Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Web 2.0 Goes To Work

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the about-time-you-started-pulling-your-weight dept.

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. "

9 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Already released? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought Web 2.0 was still in beta.

  2. Ugh by Wellington+Grey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Ugh by c4seyj0nes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I keep a blog and there is nothing 2.0 (collaborative) about it.

      Funny that link at the bottom of your blog looks collaborative: "Leave a comment".

      --
      "In wine there is wisdom. In beer there is strength. In water there is bacteria." --Old German Proverb
  3. What's changed? by Marlow+the+Irelander · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a shift that could shake up the traditional enterprise-software model, experts predicted

    When haven't they predicted this?

  4. Re:Did I miss the boat here? by nuzak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > Can anybody tell me WTF Web 2.0 is (supposed to be)?

    Unabashed, unvarnished hype. Anything new-and-cool.

    I think XMLHttpRequest is pretty neat, I'm rather fond of AJAX, but Web 2.0 just makes my knee jerk so hard I want to turn it into a snap-kick at anyone plugging it.

    It's starry-eyed technology evangalists.

    It's the new bandwagon.

    It's social networking, and the new dot-com bubble. Myspace sold for 580 million, possibly it could pull that. Facebook thinks itself worth two billion. That's with a B. The tulipmania hasn't gone so far as to find anyone insane enough to take that price though.

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  5. Re:Did I miss the boat here? by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikipedia can.

    And it's not a bubble. It's a conglomerate of technologies. Each will stick around. It's the corporate hype that's the bubble.

    --
    Developers: We can use your help.
  6. Re:Risk Managment by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article: However, Smith said that a lot of Web 2.0 software still has serious technical pitfalls, like security, which should worry corporate customers. "If I'm mixing AJAX and wiki technology, I'm really creating a hacker's paradise," Smith said.

    And that right there is the risk a lot of IT managers will not be willing to take, until these technologies can prove they are robust enough and secure enough to keep someone from gaining easy access to their systems. Companies spend vast amounts of time building defenses and aren't about to hand out the keys to the back door if they can help it.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  7. Get a clue by LibertineR · · Score: 5, Funny
    How many AJAX sites do you expect to work right if you DISABLE JAVASCRIPT?!?!?!?

    Shit, did you go to DeVry or something?

    1. Re:Get a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really. We run a rather large website, and the amount of our visitors that don't have js enabled is smaller than visitors using browsers pre-v4.

      The website still works, but it's not quite the same... Not "optimal" at all. The only real reason why we make sure it still works without it is for the people using TTS and such (blind or otherwise).

      As for the paranoid that think javascript is evil, will hack their PC and install spyware and all that, then too bad, they can go elsewhere.

      Honestly, >95% of the websites nowadays make use of js, and quite often for very good and valid reasons. Things like onchange validation of forms (saves you a postback or more to know that something's wrong). The errors will still be caught server-side and displayed, but you're only making your life harder for nothing. js is used extremely often for things like this. We also use it a lot for things like FCKEditor or FreeTextBox and other such very nice components that make it much better (otherwise you can have the crappy plain text version and lesser components).

      If you want to use noscript on our pages, too bad. You're the one that's missing out (big time- especially that we're adding more async goodies that truly rock to our apps). Don't like it? You can go elsewhere, we truly don't mind (like, all 3 of you).

      You say you don't trust the scripts (or scripters). That's borderline paranoia. What exactly do you think will happen? It'll make your PC crash, hack your bank, and your wife and dog will leave you? It's quite harmless really. The chances of something "bad" being done with it a very, very remote, and extremely minimal chance, while it's being very very useful daily on tons of sites (and increasingly). Next thing you'll be stripping html tags too, just in case it could be used for some buffer overflow or whatever... Rendering 99.99% of the web useless, while saying "I don't trust markup or people that write markup"... How silly.