Slashdot Mirror
The Best of Web 2.0
Fennie writes "Designtechnica has published their 2006 Best of Web 2.0 list. Some of the sites include Flickr.com, Vimeo.com and Writeboard.com. From the piece: 'The next generation of the web is here! With new kinds of desktop-like applications being released left and right, how will you know where to go and what to use? That's why we're here: To show you the best of Web 2.0 sites that you can get the most out of. No matter the task, video, audio, or photos, we have a site that works great for what you want to do and uses all the great features of Web 2.0 technology.'"
1) Web 2.0
-Randy
We'll get pets.com, shovelyourdrivemaam, and other nonsense companies all over again, as this time, they're selling on Web 2.0
But what are these great features of Web 2.0 technology ?
In Soviet Russia, 2.0 WEBS YOU!!!
Attention! Article submitter is guilty of W2C (Web 2.0 Consortium) standards violation. "Flickr", not "Flicker". If a domain doesn't end in ".us" and spell an English word, you must drop a vowel.
We realize you correctly linked to flickr.com, and we're not trying to be offici.ous; we're just asking that you use a Web-2.0-compliant spelling-checkr.
Bartender, give me a Flicker! http://www.flicker.com/
they forgot the True Incarnation of web 2.0, the embodyment of what "Web 2.0" means, the body and soul of the movement.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
..in a best of developer technology list.. .NET Fx, Rails that is really making developing for the web much more fun.
Stuff like AJAX,
Total number of these webpages I've ever used.... 1, Google Maps.
Total number of these webpages that even remotely serve a need.... 2, Google Maps and maybe Google Local.
And for directions, google is easily beaten by Rand-Mcnally. Only the satelite maps feature gives it a good use.
So whats all the hype for? If I take a photo, I don't want it indexed to the world- I send it to the 2-3 people who might give a shit. Same with video. Back when I used IM (before all my friends stopped using it) I used Trillian to the same effect as they use Meebo, with awesome side features (chat logs). I sure as hell don't want my bookmarks searchable to the world.
Looks more like a set of pop favorites for the under 20 crowd than it does actually useful sites.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Does a boring, old "Web 1.0" site become an Exciting, Hip, New & Improved Web 2.0 site just by using a little CSS & the XMLHttpRequest, er... sorry..., AJAX?
The list:
* Flickr * Vimeo * Del.icio.us * Digg * Bloglines * Netvibes * Writeboard * Google Maps * Google Local * Meebo
--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
It is interesting however to consider that "To some extent Web 2.0 has become a buzzword, incorporating whatever is newly popular on the Web" -From wikipedia's definition
Sig free's the way to be.
Just don't say Digg! It's like reading Slashdot with the filter set at -1. Only worse.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
"But what about blogs?" What about them? People were writing diaries on USENET long before the CERN webserver ever came out. (Was CERN Web 0.0? And would NCSA or Apache be considered 1.0?) Cross-referencing and searches existed in Gopher and WAIS.
"Dynamic HTML?" There were perl scripts for emedding msql queries (not MySQL - msql) into web pages long before anyone had imagined you'd be doing anything other than CGI and many years before HTML 3 came out. Indeed, if you want merely programmable web pages (not database-generated pages) then the mere existance of CGI is enough.
"User-defined web pages" Oracle's "Powerbrowser" included a built-in web server which could serve a limited number of pages to external users. That was back in 1996, if I recall correctly.
Let me know when something worthy of a "Web 2.0" comes out, and THEN I'll pay attention.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
[old man voice] Back in MAH day, we didn't need no fancy CEEdees, we had wax cylinders! And we liked 'em JEST fine! We didn't need no COLOR on cars, we had 'em in good ol' BLACK. It's all a buncha flashy NONsense, dang it. Where the HE-ELL is mah godDAMN geritol, damn kids these days...
I've been forced to use Writeboard as part of our corporate Basecamp installation. It's got to be the least-functional wiki implementation out there, with very few formatting choices, almost no documentation, and slow response time. Oh, but wait, it comes from a sexy Web 2.0 company, so it must be good. There are better wikis (almost all of them), better AJAXified word processors (Writely), better collaborative tools that let you choose between wiki markup and WYSIWYG (JotSpot), so how did this dog get on the list? Perhaps the writers hang out at the same trendy coffeehouses chortling over their Web 2.0 antics...
Sigs? Sigs? We don't need no steenkin' sigs.
Stop! I'm sick of it. Its just a little javascript and some XML. It isn't "desktop-like." They're just web sites. This isn't new technlology. Give it a rest.
I think I am going to shoot the next person who says "Web 2.0."
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
I used IM for one purpose- to keep track on existing friends. Not to chat with random people on the web. As my friends spent less and less time on it due to rl, so did I. Eventually it hit the point where I'd see someone on once a week, and I just uninstalled the damn thing.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Web 2.0 is just a way to bring investers back. That is it. The people who came up with it know this, everyone else just blindly says "it's better" because it's 2.0
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
the stodgiest comments I've ever seen. This isn't flamebait, it's informative.
I bet Balthasar are googling for the latest and greatest web goodies to sick their lawyers against.
Is there anything more entertaining than watching Slashdotters talk trash about Ajax? Yeah, we know, you were doing all this back in 1986.
Meanwhile, other people still use IM as a means of communication. I don't think it's the second coming or whatever, but Meebo has been a nice thing to have in the past weeks on third-party computers I just didn't want to clutter with Miranda or Trillian. Like at work, I can just log into Meebo when I need to talk to an acquaintance. The alternative is ICQ2Go (or whatever it's called), but Meebo is just more lightweight and elegant.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
The best thing about 2.0 is all the little kiddies will get over it once puberty finishes, allowing "web 3.0" to return back to being "web pages" instead of social experimental data mining ajaxified phenomenons and crap.
Do I care if
- requests are made in the background (aka ajax)
- the page posts back and re-renders (non ajax)
No, no I don't. I'm yet to see a single ajax feature I couldn't live without.
If I had mod points, you'd get 'em. I've been skimming these comments, and it seems like one curmudgeon after another.
You'd think Slashdot would be full of people interested in innovation, not the other way around, but it's all stuff like:
"We had usenet, and we liked it! What's this RSS crap!
"We could write personal diaries! Of course we had to hand-code the HTML, including all the links, and we couldn't do it from anywhere in the world just by loggin in from a web browser, we had to telnet onto the server and type it in vimacs, but it was good enough for me, I don't see what the big deal is with all this blogging nonsense.
"Interactive HTML? Hah! The only thing that should interact is the Submit button! You hear that, Web 2.0? Submit to me like a good little program! Hyah! Hyah! Hya-- *cough* *hack* *wheeze*"
I was surprised to see YouTube didn't make the list -- it's the sort of unfiltered snapshot of the world you rarely see on the Internet anymore. It reminds me of 80's-era Usenet but for movies.
Then I realized that sinces its movie delivery is Flash based, and its UI is AJAX-free, it probably doesn't qualify as "Web 2.0" in their book ...
Which made me realize that it's really a technology centric label and not a user-centric one.
So what "version" was the web when Java applets became popular? What about frames? What about annoying midi background music? What about inline images?
It's fairly obvious that "Web 2.0" and "blogosphere" and the like are marketing terms. The real questions are: What marketers are coming up with these things, and who's paying them to do it? I'm thinking it's The Carlyle Group, or the Bilderbergers, or the Knights Templar.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
What utter crap.
Please, someone give the marketing people sedatives before they hurt themselves.
Every time I hear one of these clueless clowns talk about "new technology", it just reminds me of how shallow their historical perspective is. I'm not sure what's worse -- listening to these idiots or watching them get funding for what is nothing more than a pretty website with a bit of Javascript masquerading as The Next Big Thing(tm). And of course, this will all be the rage until next month, when we throw everything away for The Next Big Thing 2.0(tm).
Of course, we all know it's not about technology -- it's about publishing articles, books and white papers, holding symposia, forums, trade shows and meetings where we can all pay to hear someone pontificate about The Next Big Thing(tm). Let's not forget all of the advertising real estate made available by all those magazines, books, symposia, forums, trade shows and meetings.
Heaven help you if you even quietly ask exactly what all of this does for the customer, or why it is that their Next Big Thing(tm) cratered after a year and $25 million.
No, I'm not a curmudgeon. I just sound like one.
I'm fine with HTML 2.0, thank you.
I'm with you. I have mod points, but I already posted in here. Drat.
You'd think Slashdot would be full of people interested in innovation, not the other way around
For the most part people here are VERY interested in technological innovation. Problem is, "Web 2.0" is at least decade old technology. You'll find here people aren't too excited about marketing droids going on and on about faux innovation, however any real innovation is another story.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Web 3.0 is what the cool kids are doing now: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/web3point0
Taken from www.writeboard.com:
Only a few months ago we were told that "Web 2.0" was being created. Is it here already? Even without new HTML/CSS/Ajax(tm) standards in place? Even without new browsers to implement them?
What is there in this "technology" that is in any way significant? Or is it just a bunch of stale hype?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Slashdot would be full of people interested in innovation
This article isn't about innovation. It's about buzzword fanaticism and marketers having wet dreams over The Next Big Thing without realizing that those techniques have been around for years.
I'm still not sure what Web 2.0 is (other then some js,xml,ajax,etc..), but at least it lets me listen to a aussie chick complain about petrol and an id.
Upset about petrol
Then again, considering how amazingly fast the internet (especially the most popular browser) has traditionally been at properly adopting technologies like CSS, PNG or the application/xhtml+xml MIME type it's no wonder that years-old technology is going to be the Next Big Thing. The next Next Big Thing is probably going to be CSS3. Somewhere around 2010.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
I got no time wife 2.0 is complaining 11.0 that we never watch tv 3.0 together, its snowing 12.0 here and i have to get up early tomorrow 14,321.0 to shovel car 9.0 out of the snow to goto job 7.0
Seastead this.
http://30boxes.com/index.php
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Its a audio indicator that indicates the person using "Web 2.0" is clueless.
Its a way to sell something to the same person that you couldnt sell to last year.
Aol is at 9.0 i think.
Damn them aolers they must be driving flying cars and have robotic servents right now.
can be found here
that's right. Just wait until the next time an alpha version of yet another open source framework is released. The /. crowd will be jizzing their pants at the prospects of being able to easily write blog software with automatic rss support built in.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Yes. I wondered that, too. Imho youtube is *much* nicer than vimeo.
In fact, I have never even heard of "vimeo" before but see youtube-links popping up left and right...
http://fr.cars.yahoo.com/cartes/
... Vienna looked detailed, but Budapest didn't, and Moscow even less so. But for France and the surrounding countries, it seems useful. At the city-street level, I actually find these maps slightly easier to read than Google's, though it's mostly a question of color choice, darker borders around areas, etc.
This isn't about proving you wrong, but it could come in handy. From what I can tell it has fairly detailed city maps at least to Austria
Well if there's another dot-com bubble, then at least IT graduates from class of 2003 through 2005 might be able to get their foot in the door with at least one employer.
Ok, validation isn't everything, and passing the validator is not 100% confirmation that your page is valid, but just for kicks (and to see if the best of web 2.0 passes the basics of web 1.0), let's pass their list through the W3C's HTML Validator and see what we get (links go to the validator results
PhotosFlickr.com - HTML 4.01 Transitional - 15 errors.
No need to use end tags if you don't use a start tag. Meta Keywords...does anyone still pay attention to those?
Video
vimeo.com - HTML 4.01 Transitional - 41 errors.
Use your alt attributes and remember that td's should be nested inside tr's.
Social Bookmarking
Del.icio.us - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 21 errors.
Actually a decent attempt. They went with a strict declaration and didn't use tables for layout.
Digg - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 3 errors
Really close. Fix those links and and get rid of that "disabled" attribute. Where'd they find that one?
Newreaders/RSS
www.bloglines.com - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 137 errors.
Yikes. Yes I think the colspan attribute is cool, too, but not that cool. Give it a rest.
Start Pages
www.netvibes.com - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 13 errors
They were doing so well with the strict declaration...but then that rotten cellpadding attribute snuck in...and width...and border.
Collaboration/Word Processors
www.writeboard.com - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 12 errors
Not bad. Time to advance to Strict, I think.
Maps/Directions
Google Maps - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 101 errors
Google! How could you?!? Of all the sites to use deprecated elements under a Strict declaration! I feel betrayed.
Local Directories
Google Local - Not Found The requested URL
Chat/IM
Meebo - DOCTYPE DECLARATION was not recognized or missing - 2 errors
Come on. That's sooo 1990's. Actually, it gave me a declaration, so perhaps its malformed or they don't give one to robots.
Buzzword Sites - What? Like I could let a name like Design Technica off that easy.
Design Technica - This Page is not valid (no Doctype found)! - 38 errors
Ouch! Same story. I see one in the source, but the validator doesn't accept it. Tables
Hmmm...everybody tried xhtml except designtechnica and meebo. Targeting mobile browsers, I guess? Nobody passed. There were a few non-table-based layouts, but that was offset by a lot of use of deprecated elements. It looks like web 2.0 is about as ready as IE 7.
I guess web 2.0 is whatever people say web 2.0 is. Popular, trendy websites that use buzzword technologies to offer useful services?
;-)
There's a Web 2.0 Innovation Map so you can see where some of these Web 2.0 companies are. And then there's the compendium of Web 2.0 logos and links, which spills over into Web 2.0 logos and links part 2(.0?)
What!?! No BDubler.com?!?
No matter the task, video, audio, or photos, we have a site that works great for what you want to do and uses all the great features of Web 2.0 technology.'"
I was SO looking forward to being able to go to a website, bedauble into the microphone, and have a Musical/MIDI score come out exactly as I *intended* it to be. *And* to have it posted on ebay for sale, and see 10% of the proceeds come back.
Man... and I even installed a microphone in the shower, just waitin' for those Web 2.0 apps!
Well, I bet we'll see it with Web 3.0
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Supports importing word and openoffice documents and can output to the web, word and others. Has tags like gmail instead of folders and will supposedly output pdf in the final version.
They do need better management of documents - once you get more than 20 documents going it gets a little unruly, but again, very usable.
You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.
I never understand why flash / laszlo ( http://www.openlaszlo.org/ ) apps never make these lists. I don't want to bash ajax, but XmlHttpRequest + javascript doesn't a solution make. I find something like LaszloMail ( http://wwwl.laszlomail.com/ ) to be better than something like gmail or yahoo's ajax mail client (which I use predominantly).
Web 2.0 is Crap.0.
Seriously editors, why post "Web 2.0" articles when you know it is complete hype?
And I want to share with the world the New Revolution... Web X. In it's 10th iteration in 2007 1/2 the Internet has finally achieved the true sum of all fears. The Internet or "iNet X" as "it" now prefers to be called has eschewed all former technologies in favor of a meditative state precipitated by becoming self aware. Now a global networked neuronet, it has taken over all computer automated control of every accessible feature in the world. It all started back in early 2006 when some Senator's son was "surfing" then net (back in it's 2.0 dinosaur stages), and ran across slashdot and a wacky article about Web 2.0. Apparently, the Senator caught his son creatin erotic content with AJAX, and confiscated hi son's compter. Later that year a bill was passed to have DARPA work on revamping the "net". Within two months, the web jumped seven version numbers, bypassing all forseeable point releases... And then there was iNet X, the most powerful machine ever to be created..... Sorry, I couldn't resist...
They left one off.
http://www.parm.net/web2.0/
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
SGI used to support the VRML standard. Well, until nobody added support in their browsers and everyone realised that it was slow and sucked. In comparison to all the application-level 3D stuff, that is, as there was nothing else 3D you could do on the web that was any good. (I seem to remember some crappy 3D Java applets, but that was about it.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Of course, if you want something to run at a decent speed, you do it the other way round - embed the web in your application. On Windows, this is actually quite easy - and the reason it's so vulnerable. You can run procedures in one program from another program, so allowing your primary application to control (or embed) a web browser very easily. Linux supports RPC, there are DCL and OLE extensions for it, and I've lost count of the messaging libraries, but you'd probably be better linking to the Mozilla libraries or the W3C's libwww, and handle things at a lower level.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Depends which side of the funding you're on.
this web 2/0 stuff is far too often a solution in searhc of a problem.
yes, there are applications for this stuff, but a few applications here and there isn't enough. this solution has to try and solve every problem.
hence, the people in the know are pretty well unimpressed.
btw, i want to learn ajax so i can stop building multi-dimensional arrays to support my linked select boxes. in that case, this solution looks *really* nice. but a linked select isn't used that often.
then ya have to worry about public sites b/c so many people have js turned off.
some cool stuff, but not earth shattering.
What the fuck is vimeo? Oh, it gets like 1/100th the traffic of youtube. Nice of this site, what is it, "designtechnica.com?" to push their agendas on us. These "top" lists are always full of shit anyway. (wtf is bloglines?) I HAVE heard of icio.us but can't say I've ever used that either. All this "web2.0/ajax" stuff is lame BS.
How could they forget wankr? The best web 2.0 app yet. http://www.parm.net/web2.0/
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
I mean, if you haven't tried StumbleUpon yet, with its fantastic Firefox extension, you haven't seen nothing yet. Del.icio.us is a very poor design in comparison.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Wasn't the next web revolution supposed to be the semantic web? Didn't we already have pretty good webapps? Doesn't this count as evolution, rather then revolution? Are these people not aware of the semantic web future, or are giving up on it, or what?
1. Build Steenking Web v2.0 site 2. Let users generate tagged content 3. Display as much Google- and Ebay tag-related-ads as you can. 4. ??? 5. PROFIT ! At least, that is what I am working on.
Damnit Jim, I'm [root@localhost w00t]#, not an AD-Adminstrator(tm) !
Isn't it a little early to talk about who's already won the race for 2006, seeing as how we're not even two months into it? Must be a slow news day I guess...
putfwd.com - 1GB Free file storage with a twist
Can someone do a Web2.0 app with really bright saturated colours? Please!!
Also missed off RSS + Google Maps = GeoNews.
/shameless plug
It's not perfect yet, but pretty accurate!
Honestly, all these AJAX (another ridiculous buzzword) and other dynamic techniques still adhere to the same web model from inception: Client requests a document and the server delivers. Until the web server is pushing data and there is true two way initiation of communication it's a little silly to bump a version number. The web is still the web. The client server request model is rarely altered and until there is a fundamental change lets not go bumping the version number...Mkay?
I use gaim as my primary contact medium. I'm slowly moving towards jabber, but most of my friends are still on AIM. Admitadly I haven't yet graduated college (about to), but currently this is my primary means of communication. I have a group of somewhat paranoid friends (and I would claim rightly so), who use gaim-otr and so I can't imagine switching to another medium for contact. Phones don't give you strong encryption with falsafiable communications, not without hardware that costs money. PGP is fine (I.E. GPG of course), but for realtime IM's the way to go. AIM is evil because it's hosted by AOL, and I don't like being tied to a company, ICQ the same, Jabber is less evil because at least it's open, but it's a human readable format over the wire (I.E. XML) which is just a stupid waste of bandwidth (Yeah, yeah, IM doesn't use that much... I don't care it's still dumb and wasteful). IRC is fine, but gaim support is poor, and the whole one to one, unique name IM model is more convenient. My friends and I only started rolling over to Jabber because it's less evil than AOL, and with google talk finally open to the world it's the best thing we can actually get other people to use. At least I can chat from a local server I trust run by people I know (I still use encryption though if I can). The point is IM is extremely useful, like many of the services the web provides. I use my laptop all of the time, so a web portal for IM is stupid to me (plus I want encryption), for other people it's interesting. It's important to remember though that the web is just a pile of poorly designed and poorly implemented protocols. Web 2.0 is just that plus a bunch more poorly designed, poorly implemented, and now even more bloated protocols. The entire thing is a bunch of dumb hacks on top of dumb hacks. I'll be excited when they redisign what's going on at a lower layer such that we have fewer AND smaller protocols. shoving everything into one huge protocol, which is so general as to be meaningless, and what meaning it does have must be broken in practical applications (say XML which in practice must be parsed against spec and rarely uses DTD's) isn't exciting and neither is 15 new video protocols, and 5 new layout formats. The goal is total overall simplicity. Short of such revolutions, I'd rather stick to the simplist protocols that work for my purposes. If all the website needs to do is give me text, then html is good, and anything more is annoying bloat. The problem is that people get pointlessly excited about a new protocol, regardless if whether it's actually applicably to their problem. For some reason they feel the need to move everything that works over to even worse, newer, more poorly supported, and less ubiquitus protocols just because they're new.
What's so "Web 2.0" about Bloglines? It's a plain old CGI stuff with some JavaScript thrown on the interface.
Well, if it does have XMLHttpRequest stuff there somewhere, I have to indeed give it a little bit of credit - it's then one of the few "Web 2.0" websites I've tried that don't have small but weird user interface issues and works in the tried and true and logical way.
Except that bug a while ago when the whole thing turned Japanese while I wasn't looking.
First of all, "Web 2.0" is a sucky label. It's a sucky label that has caught on with some marketing drones, but it's sucky nonetheless. "AJAX" is less sucky, but it's actually useful in that it's easier to type out than XMLHttpRequest.
Now, then. I don't think that the most interesting thing about this 'new wave', whatever you call it, is that font sizes are up 140% since last year or that form submits are being sent asynchronously. No, the interesting thing is both in the details and in the big picture.
Overwhelmingly, it seems that most people are embracing the media now. They're not trying to shoehorn in their old models and whining about how the web sucks when it doesn't work (see "the bubble"). The people who are fueling this are web programmers (or designers) who know what works and what doesn't, and they build their stuff for themselves.
Gmail was originally built because of the suckiness of most other webmail providers. Basecamp, Writeboard and Campfire were all built to solve problems 37signals had internally. And with everyone building *mainly* for themselves, of course you're not going to like everything.
The second thing is in the details. An example is the killer app for XMLHttpRequest is autocompletion. You type "Bill" and it fills out "Gates, Cheif Architect". You type "Linus" and it fills out "Torvalds, BDFL". It's not essential by any means, but it's very, very nice in very, very many places.
What about inventions like tags then? Well, people are building for themselves. They don't want to deal with folder hierarchies, and the creation thereof. They just want to type "important wednesday" for their meeting and get on with their lives.
My assessment of the 'new wave' we're seeing here boils down to what I wrote above. It's not about 'mashups', it's not about 'blogs', it's not about 70 point Arial, it's not about pastels. It's much more about interesting people coming to terms with what they actually can do with technology to solve their own problems.
And since Wikipedia is part of Web 2.0 it has to be right. Right? Uh oh...
http://www.boardtracker.com
It has a little ajax sprinkled around along with a few other web 2.0 "features" and overall (and perhaps even despite that) its a pretty useful site. Its rather cool IMHWeb2.O ;)
As for those on that list I'd say bloglines is the killer app.. I couldn't get by without that these days.. so many rss feeds, so little time! The rest I could and in fact do live without.
I'm not keen on writeboard because it means leaving my information in the hands of some random website. Some documents are private and I'm not confident any dot com will be around for the long term. I'v seen a few webmail services disappear overnight along with the email I had on them.
Moonedit and gobby are worth a look. They keep the files on your machine where they can be automatically backed up and if the software falls over you have access to sort it out yourself.
Wikipedia list of collaborative editors
Yeah, but do you ever get the feeling that some people are just bashing it because they want to seem like and outsider... er... something like that? No matter what it's called, why can't the discussion be about the interesting bits, rather than the buzzword bits?
"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist." - Ayn Rand
From Harry Feucks' blog:
Would be if it were released. The tarball was taken offline during a rewrite to focus more on W3C standards support for app creation: XForms, XPath, XSLT, etc. But the Smalltalk capability has been there for years.Seastead this.
I beleive .NET 2.0 has this same feature (like Ajax). It is called a callback, as opposed to a postback.
Decent set of web 2.0 sites. But a little early don't you think?
Otavo (shameless plug) is set to launch this year, as are many others listed here
--------
Let's embrace an Intentional Web.
The important thing is to use the current buzzwords. Web 2.0 is a marketing concept. The more you use important words like Web 2.0 that business rags are using, the more investor interest you can generate in Web 2.0-oriented businesses. As a matter of fact, if Web 2.0 fits into your intranet, you should have Web 2.0 there even more than you do on your Web 2.0 main servers to help in providing Web 2.0 based-services with unique Web 2.0-oriented features to assist in the task of serving customers demanding Web 2.0 features. The logical Web 2.0 extrapolation of this is that inserting "Web 2.0" in Web 2.0 as many times as Web 2.0 possible in your Web 2.0 marketing Web 2.0 literature Web 2.0 should Web 2.0 assist Web 2.0 you Web 2.0 in Web 2.0 getting Web 2.0 investment Web 2.0 capital Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
You ever notice something?
The Web-based businesses that hit it off big never really spent a lot of time spewing the latest buzzwords.
Google doesn't run around with webpages where every other word is "AJAX" or "LAMP" or "Web 2.0" or "multi-tiered" or "grid computing". Look at this page. This thing *could* be stuffed full of the latest buzzwords. It's not. Hmm....
There are three groups of people a company needs to impress:
(a) Black-box customers. The people don't give a damn whether you're multi-tiered or have SynergisticWhizWham technology. They want to know whether your product is good and works and other than that, treat it as a black box. The only time they care about SynergisticWhizWham technology is if it's a checkbox on their purchasing requirements. And "Web 2.0" is not such a checkbox on *anyone's* purchasing requirements ("XML support", inanely enough, has made it onto a few).
(b) Engineers. You don't stuff "technology" onto the end of every word when talking to an engineer (a la "XML technology" or "Web technology") or try stuffing buzzwords in. This is because the engineer knows what you're talking about and is unimpressed with how well you can quote the latest terms that Forbes Technology editors are busy coining.
(c) Investors. Now these people *may* care about whether you're using what they percieve to be the most important emerging thingie, because some of them want to ride that technology wave, and you're trying to sell yourself as their surfboard. Not all of them, but some of them.
The problem is that if a company is clearly spending all of its time and resources appealing to (c), it probably doesn't have enough of a usable product to appeal to (a) or enough technical foundations to appeal to (b), which means that they're maybe going to get some VC funding and then promptly fall flat on their face.
Thus, buzzword-quoters are Bad News, and people to avoid.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
netvibes? I'm surprised more people aren't talking about live.com. For years I've been starting on a blank page when opening my browser, but now I'm considering starting it at live.com. It beats the hell out of Google's ig and is better than netvibes (which is also better than Google)
Does a boring, old "Web 1.0" site become an Exciting, Hip, New & Improved Web 2.0 site just by using a little CSS & the XMLHttpRequest, er... sorry..., AJAX?
Yes; yes it does.