Slashdot Mirror
Web 2.0 Goes To Work
An anonymous reader writes "News.com is reporting on analyst predictions that Web 2.0 has begun meeting up with enterprise software in the business world." From the article: "Buttoned-down IBM, which mainly sells to businesses, on Wednesday detailed QEDwiki, for example. The project is meant to let people assemble Web applications using wikis, really simple syndication (RSS) and simple Web scripting. Similarly, the grassroots direct-marketing techniques of the consumer world are starting to be used to tout enterprise software, analysts said. The enterprise software market, once the hotbed of innovation, is starting to catch up to the consumer Web, where people are becoming used to melding data from their desktop with services online. It's a shift that could shake up the traditional enterprise-software model, experts predicted. "
The enterprise will always be behind for the simple fact that any new sort of technology assumes a certain amount of risk and that risk is most apparent when that technology is new.
Even something as straight forward as a wiki will be seen as a risk. When wiki's were first being utilized, I'm sure every PHB out there was asking the statement, "There's no way we can trust our customers to provide documentation, at least not without some sort of oversight by us!"
Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ -- Exercise for web 2.0.
I thought Web 2.0 was still in beta.
For example, Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs and AJAX are starting to show their potential behind corporate firewalls, analysts said.
Ugh. If you are going to use a buzz word, at least try to use in the right way. I keep a blog and there is nothing 2.0 (collaborative) about it.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
It's a shift that could shake up the traditional enterprise-software model, experts predicted
When haven't they predicted this?
All I read about Web 2.0 is that it's a bubble, a new name for already working technologies... but with all this new publicity I ended up knowing nothing.
Can anybody tell me WTF Web 2.0 is (supposed to be)?
Depends who the consumers are. End users don't have to read that mumbo-jumbo. They just have to use the pretty web site.
My customers are the wanna-be entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs, and "Web 2.0" and this kind of language is working wonders as far as sales & marketing goes for my consulting services.
I hate the Web 2.0 hype as much as anyone, but if you havent checked out Pageflakes at www.pageflakes.com, you dont know what Web 2.0 is, or can be. Very cool implementation (no, I dont work for them, or know anyone who works with them) and some of their stuff was done with .NET. Go figure?
No matter what technology is employed, people are once again realising that the online world is the place to be. So people want money right? Right. And if you can think of somthing first and make it work first, you could end up with a giant pay out + fame and fourtune right? Ok, maybe.
So, while we may be anoyed with all the buzzwords and hype, realise that the world is moving forward with 2.0 so quit whining, and get out there and develop stuff so we dont have to live with what IMB thinks is web 2.0
Obligatory b3ta post.
Meta will eat itself
Part of the underlying beauty of Web 2.0 is that most Web 2.0 business plans sound like a parody of Web 2.0.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
The technical part sounds like a collaborative interface to something like the Google Homepage platform, applied in an enterprise environment. The meta-marketing part sounds like "Enterprise software makers are starting to use astroturf posting on web discussion boards to promote their products." Neither of them sounds like an enormous deal that is worthy of much hype. But the, big change is just the aggregate of lots of minor evolutionary steps, a lot of times.
Web 2.0 Goes to Camp
Web 2.0 Goes to Jail
Shit, did you go to DeVry or something?
A technology writer who wants readers.
Developers: We can use your help.
I work at a small financial services company and we're currently replacing the in-house contact management system that was written in Access/VB. Our new replacemenet is in Ruby On Rails /w an interface that mimics that of a real operating system. Views all of edit tags taht spring up boxen that can be moved around like real windows, edit you data, hit save, ajax updates all the fields on the view page all your dialog box closes. To the users, its quick and mimcs the interface their used to while completely negating the problems of being tied to the office/VPN/db connections/ODBC connections, etc.
This is the revolution.
I like how this writer acts like the business world has successfully figured out enterprise architectures and SOA for such a long time, and now even regular home users that are nothing more than hackers are doing the very same thing.
Riiiggghhhtttt.... I'd like to see this writer's experience with enterprise architectures. The book for the business world is just at the beginning of being written. It's far from closed.
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
> the grassroots direct-marketing techniques of the consumer world are starting to be used to tout enterprise software
I hope that doesn't mean unwanted phone calls just as you are about to eat dinner.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Actually I think "technologies" here really means "solutions" (a real buzzword-of-buzzwords); basically people are saying/complaining that if they went out right now and grabbed an AJAX package and a Wiki package, melded the two of them together, it would be insecure.
I don't think there's any debate that if you planned it well, you could make a secure web-delivered application using AJAX and which had some wiki-like functions (at least as secure as any other web delivered application), but a ground-up coding effort isn't what most PHBs (or really anyone else) wants. They want something that's basically COTS, and they can basically roll out, customize a little with their logo, and be done with. "Production ready," in other words.
Notwithstanding the naiveté inherent in this ideal, I think what they're saying is that the technology is not quite there because nobody has sat down and designed something that would be secure, but none of the potential users really want to do that. They'd rather just call it "not ready" and "immature" until somehow the work gets done, and they can turn around and deploy it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
IMB. Is that like HLA?
C'mon, this is Slashdot. To most of us, "Work" is still a buzzword.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
My impression of Web 2.0 is that no single web site has to engineer every one of its part, nor there must be a hardwired master-slave anymore. A travel site might get its presentation services from google-maps, its hotel list from Sabre, financial transactions from citibank, and so-on. There will be all these services sitting around- presentation, search, news, banking, streaming video, etc., etc. which can be easily glued with utilities like xml, AJAX, etc.
"It's a shift that could shake up the traditional enterprise-software model, experts predicted."
Funnily it's the tradional enterprise software experts who rage against the "unsecure" "hype" "for which the technology is unfit" that is web 2.0. I doubt their motives, but the marketeers feed them plenty of hype word ammo.
Yeah, but the word we're talking about is 'blogs.' It's main purpose as a word is to help people who would feel sissy about keeping a diary keep a diary. It's not exactly an important word we're dealing with here.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
It's not just the Pointy Headed Boss that should be asking this. Any sys-admin through to junior technician that's worth their salt should shy away from implimenting bleeding edge technologies or ideas in a mainstream production environment.
I might be able to cope with using apt-get or SUS to download and install patchs FULL without testing (who has the time or resources to thourghly test every patch?? We test on a disposable server to see if it crashes on install - end of story). But any IT person who races to impliment the latest fad in their corporate infrastructure is an incompetent boob. In my experience the PHB (business boss not IT manager) needs the technicians to reign in their enthusiastic urge to "lets do it".
How is a wiki based application an example of Web 2.0? WikiWikiWeb was first created in 1994 and wikis have been somewhat programmable for quite some time. Not saying it isn't a cool idea, just saying it isn't Web 2.0. Unless of course Web 2.0 just means "everything we do from now on". Sigh.
www.blueapples.org