Slashdot Mirror
The State of Web 2.0, The Future of Web Software
SphereOfInfluence writes "Despite some disdain for the term Web 2.0, the underlying ideas seem to be genuinely taking off from the seed of successful techniques of the first generation of the Web. Here's an in-depth review of the future of Web 2.0 and online software from Web 2.0 proponent, Dion Hinchcliffe. Like or hate the term, the actual ideas in Web 2.0 are turning out to not only usable but a growing cadre of companies are actively being successful with them. This includes the Ajax phenomenon being actively pursued by Microsoft and Google, widespread social software, and massive online communities like MySpace. These trends are all leading to predictions on the ultimate fallout of these changes, something increasingly called social computing. "
A few popular websites and clever use of existing technologies does not make something "new" in the computing world.
So, when mp3's were introduced and PHP became popular, was that web 1.5?
What is web 3.0? Online TV shows?
This kind of nonsense really annoys me. Let us not let the marketeers ruin the Internet.
It's interesting that the majority of these "Web 2.0" companies are still making their money off of paid advertisements, which seems to be a very "old web" business model. Are there any companies that are doing new and interesting things with commerce itself?
Pretty much, yes - Javascript, CSS and XML. The funny thing about this is that this is pretty close to what Tim (Berners-Lee, that is) had in mind right from the beginning - that users would actually be able to collaborate on things using the web rather than just getting a bunch of static [1] pages thrown at them.
1. "static" in the sense of not dynamically interacting with the user in an ongoing communication with the server, that is, not in the sense of "not dynamically generated by the server". Note that a page using "regular" Javascript is still a static page; there might be user interaction, but it's not usually going to communicate with the server, so all interaction is local only (akin to writing into a book you bought, for example).
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
"Web2.0" is still-another-stupid-buzzword and, technically, doesn't exist.
Web 2.0 exists. It's all about making it easier for end users to create web content. That's it really. No big deal, except of course when you multiply it's effect by all the new users now able to create content. Then what you get is a hell of a lot more rough out there, but consequently a few more diamonds.
May the Maths Be with you!
It looks to my poor old brain more like yet another crusty hack to get current browser technology to do more than it really is all that capable of. And because browsers, unlike X servers, don't really have the kind of standardization necessary for this to work well, you end up having to have hacks to hacks just to get IE or Mozilla or whatever to work. This is definitely nothing new, but rather just the same old crap that anyone trying to do anything even a little complex with Javascript has had to put up with for years.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We really need an "open source" replacement for MySpace. It's dangerous to allow a private corporation to run a network that is gaining so much importance, particularly among the youth.
...I'm recommending we treat it like a p2p app so it scales well, also. Say every computer on the node houses 100 of the nearest houses and avatars and MySpace walls of the other 99 users in that "node".... Then whethter the other 99 people are on or not, other people can still visit any house (or myspace wall) in that node, so long as at least one member of the node is online. Maybe 100 is too high a number, but given what the average pc is capable of these days, I doubt it.
What would be IDEAL, however would be a fully interactive metaverse, ala quake 2 with real time voice for people within 50 "yards" of each other. And virtual houses that could still house the virtual MySpace replacement on one wall.
I've got $50 for anyone with a working prototype.....
Let me know when you've got it up and running....
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
1) Assume 10m users
2) Assume 200 site ratings each (so 2b total ratings)
3) build an IOT (call it X) on site:rating:user index this table on user
4) when I log in pull up all the 200 blocks I'm in (basically a list of other users with the same sites). This is easy because of the user index
5) do a frequency count for username
6) Using the index on I pull up sites they like
I can make this better if I like by having a user/frequence count table and for example adjusting 5 (so that heavy raters don't end up everyone's list).
X as I said is more for general computing. Possibly a minimalist version of it thats intended to run inside the browser window, as the current technology is way too bandwidth heavy. I guess a little "less" interactivity would help, 1. Let the client( do some of the lifting for simple scripted interactions.
2. Don't feed every mouse movement to the server unless it is specifically requested.
3. Don't call the client the server and the server the client, its confusing!
(yes it made sence in the old unix model where you are already connected via SSH and you were then running a connection BACK to your desktop, obviously if this protocol is adapted for the web the terminology will definatly need to be changed)