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!

Gartner Touts Web 2.0, Scoffs At Web 3.0

ScuttleMonkey posted about 7 years ago | from the web-'t-have-quite-the-same-ring dept.

The Internet 187

An anonymous reader writes to mention that even though Web 2.0 is just now starting to gain widespread acceptance, there are those who are already trying to hijack the term Web 3.0. According to Gartner, there are quite a few new technologies and incremental modifications to existing Web 2.0 technology, but nothing that could equal the level of fundamental change exhibited by the shift to Web 2.0.

cancel ×


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

Shif? (3, Funny)

ribo-bailey (724061) | about 7 years ago | (#20734389)


Re:Shif? (5, Funny)

HBK-4G (2475) | about 7 years ago | (#20734451)

Web 3.0 is muc faste becaus i drop extr letter. Paradig shif.

Or maybe everything old is new again, and it's merely shorthand for the Web.

Re:Shif? (2, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 years ago | (#20734971)

Web 3.0 is muc faste becaus i drop extr letter.
So, if XML became ML, would the result be more functional?

Re:Shif? (0)

missing000 (602285) | about 7 years ago | (#20735549)


Re:Shif? (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 7 years ago | (#20735033)

Web 3.0 is muc faste becaus i drop extr letter. Paradig shif.

Web 3.1-final does this recursively and saves everybody a lot of time.

Re:Shif? (1)

ribo-bailey (724061) | about 7 years ago | (#20734485)

Hmm. Pointing out a spelling mistake without being an asshole about it is trolling now? sweet.

Tired of these bullshitting buzzwords. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734783)

The web is just the web, there is no 2.0 or 3.0 etc..

Marking it as 2.0 and 3.0 is just a way of incrementing our dumbassness of understanding what the web should be in the long term. web 1.0 = text? web 2.0 = graphics, fancy flashy divs? come on..

Every buzzword puts millions, probably billions in peoples pockets. Stop categorzing shit that you have no idea about you copy and paste, non innovative, back riding scumbags..

Yes, but... (4, Funny)

cromar (1103585) | about 7 years ago | (#20734417)

Web 4.0 is even better!

Wrong Increment (4, Funny)

WED Fan (911325) | about 7 years ago | (#20734501)

Web NT follows 3.0

Web ME will be a more family and consumer friendly web.

Web XP will be the new Experienced Web.

I felt a disturbance in the web, as if a thousand geeks cried, "Don't give them any ideas, you f*&$king moron!

Re:Wrong Increment (3, Funny)

kat_skan (5219) | about 7 years ago | (#20734671)

Web XP will be the new Experienced Web.

Advice: move to an off-grid shack in Montana before anyone has an opportunity to create Goatse Experienced.

I felt a disturbance in the web, as if a thousand geeks cried, "Don't give them any ideas, you f*&$king moron!

Oh. Er. Nevermind, I didn't say anything.

Re:Wrong Increment (5, Funny)

s.bots (1099921) | about 7 years ago | (#20735277)

My Web goes to 11.0! No, no, you don't get it... IT GOES TO 11.0!!!!!!! Most just go to 10.0.

Re:Wrong Increment (1)

glwtta (532858) | about 7 years ago | (#20735399)

And after that, Web.Net will collapse into a heap of vague redundancy.

Re:Yes, but... (4, Insightful)

ivanmarsh (634711) | about 7 years ago | (#20734507)

Web 2.0 = Broken and slow.
Web 3.0 = ?Not working at all?

Does web 4.0 actually remove information from your brain?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If I can't get to the information I'm looking for it doesn't matter how pretty it is.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

foobsr (693224) | about 7 years ago | (#20735195)

Does web 4.0 actually remove information from your brain?

Too much information in the brain regularly does not pose a difficult problem to most of the populace. Thus ...

"Web 4.0 will be focused on slimming down the fat of Web 3.0. Much like moving from pure HTML design mark-up to CSS, we will all be trying to separate our fat from body. This will be done with LSS (Liposuction Style Sheets), which will suck our fat out of our ass and dress us in the latest trendy clothings. At this period in time, the style will be retro and all clothes will have a thousand animated gif's, flashing and/or scrolling text, and a background pattern that basically makes it impossible to see you." (c.f. [] )

Old news.


Re:Yes, but... (2, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 7 years ago | (#20736007)

"Does web 4.0 actually remove information from your brain?"

Been to any Web 2.0 sites lately? I don't think we need to wait for Web 4....

Re:Yes, but... (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | about 7 years ago | (#20734577)

lol what's that? You just download the executable and run it locally?

Re:Yes, but... (1)

mh1997 (1065630) | about 7 years ago | (#20734873)

"Web 4.0 is even better!"

I call dibs on the greatly improved Web 5.0!

Re:Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20735021)

My web goes to 11.

Web 2.0? 3.0? (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 7 years ago | (#20734421)

Screw this. I'm waiting for Web 3.11 for Workgroups.

Re:Web 2.0? 3.0? (1)

KenAndCorey (581410) | about 7 years ago | (#20734651)

I'm waiting for Web 2.0 SP3 before upgrading from Web 1.0.

Re:Web 2.0? 3.0? (1)

psykocrime (61037) | about 7 years ago | (#20734675)

Which will be inferior to Web/2 3.0. But what I'm really amped about is Web/2 4.0 Warp.

Re:Web 2.0? 3.0? (1)

TopShelf (92521) | about 7 years ago | (#20734683)

Bah - I'm trademarking "Son of Web"...

Not to worry (2, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | about 7 years ago | (#20734423)

even though Web 2.0 is just now starting to gain widespread acceptance, there are those who are already trying to hijack the term Web 3.0.

Well pity on them, because little to they know that the version numbers for the internet do not increment by one, they double. So the next version will be 4.0.

Re:Not to worry (2, Funny)

Penguinshit (591885) | about 7 years ago | (#20734475)

Web 3.0 is just a development version. Official releases are even-numbered...

Gartner sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734431)

I scoff at the Gartner group!

Bah. (0, Redundant)

Ed Avis (5917) | about 7 years ago | (#20734443)

Everyone knows that the first few versions tend to be buggy and not worth using. I'm waiting for Web 3.11 for Workgroups.

And next week... (4, Insightful)

Penguinshit (591885) | about 7 years ago | (#20734445)

...Gartner will proclaim the wonders of Web 3.0 after someone blows a monthly expense account on a Gartner "analyst".

Useless whores.

Web 3.0? Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734449)

I'm already doing stuff in Web 9.0.

It's pretty cool - no page reloads or anything, I call it 'life'...

Re:Web 3.0? Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734605)

Psh. I'm running Web

Re:Web 3.0? Meh... (1, Redundant)

Reverend528 (585549) | about 7 years ago | (#20734993)

My web goes to 11.0

The meaning of life? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734467)

I have at what version of the web will we understand the meaning of life the universe and everything? Web 42.0!

Well there goes web (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734495)

Darn - and I was still waiting for Web for Gentoo to recompile... I just finished downloading it last night on my 19.2 modem.

Re:Well there goes web (1)

Simply Curious (1002051) | about 7 years ago | (#20734645)

You only have a 19.2 modem?

I laugh at you from my 2400 baud modem!

Re:Well there goes web (1, Funny)

six (1673) | about 7 years ago | (#20735847)

not to be pedantic, but 19200 bps modems actually used a 2400 baud modulation.

Re:Well there goes web (1)

DavidTC (10147) | about 7 years ago | (#20736169)

How the heck is that not being pedantic?

hype (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 7 years ago | (#20734503)

but nothing that could equal the level of fundamental change exhibited by the shif to Web 2.0.
Which is? That lots of webpages are way more annoying now and their layout will break completely if you're not using the exact browser they were designed with? Oh wait, we don't have those problems anymore, right? Yeah, right...

Sorry, but Google Maps is one of the very few places where "Web 2.0" actually gives me something that wouldn't have been doable in "Web 1.0". Most places just use it as "look it moves"-type eye-candy.

Wake me when people are using "Web 2.0" to make their sites more useable, instead of just more shiney. Those that do are still a tiny minority. Until then, shut up about higher version numbers. Bugfix the old one first.

Re:hype (4, Insightful)

Incoherent07 (695470) | about 7 years ago | (#20734655)

The trick is that there are two aspects to Web 2.0. There's Ajax (and things that look or act like Ajax), which does tend to be used badly in many cases. (I would argue that being able to get new data without a page reload is a positive for usability, but you're free to disagree.)

The second aspect is more social: where Web 1.0 focused more on a one-way "I write this page, then you read it" exchange, Web 2.0 encourages multi-way communication, and users contributing content. While this idea isn't exactly new, it's something that's really caught fire recently, and if you actually read the article you'll notice that they're talking about wikis and social networks, which aren't Web 2.0 in an Ajax sense so much as Web 2.0 in a social sense.

So yeah, you can wake up and go look at Wikipedia now.

Re:hype (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 7 years ago | (#20735515)

But then where is the transition? Where is "Web 2.0" where there wasn't one before? The first Wiki was invented in 1994. There were other, similar systems 10 years before that.

Social websites aren't any news, either. It's just that they're suddenly popular and everywhere. Sure MySpace is new, but there were sites much like it 10 years ago. Ok, maybe 8. Actually, thinking about it, I dimly remember a "social website" like thing back from my BBS days.

So what is "Web 2.0" if not Ajax etc.? Is it a phase, a trend? iTunes is something that's at least as new, if not more so, than MySpace, but it's not counted in the "Web 2.0" thing, is it? Why not? What about Amazon? The reader reviews are often very useful. Other community product review sites have been around at least since the CEO of my dot-com company started one about 6 years ago.

So, really, when you look at it, what is "Web 2.0", except hype?

Re:hype (2, Interesting)

Incoherent07 (695470) | about 7 years ago | (#20736205)

I think the numbering system is unfortunate (you can blame O'Reilly Media throwing names at the wall until one stuck), since it's not really analogous to changing from Version 5 of WidgetMaker to Version 6, with Fancy New Widget Making Capabilities. There's no "box" that you can put Web 2.0 in and sell to people. You're absolutely right that BBSes, wikis, Slashdot's comments, and Amazon's reviews all go back to various points in history that the talking heads wouldn't call "Web 2.0".

But really, there's SOMETHING there. I consider it fairly self-evident that the way people use the Web has changed in the last five years or so. Does that mean that the way they're using it is completely unprecedented? Of course not; you've demonstrated that. But there's always a leading edge: the test is whether it gets a large audience, and this idea of social networking has just recently hit that.

Consider a slightly different example: MU*s have been around for decades, but MMOGs (their direct descendants) are just now hitting mainstream appeal. Obviously WoW is all hype because it doesn't do anything that any random hack-and-slash MUD could do...

I'd consider it a set of concepts more than anything: a focus on user-created content, a focus on social networking, a mindset that the Web is about people rather than data, and, yes, Ajax and similar technologies as new platforms and new approaches to Web usability. Yes, this doesn't cover everything that's called "Web 2.0", but I never said there wasn't hype involved here, just that it's not all hype.

More hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20735709)

Yes, that's the difference between Web 2.0 and Web 2.1.

(Yes, this is a joke).

Re:hype (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 7 years ago | (#20735859)

While this idea isn't exactly new

Which is exactly why calling it Web 2.0 is a stupid idea. /. has had user contributed stories, comments, and moderation since the mid 1990s. There's nothing about "web 2.0" that would require a major version change. That is, if the web were something that made sense to label with version numbers, which it's not.

Re:hype (1)

kalaf (963208) | about 7 years ago | (#20736113)

Bare in mind that some of these people have only been using the web for the last 4-5 years. These would be the same people who upgrade their OS every 4-5 years. Shouldn't they toss a new Internet into the cart as well?

In all seriousness though, I think web 2.0 is just a way to make the internet sound exciting again. It has become too difficult to fleece investors with "online" applications. "Web 2.0" applications, on the other hand...

Re:hype (3, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 7 years ago | (#20736093)

There's nothing new about the "social" aspects of Web 2.0. Maybe it's the business model: we'll have no content and make money by showing people ads to look at their own content. No, wait, that's old too. Geocities and Angelfire had that in the 90's (and had their flare of hype then turned into a stinking swamp just like MySpace).

The ONLY thing new about Web 2.0 is the AJAXy aspect. Someone overreacted on that one, came up with Web 2.0 and then all the other stuff was added, by people who apparently aren't familiar with history, to justify such an inane term. Or maybe it's because somebody want's to justify another web bubble.

Re:hype (3, Insightful)

timpaton (748607) | about 7 years ago | (#20736191)

Web 1.0 focused more on a one-way "I write this page, then you read it" exchange, Web 2.0 encourages multi-way communication, and users contributing content

"Web 2.0" (stupid term) concentrates ownership of the web into the hands of larger organisations.

Any monkey can build a Web 1.0 site. All it takes is a keyboard and text editor (or WYSInotWYG html editor). Host it somewhere, and if the host turns evil (or the site gets popular and needs more resources), pick it up and move it somewhere else. If Joe Average User wants to publish an autonomous independent website, it's not hard.

It takes some serious programming muscle to launch a bright shiney interactive omgponies Web 2.0 site. Joe Average User doesn't have those resources.

Joe Average User can publish his content easily on a Web 2.0 site, but it's under the control of the site owner. Web 2.0 belongs to big business. Users ceed power to corporations.

Web2.0 is McInternet - the corporatisation of the internet.

Re:hype (5, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | about 7 years ago | (#20735089)

"Web 2.0" doesn't mean anything. Google Maps is just a website. It uses javascript and iFrames to achieve something approaching an application. Those two pieces of technology have been around since HTML4 was first conceived.

Web 2.0 ? (5, Insightful)

sundru (709023) | about 7 years ago | (#20734511)

Anyone even know what Web 2.0 means?

Re:Web 2.0 ? (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 7 years ago | (#20734555)

Nothing at all. It is a colloquial term, like AJAX. It refers to any number of things, from social networking to web apps, as long as it is done without applets. I think.

Re:Web 2.0 ? (1)

glwtta (532858) | about 7 years ago | (#20734755)

Huh? Out of this whole soup of annoying misnomers, Ajax is just about the only thing that refers to a specific technology.

Re:Web 2.0 ? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 7 years ago | (#20734827)

AJAX is not a technology, it is a loosely defined method of designing a web app. It originally referred to an IE-only technique of transferring data between a web browser and a server, but has since been used to describe all sorts of things, even things that don't involve XMLHttpRequest objects. I have seen designs that use hidden frames to send POST requests to a server as "AJAX," and among non-programmers, I have even heard AJAX used to refer to plain old DHTML pages. "AJAX" was invented during a marketing meeting to refer to a set of technologies that some sales rep was trying sell, at least as I have heard it.

Re:Web 2.0 ? (2, Funny)

ronadams (987516) | about 7 years ago | (#20734591)

It's like .NET, widget, AJAX, and Silverlight...

You aren't supposed to know. That's what makes it so cool! GETIT?!

Re:Web 2.0 ? (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 7 years ago | (#20735025)

Huh? .NET bone simple. AJAX, similarly simple. Silverlight is just .NET running in a web browser. Nothing really complicated about any of them.

Re:Web 2.0 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734761)

Not everyone agrees on the answer to your question. I say:

Web 2.0 is a marketting-type term that refers to a an aesthetic and cultural trend in Internet useage. People try to make it about the technology. It's not. Web 2.0 is about the rise of democratically created content:
1. Social networking sites
2. Youtube
3. Digg, and to a lesser extent, Slashdot
4. Wikipedia
5. Blogs which attract an audience that consists of non-computer nerds

The technology people would again say Web2.0 is a push back toward client-side processing in the form a javascript and the like, but that stuff's been around forever and is hardly revolutionary enough to warrant a special label. The social movement, though -- that's unique and notable.

Re:Web 2.0 ? (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 years ago | (#20735207)

What you describe doesn't sound like democratically created content.

When the shift goes from "I make a web page and put it on my server" to "I give you my creation and you put it on your site.", that sounds more like a step away from democratically created content and a step towards centralized big media.

You want democracy online, you're looking at something more along the lines of

1) Everyone with a computer has a server on it that they are not obligated to pay commercial prices for.
2) Everyone with an internet connection has a static IP address and at least one fully qualified domain name.
3) Internet service providers are not permitted to enforce terms of use that preclude hosting.

Everything that is happening with the Web these days is taking us further away from this, not closer towards it.

Re:Web 2.0 ? (5, Interesting)

psykocrime (61037) | about 7 years ago | (#20734815)

Anyone even know what Web 2.0 means?

Loosely translated it means "vacuous buzzword that vendors slap on products, along with a fresh coat of paint, so they can sell the same old same old for more money; except in the case of vendors with new products, who slap 'web 2.0' on their products in an effort to be 'buzzword compliant;' or in the case of book, article and blog writers, it's a term they use to make themselves sound more sophisticated and 'in the know' than they really are."

Re:Web 2.0 ? (2, Insightful)

Shotgun (30919) | about 7 years ago | (#20734919)

It means that all the old engineers get to pull out the patents they file 40 years ago and refile them. This time with "a plethora of Web2.0 interfaces with one or a plethora of backend servers provide Web2.0 content to one or a plethora of user with one or a plethora of Web2.0 enable machine to convey one or a plethora pieces of Web2.0 information."

Re:Web 2.0 ? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 7 years ago | (#20736119)

You know, plethora wouldn't make such a bad buzzword....

Re:Web 2.0 ? (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 years ago | (#20734929)

Web 2.0 is everything that was only practical on an intranet 5 years ago, but is now practical across the internet.

Except now we have the XMLHttpRequest object, and no longer need to resort to things like modal dialog windows, hidden frames and web bugs to achieve these effects.

That pretty much sums it up.

Mod this overrated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20735157)

This is some pretty mundane, obvious information.

Re:Web 2.0 ? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 years ago | (#20735105)

Web 2.0 means lots of things.
What it means I am sorry to say is a white page with pastel colors containing links to others content. Thow comments of which 99% are just useless and or flamebait and you have Web 2.0.
Or as I like to call it Digg.

i spotted web2.0 on that website (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734589)

seriously if web2.0 is what websites like the submitted one are like
1234 [next]

give me web1.0 without 20 adverts (out of 70 elements) per page
with a 200 word article split
over multiple pages meaning you should of seen over 100 adverts for reading 1 article
at what point to you call a spade a spade and say is nothing more than a fancy linkfarm where advertising and whoring your site and dignity to the highest bidder is paramount
if they think that real network pros read that kind of site they are mistaken

adblock plus users are growing for exactly the reason sites like that

Fuck it! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734595)

We're going to 5!!! That's right, not 3, not 4, fucking 5.

Re:Fuck it! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20735175)

I pity the sad, sad, non-onion reading mod who wasted a point on this.

spoon (4, Funny)

N3wsByt3 (758224) | about 7 years ago | (#20734609)

Do not try to understand or comprehend web 3.0. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth: there is no web 3.0.

Heck, there isn't even a web 2.0.

blogosphere? (4, Funny)

jythie (914043) | about 7 years ago | (#20734625)

So does this mean the blogosphere will become the blogohypersphere? More dimensions makes it better.

Re:blogosphere? (1)

glwtta (532858) | about 7 years ago | (#20734721)

No, it will become the blagodysonsphere - hopefully that will mean we won't be able to see what goes on inside it.

Re:blogosphere? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 7 years ago | (#20735359)

I think I will stick to my blogoring myself. That way if I get annoying comments I can just nudge it into the sun and kill everyone.

Re:blogosphere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20735887)

Oh, how I yearn to go back to the simple, innocent times of the blogocircle!

A Return To Fundamentals (2, Funny)

Nitroadict (1005509) | about 7 years ago | (#20734637)

HTML 3 & 4! CSS? AJAX? RAILS? What is this nonsense? No no, I will take my tables with a hint of information > pretty colors, healthy servings of pure .txt FAQ's within inline Frames, non threatening bullet list navigations in side frames! Max resolutions of 800x600!
GIF over PNG's Guestbook & counters over spamming comment parades
I am General Nitro, Son of Berners-Lee! Join me now and I will advocate for the early release of Mitnik! Web 2.0 will bow down before our glorious empire, and will be subordinates of the House Of /. !!!!!!

Spiteful? I report, you decide.

What Web 3.0 is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734657)

When you can still use your web 2.0 apps when you are not connected to the internet, and later sync up the changes you made to your local copy, all through your browser with the same ease as just going to the website, then you will have Web 3.0

Screw this (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 7 years ago | (#20734689)

My web site will now be a collection of text files.

Re:Screw this (2, Funny)

$pace6host (865145) | about 7 years ago | (#20734769)

My web site will now be a collection of text files.
Web 3.0, now with "gopher"!

Offline apps (2, Insightful)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | about 7 years ago | (#20734729)

For me Google Gears is the first sign of (ugh) Web 3.0... or at least, the next level of capability.

It's now perfectly possible* to build a database driven app that is 'installed' over the internet and will run _totally_ off line. You can run a background thread to do data syncing for you.

This is a really neat deployment method for a lot of apps - OS independent! - that don't warrant a full install process. You could build a web store that was available all the time for example, and grabbed current prices when on line and remembered your (selected off line) shopping list when you had a connection available again.

Obviously this would be of no use if we lived in a perfect world where connection was continuous, but out here where 3G doesn't work in tunnels and free public wifi is getting more, rather than less, rare, well designed off line capable web apps are a serious potential move forwards in usability and well worthy of a web x.? increment.

*Actually, it's been possible for a while but someone made a neat package to help you do it.

Re:Offline apps (2, Interesting)

PieSquared (867490) | about 7 years ago | (#20734889)

That's great and all but probably not worth spending much time on. I mean, how often do you use your computer without an internet connection these days? When you're on a plane, maybe? Maybe I'm just terribly different, living on a college campus, but I never take out my laptop in a place where there isn't a wireless connection. I mean, if you're stuck in an area without broadband obviously you aren't connected 24/7 but we're supposed to be making it so that nobody is stuck in that situation.

I'm just saying that the return on technology that is only a benefit if you use the program while offline is only going to drop in the future, until everyone is always connected when using a computer.

Re:Offline apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20735319)

You need to get out more.

Re:Offline apps (1)

Nitroadict (1005509) | about 7 years ago | (#20735015)

Actually, I could imagine offline apps being very useful for those who are still stuck with dial-up, or those who would like something to aid them in their stubborn rebellion (using dial-up again) against the cable monopoly of comcast/verizon etc ... Of course, if comcast get's any worse (i.e. their backbone collapses further and speeds become DSL to ISDN like, which i'm not sure of the probability of) this would also help. Of course, we are all going to get nuked into forever winter eventually via WW3, 4, or 5, so dial-up is inevitable. I'm sorry, I seem to quite in the ruts today D:

Re:Offline apps (1)

MrCoke (445461) | about 7 years ago | (#20735017)

You just made every security professional drool...

Re:BINGO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20735257)

/me smiles at Realistic_Dragon and says "I mean awesome!", and then turns around and holds up his bingo card and wiggles his shoulders at the other engineers.

Re:Offline apps (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 7 years ago | (#20736171)

OMG! Web 3.0 was invented in the 90s! After all, that's when it became perfectly possible to do all those things. Or maybe it was the 80's. My memory is a bit hazy.

Gartner sneering at marketing hype... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734777)

Could someone tag this story 'potmeetkettle' or 'potkettleblack' or maybe just 'bizarrogartner'?

Web 10.75p1U6 (1)

CRiMSON (3495) | about 7 years ago | (#20734901)

That's right, I'm already planning Web 10.75 P1, U6. Get onboard bitches! This shit is gonna rock! Of the many improvements our biggest one is, blinking flash movies! That's right, not just flash, not just blinking text, but blinking flash movies!! It's gonna be HUUGEE!!

Re:Web 10.75p1U6 (1)

deftcoder (1090261) | about 7 years ago | (#20735957)

It's gonna be HUUGEE!!
A huge strain on my LCD and eyes, maybe...

Slashdot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20734905)

Must every other article posted to Slashdot be flamebait?

All the editors seem to do nowadays is entice it's readers into posting comments.

Such as this one.

Wha? (0, Troll)

DanielMarkham (765899) | about 7 years ago | (#20734933)

What is this "web" you speak of?

pfft (1)

sootman (158191) | about 7 years ago | (#20734939)

There's still lots of fun stuff that can be done with Web 1.0... even on an iPhone. [] (shameless plug)

Actually, what I'd really like to see would be a return to true Web 1.0 roots--you know, device independence, things like that. To be honest, the iPhone's method of shrinking web pages is just a not-so-elegant workaround. It's nice sometimes, but I'd prefer it if the iPhone just reflowed plain pages like this [] to 320 pixels wide (without a viewport specified) like my Axim does.* (I say this as a happy iPhone owner and developer.)

* in landscape mode the iPhone just shows unstyled pages with no zoom, 480px wide, but in portrait mode it shrinks them. Which is fine for sites with columns but I wish it would just say "No styling info? Just show it at 1x" for really plain nothing-but-headings-and-paragraphs type pages.

/. is full of freakin morons (0, Flamebait)

CraniumDesigns (1113153) | about 7 years ago | (#20734955)

arent there ever any constructive conversations on /. or is it just a bunch of nerdy teenagers who think they're clever? i read this stuff every day and it's like DAMN, grow up children.

Re:/. is full of freakin morons (0, Troll)

Stringer Bell (989985) | about 7 years ago | (#20735487)

Every day? Are you a nerdy teenager who thinks you're clever? DAMN, grow up.

Oh, sorry...I'm all like DAMN, grow up. There.

Re:/. is full of freakin morons (1)

CraniumDesigns (1113153) | about 7 years ago | (#20735653)

no. i'm 25 and i come here during work to find out about new technology trends and what not. i always check the comments of articles i'm interested and all i ever see is "i got dibs on web 4.0!" or "i for one welcome our ...." it's just not funny. i come here hoping for intelligent conversation and what i see is far from that. i think i'll just read the articles from now and ignore all the moronic comments which makes up about 90% of the conversation here anyways.

Re:/. is full of freakin morons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20735795)

eat shit faggot

Re:/. is full of freakin morons (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 7 years ago | (#20736199)

You do realize you're reading the comments for a story about Web 2.0, right? I'm not sure what a constructive conversation about that topic would look like.

Web 2.0... (2, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | about 7 years ago | (#20735031)

... is just maketing drivel. Anyone who uses that term to describe anything in particular is talking out of their ass.

Gartner? Ugh (2, Informative)

Chlorus (1146335) | about 7 years ago | (#20735053)

I'm sorry, but after an incident quite some time ago, I can no longer take anything the Gartner group says seriously. Back in freshman year of college, an assignment required reading an essay published by a Gartner analyst. The title was "When Ants Beat Spiders"(a shame I can't find my old copy of it). Basically, the work was over the limitations of spider based search engines. The analyst then suggested using an ant like model, to search "well traveled data paths and examine dynamic content". That's all well and good, but the writer made absolutely no attempt at even suggesting a basic approach to implementing this system. He made no attempt to define what a "well traveled data path" is, nor did he even explain how it would be possible to accurately gain data on dynamic content. In the end, the entire essay sounded like a dehydrated nomad in the desert saying, "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we had an ocean nearby". After that debacle, I can never take any consultant seriously.

Web 2000! (1)

theskunkmonkey (839144) | about 7 years ago | (#20735057)

Err... wait..

Web 2008!

Nah... Wait, I got it!

Web 3000!

Yes, yes, that will do just fine.

Obligatory Dilbert (1)

LM741N (258038) | about 7 years ago | (#20735087)

Dilbert will have to change his "Anti-Meeting Spell." (See or the Sunday paper a couple of weeks ago)

Web 2.0 hrmph! (5, Informative)

ZwJGR (1014973) | about 7 years ago | (#20735101)

Bah, humbug!

Web 2.0 is just another meaningless marketing term to describe a bunch of seemingly wonderful javascript, blog and wiki, pages, invented by redundant, marketing imbeciles, in order to hoodwink incompetent .com "company" managers.

Anybody who declares their page as Web 3.0, (or even Web 2.0, for that matter), should have their page DRDoSd off of the internet. >:(

Especially as these so called Web 2.0 pages are simply over-bloated, badly-designed, poorly-laid-out, standards-incompliant, overrated, over-hyped, excessively-resource-intensive, specimens of electronic refuse, often totally devoid of useful content, and consisting of enough images and poorly written code to electrically power a small town.

Note how people who run frugal and efficient blogs, ajax pages, etc. NEVER refer to their page as Web 2.0, they are too wise to demean themselves so.

For the sake of the internet, web designers, please don't either copy these "sites", or pay art drop-outs to design your website, as doing so, will lead to the spread of this miasmic "Web 2.0", clogging up our screens and the networks with redundant and meaningless trifle.

Web 3.0? There hasn't been a real web 2.0 yet. (1)

noamsml (868075) | about 7 years ago | (#20735297)

I'm sorry, but using the same technologies that have existed for years in shinier and more sophisticated ways does not a version shift make. Rather, we are talking about a sort of Web 1.4, or more accurately Web CVS20070924.

Web 2.0 will come when the very foundations of the web, HTML/XHTML, CSS, and Javascript, are shaken from the foundation (which, at least with CSS, is a long time coming IMO).

Isn't "web 2.0" a meaningless term? (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | about 7 years ago | (#20735329)

I mean why are we still talking about it on /.?  It doesn't mean a god damned thing.

There we go with web 2.0 crap again. (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#20735417)

"widespread acceptance" - WHERE, who, what ? the big boys, google msn and such ? do they even count as acceptance compared to millions of sites that constitute the internet ?

"the level of fundamental change exhibited by the shift to Web 2.0" - and WHAT are those for god's sakes ? placing streaming video in web pages ? just what ?

just what is 'web 2.0' for frigging christ's sake anyway ?

Re:There we go with web 2.0 crap again. (1)

nozzo (851371) | about 7 years ago | (#20736189)

I agree, come-on Cowboy Neal - let's have a poll - Web 2.0 is:

* Shite
* Marketing pony
* Something to make the mindless millions open their wallets - again
* What all geeks dream of at night

Re:There we go with web 2.0 crap again. (1)

ypps (1106881) | about 7 years ago | (#20736197)

I think it means content that can be changed by users, like Slashdot or Wikipedia. Naturally, that concept has existed since before Web browsers themselves, with usergroups e.t.c. I wonder if Penn and Teller are geeky enough to do an episode on 'Web 2.0'.

In related news . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20736133)

Scientists have fused recent discoveries in quantum physics with the web and came up with the idea of Web N.0 where an endless possibility of webs exists. So for example in one world a surfer wakes up and opens his browser to Slashdot to catch up on news for nerds and finds his IE crashes randomly, whereas in a parallel universe the same surfer wakes up and opens his browser to Leather Shemale Midgets and dons his Web 6.0 Tittilation Stimulation Suit with RemoteTouch and reaches for the lube.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?