what IS Web 2.0??'. You put it better.

Honestly I have read 'Web 2.0' too many tme recently on /., and am starting to get tired of hearing about it. Yay, people figured out how to make websites interactive. Let's move on.

Re:So... (2, Interesting)

colmore (56499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469821)

I'm going to take the completely opposite opinion of everyone here:

"web 2.0" is a great buzzword. why? it describes something legitimate -- the confusing rush of new internet ideas from the past few years, and it's ugly as sin.

good buzzwords should hurt to say. "blog" is a great buzzword. it won't be in the english language in 30 years, except to talk about this time. it's just too hideous of a word. "morph" on the other hand, is going to fucking stick around for ever. it's just passable enough, and just generic enough to enter into common usage, and it just rots away at the beautiful and giant beast that is english.

i'll accept the reality that most of our new words are coming from technology and marketing, but let's pick neologisms that won't outlive their usefulness, and take the place of perfectly good old words that rolled into the language over the tongues of centuries of farmers and poets, not 15 minutes in a meeting before lunch.

and yes, it's funny i have some spelling errors in this post, i'm tired and my contacts are out, shut up.

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

NevDull (170554) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468956)

No, it's about using the masses as a decentralized classification system.

Re:So... (2, Interesting)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469031)

Nope. Just a bunch of left over businesses that survived the initial dot com bust trying to look sexy enough to get vulture capitalist throw money at them like it was 1999 all over again. While a lot of neat technologies and applications had popped up over recent years, I think 'Web 2.0' is more of a marketing term than anything else.

Re:So... (1)

Yehooti (816574) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469444)

Doubtful if it could relieve me of the constant scans to my system or the spam. But if it could, somehow, I'd jump on it like a dog on a bone.

Nothing is new (1)

astroturfing (977873) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469346)

Web 2.0 is like the Vi1agra emails I get in my inbox. Economy 101 in the world of spam.
Live of the one percent of morons who think the web today is anything more than ten year old technology plus more bandwidth.

RSS, Flikr, Google Maps, AJAX, Video sites... equals bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth and bandwidth.
Nothing is new.. Nothing.

Read the specs.. nada, zilch, 0 is fresh, working and available in popular web browsers.
Why ? Because innovation has been replaced by the DMCA and the US patent system.

An economy based on IP and DRM is like the one based on Opium and Gunships.
One day "Designed by Apple in California" becomes "Designed by ChinaCorp in Beijing" and then the US economy is in real trouble.

Re:Nothing is new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469718)

Wow... bitter some?

...and yet (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 8 years ago | (#15470227)

...despite their efforts to show everybody how important they are they manage to get a few good things done. Since they're trying to show off, every once in a while a tooper stumbles over a rock and invents a useful new web mechanism.

Folks who use Google Maps don't know or care what's powering it, so if it takes pretense or puffery to get real work done, that's OK with me.

Web 2.0 is DEPRECATED (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468946)

Please switch to the new, open Web 2.1 Thank you.

Web 3.11 for Workgroups (1)

Uninen (746304) | more than 8 years ago | (#15470124)

Web 2.x is soo yesterday. You really should opt for Web 3.11 for Workgroups: Blink-attributes for headings, Matrix-style marquee for paragraphs, and of course, all images automatically converted to animated gifs. And NO SHITTY CSS, just pretty font tags and lots of nice nested tables. It's like, well, Wheee! [firefoxflicks.com]

PS. This new CSS on /. is awesome :)

Trademark violation (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468947)

I thought some company had recently trademarked the term Web 2.0? Isn't our discussion of this a blatant violation of corporate America's intellectual property rights?

Re:Trademark violation (2, Informative)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469051)

O'Reilly and CMP are having a row for the Web 2.0 trademark [slashdot.org] to be used in orgainizing events and conferences. I think Web 2.0 will probably fall into the public domain.

Re:Trademark violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15470170)

Fuck 'em.

FP (0, Offtopic)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468953)

As in fourth post. Suck it.

Nooooo! (5, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468958)

I'm having nightmares already. Web 2 keeps "rising" like a friggin' zombie every few days.

It rised when people said Java applets were so Web 2, then it rised again when blogs and RSS was so Web 2, then it rised again when Google made JS interaction popular (again), a bit later it rised again when a marketing company coined the term for what Google does "AJAX", then again with Flickr, YouTube, Digg and so on, and I'm telling you I'm already sick of the damn Web 2.0.

Do you know what happens with too much buzz and hype? You let people down and make them sick up to their necks. I hate the damn Web 2.0 and have no idea what THE HECK it is anymore.

And I'm a web developer, let alone businessmen and the casual Internet surfer.

Re:Nooooo! (1)

Psychotext (262644) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469007)

Thank you. I work in the industry too and to be honest the last few months I've been sitting here wondering what the hell Web 2.0 was supposed to be. I think I'll just stick to what makes my customers money for now and leave the hype to the marketing drones.

Maybe it's not over-mentioned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469040)

seeing that nobody knows what it means yet.

Re:Nooooo! (3, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469066)

Web 2 keeps "rising" like a friggin' zombie every few days.

I love zombies. Just brain them and they fall over. So the next time someone mentions "Web 2.0" and whatever new technology of the day in the same breath, just whack 'em in the head and move along.

Re:Nooooo! (2, Funny)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469265)

I agree! Look the CSS'ed slashdot, it's so Web 2.0.....I want a HTML 3.X compatible page back!

Re:Nooooo! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469307)

Do you know what happens with too much buzz and hype? You let people down and make them sick up to their necks. I hate the damn Web 2.0 and have no idea what THE HECK it is anymore.

And I'm a web developer, let alone businessmen and the casual Internet surfer.


If you are a web developer, and you don't know what "web 2.0" is, trust me that's a good thing! In my expeirence the web devs currently embracing the term "web 2.0" are the same lot who just recently discovered that frontpage is a horrible html editor. I guess that was "web 1.0" for them? Any ways, it probably wasn't that long ago that they all sprouted opposable thumbs and climbed down out of the trees... we're not talking about the brightest among us here...

Re:Nooooo! (3, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469361)

Past tense of "rise" is "rose". I usually don't bother correcting grammar on Slashdot, but you used it so many times I figured it was worth it.

Re:Nooooo! (3, Funny)

cyberon22 (456844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469478)

You're prescriptivist grammar pedanticism are really making my blood boils. It is rise my hackles to a new levels of!

Actually, I thought at first you were arguing over whether the past participle is "risen" or "rose". So I went back and read the parent post.... Yup. Pretty amazing display of illiteracy, that....

Re:Nooooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469719)

Thanks for ruining a perfectly friendly and useful correction.

Nooooo! Give me back my buggy whip! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469472)

"Do you know what happens with too much buzz and hype? You let people down and make them sick up to their necks. I hate the damn Web 2.0 and have no idea what THE HECK it is anymore."

Don't worry about it, suv4x4. Your counterpart in India understands it perfectly, and is coding it as we speak. And if he/she doesn't, then the guys in China will. That's the nice thing about new technology, and the labour marketplace. If you don't, I will. Have a nice day.

Re:Nooooo! Give me back my buggy whip! (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469535)

Don't worry about it, suv4x4. Your counterpart in India understands it perfectly, and is coding it as we speak.

Oh, so you're coding Web 2? Hehe, kids and their LEGO computers.

I may hire you to code Rich Client 2 and OOP 3 for me, stay tuned.

Re:Nooooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469744)

You people make MS and Bill Gates more powerful than the Nazis with you negative arogant talk

Real GUI's (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 8 years ago | (#15470028)

I hope this Web 2 thing brings real GUI widgets, such as editable grids that don't have the Java applet quirks, outline/tree browsers, combo boxes, etc. All the stuff that we had in the mid 90's with VB/Delphi/PB/FoxPro and we thought would never ever go away until HTML-browsers tried to do the same stuff except that it took 7 times more coding and 3 times more pages and was still clunky. I just hope it is not tied to any one programming language or paradigm.

Bring me real widgets, and Web 2.0 gets to be more than just hype. Deal?
     

No (5, Funny)

sulli (195030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468963)

it is a new wave 2.0 of innovation 2.0.

With twice the self importance of the original!

Re:No (4, Funny)

NevDull (170554) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468970)

Can I get stock options 2.0 for bubble 2.0? I'm in on this go-'round early enough to cash out before crash 2.0.

WTF!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468965)

You haven't paid us to use our Web 2.0 Trademark. Please remit what you feel is a correct fee to us here at ORA!!!

It will not be enought, but don't worry!, we will just sue you for the rest!

Not this shit all over again... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468975)

Web 2.0 As A New Wave of Innovation?

Dude, it's boom/bomb time again! Everyone get on the meaningless buzzword bandwagon! "Web 2.0" man - the old rules don't apply any more!! Quick, buy everything in sight that claims to use "Web 2.0", whatever the hell THAT means this week! Let's see if we can get the Nasdaq up to 20,000 this time before we raze and burn the entire tech industry back into 1985! AWESOME!

Someone call the venture capitalists!!

Re:Not this shit all over again... (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469988)

Hey it's a second chance to get rich and get out quick so that some investor gets left holding the bag. If you missed out the first time it isn't to late afterall!

I think like the first wave of web innovation created a lot of good things and I expect this second wave to do likewise. As always we'll hear a lot of bold cliams, buzzwords, etc and new ideas will emerge but in the end the crap sinks and the good stuff hangs around.

We've always known that eventually rich interactions would be important to the web. It's an obvious upgrade path. Java, Javascript, Flash, etc were all weak first stab attempts at the problem. To some extent these attempts have evolved and improved but for the most part I expect them all to be replaced with better implementations of the same concept. The battle over these new technologies is going to be fierce but hopefully something open and powerful will emerge and some cool shit will be built on top of it.

And so (4, Funny)

binkzz (779594) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468977)

"Microsoft is considering a massive extension of RSS"

Listen to the sound of my voice. Inhale deeply, put your arms in a circle and say "Embraaaace", then exhale slowly pushing your arms out and say "Exteeeend".

Web 2.0 is so 2005 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468979)

I've moved on to Web 3.0.

Re:Web 2.0 is so 2005 (3, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469142)

There will be no Web 3.0. Instead there will be Web 2.0-2.0, which will be known to the memeosphere as Web Squared. It'll be hip to be Squared.

KFG

Watch out though... (5, Funny)

LandownEyes (838725) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468982)

It's all goes downhill once we reach Web 98.

Re:Watch out though... (1)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469355)

Don't worry, the worst will be Web ME, thereafter things will get better again...

A hack of a hack of a hack... (5, Insightful)

AmazingRuss (555076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468984)

...how much crap can they pile onto what was designed as document viewer before the whole thing implodes?

Give the browser a break people! It's seen enough abuse!

Re:A hack of a hack of a hack... (1)

kimanaw (795600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469012)

...how much crap can they pile...

"So much crap, they had to start a second pile."
Mimi Bobeck, "The Drew Carey Show" [go.com]

As in a "2.0" pile..

Re:A hack of a hack of a hack... (1)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469061)

Yeah, seriously! If we want a form of user-interface that can be transmitted to a client and run the application logic on a server, we really should just create an open-source version of NeWS [wikipedia.org] .

And, for the guy about to tell me to start coding, I have other things to do right now. When my kernel's working and I need a GUI, I'll be on it.

Re:A hack of a hack of a hack... (1)

trewornan (608722) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469274)

Hey man - whatcha think X is?

Re:A hack of a hack of a hack... (1)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469336)

X makes you send framebuffer and control data over the network: not pleasant.

Re:A hack of a hack of a hack... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469348)

When Intel release a new chip, do you complain "how much crap can they pile onto what was designed as a bunch of vacuum tubes and punchcards"?

Who cares what it was originally designed as? Designs change. Web browsers have been more than just document viewers since the second version of the first ever web browser.

Vacuum tubes? In my Core Duo? (1)

AmazingRuss (555076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15470130)

They must be tiny little fellers.

Just because a browser can do lots of stuff doesn't mean its the best way to do it. A browser is perfect for presenting documents, simple input forms, and downloading real clients to do more complicated stuff.

Re:A hack of a hack of a hack... (1)

Julian Morrison (5575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15470059)

About as much as they can pile onto a system for performing rapid repetitive computations.

Or as much as they can pile onto a program designed to launch, manage, and standardize the interface of other programs.

What you're seeing is evolution, which takes the status quo as a given, and manipulates it towards whatever is presently more convenient, speciating as necessary. Paraphrasing a quote about Fortran: I don't know what they'll use in 2046, but some small subsystem of it will probably be lineally descended, at least in conceptual abstract, from a web browser.

Re:A hack of a hack of a hack... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 8 years ago | (#15470103)

...how much crap can they pile onto what was designed as document viewer before the whole thing implodes?

Oh, so that's what happened to the slashdot look-and-feel of late.
       

It's about network services I think. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 8 years ago | (#15468989)

I coral cached a wayback page a while ago, does that count as web 2.0ish? ;)

Yes (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15468991)

Speaking as a 'real software engineer' who writes 'real software', web developers have always been looked down upon has untalented hacks. I think with the Web maturing as an application platform we are seeing quite a bit of indignant snobbery from traditional engineers.

Although I still use my traditional desktop for heavy duty computational tasks in the graphics/physics area, I have been noticing that I feel the need for a traditional desktop less and less each month as Web applications keep getting better and better. I can certainly see myself relegating my workstation to only my specific work tasks and almost all of the rest of my daily computing tasks being done through cellphones/PDAs/PSPs outside/on the road and at with web browsers in my living room on my PS3.

Go try out some Web 2.0 tutorials(or whatever you want to call the set of technologies) to see for yourself. Despite the hype there is some serious good stuff going on.

did someone forget to replace the battery? Re:Yes (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469036)

once we all start working off the web murphy will make someone forget to replace the battery and the next thing we know it'll be jan 1st,1980

As a real end user, I can tell the web world of developers that untill you can get programming down as a genuine science rather than this witchcraft spells of coding and hype for sale.... Murphy loves you, yes he does. So don't make those of us who really honestly know better suffer more, buy selling your babeling BS to the stupid masses and that we unfortunately would then have no reasonable way to avoid on the internet.

 

Re:Yes (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469121)

buy selling your babeling BS
As a reader, I can tell the world of web writers that until you can get spelling down as a genuine science rather than this witchcraft spells of letters...

Re:did someone forget to replace the battery? Re:Y (1)

gigahawk (745812) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469801)

What 'witchcraft spells' are you talking about? As far as I can tell web development is simply an application of several standard technologies such as http, html, css, and ecma-232. /confused

Assured connectivity. (2, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469101)

I don't see that happening. Particularly in an office environment.

Slammer already demonstrated how you could not depend upon bandwidth on the Internet to be always available. For a business, it's critical.

Now, the business might be moving to internal web servers and apps ... using the "Web 2.0" technologies that are being hyped. But that's nothing new. Where I work, we've been moving to web-based apps since 2001. But they're all hosted inside my network. I control the apps, the data, the servers and the network.
Go try out some Web 2.0 tutorials(or whatever you want to call the set of technologies) to see for yourself. Despite the hype there is some serious good stuff going on.
I'm sure there is.

But ... is it any different from back when Sun declare that the "network is the computer" back in 2000 (or was it 1999)? No.

The technologies are becoming more stable and ubiquitous. But they aren't "new". JavaScript is still JavaScript. Making it asynchronous is good and useful, but it isn't new and it isn't changing anything that wasn't already discussed, planned and in production.

We're getting back to the "thin client" model that was pushed more than a decade ago.

Re:Assured connectivity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15470030)

"when Sun declare that the "network is the computer" back in 2000 (or was it 1999)?"

Or was it 1984 [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Yes (2, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469174)

Speaking as a 'real software engineer' who writes 'real software', web developers have always been looked down upon has untalented hacks. I think with the Web maturing as an application platform we are seeing quite a bit of indignant snobbery from traditional engineers.

Speaking as a web developer who is perfectly capable of writing "real software", I can tell you that this is certainly nothing new. The trouble lies with some ignorant software developers who view all web development as if it were in the same league as the time they cobbled together a few pages to see what the fuss was about. That's like a web developer's perspective on software engineering if all he's ever touched is JavaScript rollovers.

Even if you don't consider the latest "Web 2.0" applications, serious web development has always been more than simply throwing a few pages together. It's complex stuff. Jeremy Zawodny has written a couple [zawodny.com] of times [zawodny.com] on this topic.

Re:Yes (3, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469390)

I couldn't agree with you more. One of the reasons that IE took control of the browser market was because it was tied to the MS Windows API and therefore could easily act as an application interface, where more standard complient browsers could not. This meant that untrained persons could write usable interfaces using the IE framework.

With the techniques developed over the past few years, we now have the capability to do what IE could do, but in a standard complient way that is generally more stable. It makes web applications that were nearly unusable, even in IE, become practical. A second innovation is moving beyond the web browser. Application like Google earth and Apple Dashboard applies general standards to specific OS. The front end is specilized, but the back end does not need to be.In fact this takes us back 20 years to the happy time when one could log into any service using any computer, with the modification that we now use a GUI instead of kermit.

Some naysayers may say this is dangerous because not everyone has an internet connection everywhere. Well, in the early 80's everyone said it was dangerous becuase everyone did not have a modem, but we all got one. Then in the 90's the internet was dangerous because it was sometimes hard to get a dialup line. Now, we are in situation where the telcos are trying to limit this commodity product that is bandwidth, and have even manage to reduce the availability of honest to goodness DSL by denying compition. The best way to break this nonsense to make wireless broadband as neccesary as radio, then have the common person complain continuously until we arrive at a solution. This is basically what broke the long distance nonsense. Kiddos, remember, there was a time when calling your neighbor cost tens of dolalrs an hour.

Re:Yes (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469623)

Speaking as a 'real software engineer' who writes 'real software', web developers have always been looked down upon has untalented hacks.
If you look at the source code for many of those "Web 2.0" sites out there, you'll quickly notice that it is still one large hack more often than not. Such is the nature of technology used to build it, unfortunately.

networked information ecology (3, Interesting)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469027)

networked information ecology
Reminded me of a hilarious advert on UK television a while back. It used to make me laugh so much that I can't remember who it was about or what they were selling, but basically it had loads of mundane stuff like meetings and presentations, only it all took place about 100m in the air above a city, and businesspeople were somersaulting into their chairs, and throwing their notes over their heads to be caught by a guy on a motorbike who sped them away. It was something to do with "the digital network economy", and was basically a perfect visual representation of hype.

Making the link between this and my views on Web 2.0 As A New Wave of Innovation is a task left to the reader. No points will be awarded for answering this question.

Re:networked information ecology (3, Informative)

Psychotext (262644) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469047)

It was a BT advert, and it was, as you described; terrible. Full of absolutely meaningless buzzwords and general innacuracies.

LOL Web 2.0 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469039)

No Web 2.0 comments section is complete without a link to the classic Web 2.0 beatdown [theregister.co.uk] that El Reg ran last year. Love that tag cloud [theregister.co.uk] .

Whatever it is Web 2.0 is made of, John Battelle [valleywag.com] will have an ad running on it someplace.

I hope you... (3, Funny)

tfcdesign (667499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469043)

paid for the right to use "Web 2.0".

It's official (4, Insightful)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469058)

IT and specifically web development is so big that a big chunk of the "techies" are now idiots. It started when the business guys who could hack HTML started calling themselves geeks, but the journey ends here.

This Web 2.0 movement (or movements) may not supplant Web 1.0

I remember PHBs saying equally ridiculous things about XML when it came out, how it would revolutionize the world and everything would magically talk to each other. Now we see people in all groups saying the same thing about 6 year old tech... oh, I mean, Web 2.0

So, um, can anyone tell me how HTML, JavaScript, and Stylesheets supplants, um...., HTML, JavaScript, and Stylesheets?

Ridiculous Hype (1)

Tony (765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469319)

Yeah. The whole thing is ridiculous. I'm just an extremist nutjob, but the whole Hype, Ululation, and Propoganda (HUP) concerning XML / Web 2.0 / "Object Oriented Databases" / etc / etc / and of course etc, just drives me nuts. Are my fellow geeks, who are otherwise rational and intelligent, so blind to the stupid slogans of the marketing machine?

XML isn't a bad idea, for instance-- it gives a standard method of defining data transport, for instance. But it doesn't relieve each application of the responsibility of understanding the schema, like the hype machine would have had you believe.

Web 2.0 is just a stupid name for a bunch of concepts and techniques already in use by the people who understand them. There's nothing new, nothing "innovative" (what a useless fucking word). In most cases, it's used where it isn't needed, and makes the application harder to use, understand, program, and debug. Instead of breaking tasks down into little steps (important on the web, because people might not use your application every day, so simplicity beats efficiency), web designers now want to cram every little feature into a single page, as if it's an application that's used daily.

Anyway.

"Geeks" are sounding more and more like PHBs every year. I guess too many of them have drunk the Kool-Aide.

Re:It's official (4, Funny)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469445)

So, um, can anyone tell me how HTML, JavaScript, and Stylesheets supplants, um...., HTML, JavaScript, and Stylesheets?

Asynchronous JavaScript and XML is being replaced by AJAX. It's totally new.

What is this bizarre compulsion? (3, Insightful)

starfishsystems (834319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469060)

What is this bizarre compulsion to brand a random selection of software development activities as if they were all key elements of some elaborate Master Plan? Isn't the work interesting enough in itself without the hyperbole of trying to turn it into some new kind of Klondike?

It's as stupid in its way as people "discovering" the Internet a few years ago. In their haste to stake claims all over it, they neglected to notice that it was actually a set of artifacts created, with considerable effort, by people who came before them.

And didn't we hear this once already with something called Web Services? Let's transport everything over Port 80, that's really innovative. If we must call it anything, let's call it Hubris 2.0. Maybe, like Madonna, it will eventually go away if we just ignore it.

Re:What is this bizarre compulsion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469131)

What is this bizarre compulsion to brand a random selection of software development activities as if they were all key elements of some elaborate Master Plan?
Dear God, will noone make a .NET joke here?

Re:What is this bizarre compulsion? (1)

enrgeeman (867240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469448)

I didn't know we had to. I just assumed it was a joke.

MS(TM) RSS(TM) (3, Insightful)

wirefarm (18470) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469097)

"Microsoft is considering a massive extension of RSS. "

Let me guess, this will be a new Windows-only binary format that will have the ability to execute code.

Dear Microsoft,

Please keep in mind that that middle "S" stands for "simple".

Re:MS(TM) RSS(TM) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469245)

> Please keep in mind that that middle "S" stands for "simple".

I thought it stood for "Suck Dave Winer's privates?"

(Although I never understood how passing off something Netscape invented as your own entitled you to ruler of the universe status.)

Agree with your point though. At the moment, the XML is relatively clean and with the addition of the occasional namespace, easily repurposed.

If Microsoft embrace and extend it to a point where the XML parser has to be completely reengineered, its value will decrease enormously.

"Web 2.0" (4, Funny)

chrisbeach (887853) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469098)

"Bubble 2.0," anyone?

it's all about profit (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469103)

The current interweb, good though it is, is a difficult marketplace. It wasn't created for online business to utilise properly.

Web 2.0, being a new start (sort of), means that business will be better able to utilise it. This is an important thing.

You could say 'corporations are bad', and well, they are. Corporations are not the only fruit though, I bet that more than a few slashdot readers would like a web that they could better utilise to make money.

Re:it's all about profit (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469316)

i tend to think the internet is what the individual surfing the interweb makes of it, to the *nix guru it is a great place to share info and software, to the not so informed doze user loaded with spyware and kludge it is a racket that is about to steal his identity & etc...

Re:it's all about profit (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469365)

I'm a linux developer and a scientist, so I use the web in the way it was probably intended, to share and do research, not to sell.

Although, in a way I do 'sell' my open source product, but the currency is peer review and improvements to the codebase.

Businesses need cold hard cash though. To do that they need an internet they can utilise to build dependable businesses and solid web applications, and also to use technologies that will keep their customers safe (ok, lets pause here to laugh to ourselves about 'safety while using tcp/ip..).

Teh interweb's changing, users are slowly becoming more aware, and hopefully this, combined with carefully developed web technologies (not the crap we have left over from the first internet gold rush), will make the web a more stable marketplace. God knows it needs to be.

 

Re:it's all about profit (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469383)

RE:"will make the web a more stable marketplace. God knows it needs to be."

yes! very much so!

Maybe O'Reilly was trying to save us? (3, Interesting)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469126)

You know the other week when we were all down with O'Reilly trying to patent/copyright/whatever "Web 2.0", well, perhaps they were just trying to save us from all this hype over nothing. I mean, if we had just accepted that "Web 2.0" was now owned by O'Reilly and we couldn't even mention it's name, we'd be free of TFA. All of them. Whilst, in every other sense, the web would develop as it is now. We just wouldn't be subjected to all this articles _about_ Web 2.0!!

All hail O'Reilly -- they tried to save us but we wouldn't listen! :D

slogan (3, Funny)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469132)

Web 2.0: even more porn!

Re:slogan (1)

Frightening (976489) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469590)

Web 2.0: Because pornography matters...

Maybe we need a Web 2.0 Industry A. A. (1)

ABeowulfCluster (854634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469151)

To stop corporations from stealing content from the masses.

Zombie 2.0, Better than Zombie 1.0 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469152)

Zombie 2.0 is the zombie as platform, spanning all connected zombies; Zombie 2.0 makes the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering death as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people die, consuming and remixing life from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own life and services in a form that allows remixing by other zombies, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Zombie 1.0 to deliver rich death experiences.

Zombie 2.0 - you just can't put it down!

"National Institute for Technology and Lib Ed" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469158)

This "organization" sounds fishy. Who are these guys?

Ajax isn't always better (4, Interesting)

Twillerror (536681) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469230)

Funny that Web 2.0 is taking off so much. The problem with it is that everyone I interview is now "learning" Ajax. I feel like if I go to an interview I'll be asked a million Ajax questions, that I really don't want to answer.

Using hidden Iframes and JScript was one way to do what Ajax does years ago. There are definately a few cases where it is really useful. A little div popup, pre-populating city state after a postal code was entered, testing a value etc. Debugging is much harder, and the Javascript/DOM model is hard to code bug free. Javascript errors don't get reported to the server admin, and they are often hard to replicate. This is partly a lack of good tools, but view source on HTML is almost always easier then trying to step thru some buggy jscript.

It can be very easy to abuse Ajax. I recently had someone show me a search example that "pre-populated" as you typed. It was super clunky and really didn't work. Ajax's biggest problem at this point is that everyone thinksd everything has to be instant now. You can make a user go to another page to edit something that is not edited every other minute.

As much as I love Google maps, Yahoo Flash maps kick their ass. Adobe's new Flex tech is really going to give Ajax a run for the money. Java is just to sluggish, but Flash is pretty quick. Yes you'll have to turn off your flash ad blockers.

The thing that has to happen is that SVG or a new standard needs to be born to handle GUI apps. People don't like flash because there is a name behind it, HTML is a standard, Javascript is a standard, etc. Java is Sun/IBM, Flash is Adobe ( formally Macromedia ).

Personally I would love to see an HTML 5.0....A pure XML based HTML is great, but pretty impractical given the huge amount of content that doesn't have the
  tag, and just have
  tags, etc. WTH did no one think to have a tag? Now I'm stuck with a million different Javascript/UL combos out there. Even adding a target to div would be great. Imagine a that would turn on a div and tell the browser to turn it on. With some style sheet properties you could make some powerful divs without code. [slashdot.org]

I guess my biggest gripe with Web 2.0 is that almost everything that we spend hours figuring out in JScript could be done if people would create more and better HTML tags. Then the browser developers take care of all the testing, and we will have more stable apps.

Personally I'm going down the Flash path. If you haven't tried Flex yet, labs.adobe.com, do yourself a favor and see what you've been missing....no I don't work for Adboe or even really like them :)
You can do more in less time, and you can create content that really looks good. I'd love to see a Flex slashdot version.

Re:Ajax isn't always better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469313)

Flash isn't available on my platform (Linux AMD64), so I couldn't watch the videos at labs.adobe.com praising this technology. It's probably cool though.

Re:Ajax isn't always better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469438)

I agree with your comment. Also to note is OpenLaszlo. Very similar to Flex but an open-source platform.. Plus OpenLaszlo will soon allow developers to write rich applications in it's very structured OO language and have them run in both a Flash run-time or DHTML. I've been developing in OpenLaszlo for over 3 years (i do not work there) and have loved it. It's also very easy to bring other developers up to speed on the code and quick prototyping is a breeze. The Gliffy diagramming tool (http://www.gliffy.com) is a great example of an application done in OpenLaszlo. Fast and simple UI.

"Web 2.0" is really just "Web 1.x" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469235)

Calling it 2.0 implies that there has been a change in the underlying protocols; however, people will always just call it "the web" as long as we continue to use HTTP on TCP/80 and HTTPS on TCP/443 (* though even that's a bad definition, since there are a lot of sites that serve Web 1.0 content as HTTP on TCP/8080 or some other proxied port).

If you want to call something Web 2.0, pick a new port and design a new open protocol. If a critical mass of people start using it, then you can call it Web 2.0. Until then, let's stop stroking these peoples' egos by calling it Web 2.0 instead of what it really is: Web 1.x.

p.s. Personally I'm of the opinion that the current generation of "Web 2.0" is really more like "Web 1.0.2003 BETA".

RSS (2, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469253)

Microsoft is considering a massive extension of RSS.

For some strange reason, that statement sends shivers down my spine.

Web 2.0 (tm) explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469331)

Confused about what Web 2.0 is? So was I, but now I got what Web 2.0(tm) really is.

First of all, it all started with some company I can't remember the name of invented a stupid name that sounded like a soup brand for the hack that another company.

Then out of nowhere websites with names like "raggot" and "dorkr" are all the rage. They all feature the following:

* Pastel colors
* Rounded boxes
* Fade-in/fade-out Javascript events
* At least 16 different stylesheets per page
* The ability to let users socially mess up the categorization of data with random strings of characters (called "tags")

And suddenly, the 90s are back. Time to get ready for the IPO party people. Except it's not an IPO party anymore, it's being bought by Yahoo!

ugh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469378)

I was just telling a friend how 90% of "innovation" in the computer industry just consists of taking some old concept and giving it a new name and/or implementation, thus allowing another generation of practitioners to avoid having to actually learn anything, or see the fundamentals beyond the implementation details.

After 20 years in the field, I've seen it over and over again. I start to realize why so many older techies are so damn bitter.

For the record, my personal "ax to grind" is data management: first we had hierarchical databases, then network, then SQL, then network again (but now it's "object"), and finally hierarchical (now called "XML"). Completely ignoring the single model that encompasses all of them. But I digress...

Like a lot of this taxonomy, I'm NOT SURE WHAT WEB 2.0 IS EXACTLY. However, the main points seem to be:

1) use of Ajax in your app's primary interface so that it works more like a "regular" desktop app.

2) giving your app a second interface which is "well-documented" (so the app can be automated). For example, an XML-RPC API.

3) Avoiding complexity.

4) Using certain fonts and graphical design.

#1 is definitely nothing new. Graphical network apps have been around since X11 at least. Of course in many cases I prefer a well-designed Ajaxy app to one that has to reload all the time, so this is generally a good thing for web apps. However, I repeat, it's NOTHING INNOVATIVE, unless you're looking exclusively at the universe of web apps.

#2.. well, you know, to me there is NO LOGICAL DIFFERENCE between documented, easily-parsed HTML and intuitive URLs, vs. an XML-RPC interface. In other words, they could just be combined into one API that can be used by both humans and machines. Though I can understand how using Ajax would complexify the HTML interface to the point were it's better to create a new API.

Side note: in coding against some "web 2.0" apps, I have to resort to screen-scraping anyway, because they leave out data from the XML-RPC interface. But then they fall out of sync sometimes, it seems.

#3 this is a bit of a lie, since the total system from the silicon on up is MUCH more complex than before. And the Javascript/HTML/Ajax stuff is a nightmare of complexity, though for some reason people have convinced themselves that it isn't.

#4, yeah, somewhat tongue in cheek, but haven't you noticed that everything that's "Web 2.0" seems to have a certain "look and feel", which of course means nothing from a logical, fundamental point of view, but it's there.

So, I'd have to disagree, Web 2.0 is just another wave of new terminology, half-baked concepts, and the occasional step backward. Plus the usual lack of precision and reliability. Just like we get every 5-10 years in this industry.

All new is forgotten old (1)

saikou (211301) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469385)

I wonder why all this new hype is not called BBS 2.0 ?
I mean it's the same idea -- microcontent posted by participants of particular service (be it pictures, stories, daily updates), just done through the browser. Yes, it's easier to ask for money for snazzy new abbreviation, and it improves feeling of self-worthieness.
"We need to improve our Wiki presence in Web 2.0 and expand RSS feeds to all departments" sounds so much better than "Our documentation should be easy to use and all departments have to post their news on the web regularly". And probably would get a budget.
*sigh* Nothing but hype

Stop talking about "Web 2.0"! (1)

whatthef*ck (215929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469393)

You're just making O'Reilly's franchise [slashdot.org] more valuable.

Web (Marketing-Hype) 2.0 (1)

v3xt0r (799856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469441)

Ask any web developer, and they'll tell you that Web 2.0 means nothing more to them than a bunch of mis-jargons used for greedy marketing tactics, by greedy web sales guys who drink way to much coffee and read way to many blogs.

I've watched how the sales guys @ my old co. were spinning the hype to customers, with all the same old promises (overflated promises 2.0), and same old inefficiencies (due to 'we have to roll this out and sell it before the next guy does' etc.) *yawn*

The only good to come out of it all, is that IT shops that have enough budgeting, can (justifiably) seperate the tasks between client-side and server-side development (if they haven't already), so people who currently do both, can have some room to focus on one or the other. Unfortunately, not all companies are structured in such a manor. =/

Web 2.0 and Slashdot (1)

boneshintai (112283) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469778)

So... does this explain why Slashdot's Light Mode now looks even shittier?

Re:Web 2.0 and Slashdot (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469888)

I was wondering about that. Seven-point fonts are Web 1.0. Web 2.0 is all about using grossly oversized fonts, especially in input controls. How annoying.

No, it's not a 'new wave' of anything (2, Interesting)

melted (227442) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469804)

It's a horrible, overcomplicated kludge that creates more problems than it solves. The sole reason why it exists, is because there's no single, widely adopted standard that would enable rich, extensible UI on the client and seamless interop with the server. There are two reasons why there's no such standard:

1. Microsoft doesn't want the web to enable something that will threaten its monopoly in OS and Office software.
2. Existing (and upcoming) standards are broken for two reasons: a). Microsoft XAML (which could solve the problem beautifully) is not cross-platform, and XUL doesn't truly solve the problems - it still needs binary extensions to do anything meaningful and they aren't cross platform either.

Quite frankly, for something like Flickr, I wouldn't mind running a client app as long as there's an easy, reliable way of updating it (like what's implemented in Firefox - binary diffs). That app, however, must run on three platforms in order to work for me, because I use Mac OS X, Windows and Linux.

Cluetrain for the Post Columbine world (1)

tm2b (42473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469829)

Whenever I read the phrase "Web 2.0," I wonder what ever happened to Jon Katz.

Re:Cluetrain for the Post Columbine world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15469891)

well, in this post-columbine, post-9/11, post-web 1.0 world, we are now post-john katz. every major tragedy that can happen has happened. it'd take a nuclear war to create as much hype and panic as john katz tried to do... i'm sure he's waiting, lurking, probably giving osama bin laden ideas, biding his time until he has more b.s. to come and spout off about.

Slashdot just went web 2.0 (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15469883)

Looks like slashdot just went web 2.0. what fun!

Web 2.0 is about experience not implementation (5, Insightful)

gigahawk (745812) | more than 8 years ago | (#15470000)

It would be typical with a forum full of engineers to simply pass up web 2.0 as some marketing buzzword for a new implementation of something old. In many ways the attributes associated with what is being collectively called 'web 2.0' are simply old ideas implemented in a medium where they can succeed in a big way.

It's important to understand that the difference in the web is not in the implementation but in the experience of the end user and how content is created, managed, and distributed. Adaptive path has a writeup about this at http://adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archiv es/000547.php [adaptivepath.com]

The difference is important because it changes how developers and designers percieve the web when they are creating new things. There are many features of newer web software that contribute to the ways in which people use and experience the web.

My favorite is the preference in designing software for the long tail. Which is mentioned in Wired http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html [wired.com] This is the practice of serving many niche markets with targeted software instead of building software to service all of the market and doing it badly. This causes less confusion, less clutter, better software and faster turnaround.

Some of the other features of the newer web software you might have already noticed are decentralization, remixability, co-creation, and their side-effect of emergent systems. Web services, niche software and the network effect all make these things much more feasible than they have been in the past since there are well defined frameworks for distributing services that are easy to work with and adding more niche services increases the value of all web software by a large amount.

Notice I didn't say AJAX or Ruby on Rails or Django or [insert your new framework or technology here]. These are merely details of implementation. If a framework makes your company faster then that's good. If a technology lets your user's client fetch web service data for them, that can also be good. These things are only technologies used to reach an end product. Web 2.0 could have been done in many languages and frameworks and on many platforms. That's not to say that certain languages, frameworks, etc. didn't have an effect on the design of the software, as any language or framework has a certain effect on the overall style of the developers using it.

This was about a need for developers and designers to move beyond what was status quo for interaction between websites and their users. They are taking full advantage of the tools they have created and the network that was built up over the past few decades. To belittle their efforts into something meaningless is to surely miss the entire point.

Re:Web 2.0 is about experience not implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15470093)

Some of the other features... decentralization, tick remixability, ch-check co-creation, almost there... emergent systems. BINGO!

fuck 4 sponge (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15470081)

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...