Slashdot Mirror
Gartner Touts Web 2.0, Scoffs At Web 3.0
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.
:O
Web 4.0 is even better!
Screw this. I'm waiting for Web 3.11 for Workgroups.
My blog
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.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I scoff at the Gartner group!
Everyone knows that the first few versions tend to be buggy and not worth using. I'm waiting for Web 3.11 for Workgroups.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Useless whores.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
I'm already doing stuff in Web 9.0.
It's pretty cool - no page reloads or anything, I call it 'life'...
I have at what version of the web will we understand the meaning of life the universe and everything? Web 42.0!
Darn - and I was still waiting for Web 0.9.2.1.1 for Gentoo to recompile... I just finished downloading it last night on my 19.2 modem.
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!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Anyone even know what Web 2.0 means?
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
1234[next]
over multiple pages meaning you should of seen over 100 adverts for reading 1 article
1234[next]
at what point to you call a spade a spade and say networkworld.com 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
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.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
So does this mean the blogosphere will become the blogohypersphere? More dimensions makes it better.
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.
I'm waiting for Web 2.0 SP3 before upgrading from Web 1.0.
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
Which will be inferior to Web/2 3.0. But what I'm really amped about is Web/2 4.0 Warp.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Bah - I'm trademarking "Son of Web"...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
My web site will now be a collection of text files.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
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.
Beep beep.
Could someone tag this story 'potmeetkettle' or 'potkettleblack' or maybe just 'bizarrogartner'?
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..
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!!
oogly boogly!
What is this "web" you speak of?
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.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
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.
... is just maketing drivel. Anyone who uses that term to describe anything in particular is talking out of their ass.
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.
Err... wait..
Web 2008!
Nah... Wait, I got it!
Web 3000!
Yes, yes, that will do just fine.
Dilbert will have to change his "Anti-Meeting Spell." (See dilbert.com or the Sunday paper a couple of weeks ago)
Bah, humbug!
.com "company" managers.
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
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.
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
/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.
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).
My new blog
I mean why are we still talking about it on /.? It doesn't mean a god damned thing.
expandfairuse.org
"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 ?
Read radical news here
Yes, that's the difference between Web 2.0 and Web 2.1.
(Yes, this is a joke).
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.
Honestly, how in the world are we supposed to roll the VC's for another bankroll unless we come up with "2.0" and now "3.0"?
Sheesh.
"I do not know with what kind of weapons World Web 3.0 will be fought, but World Web 4.0 will be fought with sticks and stones"
-Albert Einstein-
I'm still trying to like Web 1.0, never mind the over-hyped user experience that is 2.0. I'm probably a dinosaur, but I just don't get it.
Bah. Both will be obliterated in the marketplace by Web 95.
My blog
I was going to post the dialog, but then I realized that /. might get a Dilbert Take Down Notice. Of course we could always say that the notice is for Web 1 & 2, and /. is now in Web 3.
We don't even have Web 2.0 SP1 installed yet.
Have gnu, will travel.
Dude... I heard they're gonna skip Web 5.0 and go straight to Web 6.0 -- and it's gonna sooooo kick Web 4.0's ass! With that right around the corner, forget Web 3.0; I'm not even upgrading to Web 2.0. I mean what's the point?
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Until every site out there is a wiki, we won't have a true Web 2.0 to play with, so talking about a Web 3.0 sounds like another marketer's attempt to grab the headlines (and they succeed).
But will it run Linux?
It's also the most succinct summary of what Web 2.0 bullshit actually is in a practical sense, and probably the only one I will ever read without vacuous meaningless phrases bandied about with total disregard for sanity.
I guess an analyst's knowledge doesn't go further back than just a few years. From the article:
Web 2.0 staples such as AJAX, mashups, blogs and wikis gained mass adoption after a few years in which there was not a lot of innovation in Web technology, said Gene Phifer, a Gartner distinguished analyst.
I don't know, I was pretty sure there we were slowly introduced to quite a few innovations that became widely spread. I can think of Java, Flash, JavaScript, and CSS. They didn't all come at the same time after which we were left with nothing new. I don't know about him but while most of it has been forgotten, there was at least one thing new for me every year. It's not like blogs and community sites were created only two years ago either. So, when was that long innovation-less period he talks about?
Return of the Web
Web vs. the Werewolf
Day of the living Web
Bride of the Web (wait, I think I've seen that one)
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Web 4.0 is all about "lean and mean". Synergetically mashed-up social portals using specialized communication protocols and highly centralized development facilities. Basically it's HTML.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Maybe "new and improved" would be better,
I have seen several references to the Semantic Web as "Web 3.0". I have yet to see any researcher endorsing that term though, but it does sound like a good marketing term if the Web 2.0 gets good acceptance.
The Semantic Web should bring a big paradigm shift : the idea that every information should be labeled with meta-data and also the understanding that this can't be done by the average webmaster but that some sort of automation has to be done. This automation is of course the greatest challenge. The on-going joke is that "Semantic Web" is just a label for AI researcher from the golden age of AI to continue raising funds.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
its something like erm ...
Web 3.0 technology suggests:
well yes! thats the word I am looking for
Bagsy web 69!!
Web 4.0 will be GoogleOS, an operating system run inside your web browser. Like gmail, where pressing the back button logs you out, pressing back in GoogleOS will shut down.
I'm going to keep on using Web 1.0 until somebody shows me a Web 2.0 application that isn't a waste of precious kilobytes.
http://askaninja.com/news/2006/05/17/ask-a-ninja-special-delivery-5-doogtoons-3
I swear a bunch of you still want to read web pages on Lynx, think the web is a glorified shared file system, and were happier with 1200 baud BBS'.
Life changes; get a helmet.
Web 2.0 is not just marketing drivel. It shouldn't be viewed pedantically as a "revision two-point-oh" of a piece of software. Mostly it's a label for the new wave of investment into the web, that mostly stopped in 2001 after the bust. Many stopped caring about the Web as a fertile ground for new experiences or businesses. So, Web 2.0 is a useful label for the qualitative change that's obviously happening on the Web today if you actually looked around at how many ways that *many more people* are interacting.
Just because we had interactivity in 1998 with Slashdot doesn't make it a "trend" that the mainstream users understood. It was a nerd site!
Consider
- Web 1.0 was the "World Wide Wait". Many more people have broadband now. That changes the design centre of web sites.
- Slashdot, BBS', etc. were not really used by your average teenager in the 1990's. They were used by techies. Today, almost every teenager is on Myspace or Facebook, or Youtube.
- With blogs & trackbacks, we're actually seeing a decentralized discussion forum on almost *every* piece of content on the web. That's quite different experience than centrally submitting stories to Slashdot's editors.
- With web 1.0, all the hype was how it was going to be like TV. Turns out that's not the case, it's much more participatory. Obvious to a techie, but Web 2.0 is the rest of the world waking up to that fact.
- In 1997, *most* techies who thought they knew better were trying bloody hard to turn the Web into CORBA. Today, that would sound ridiculous. The REST architectural style was ignored for years, it's now becoming recognized as a major factor in the web's success.
- Most people didn't really "get" hyperlinks 10 years ago. There were lawsuits as to whether you could deep link! People wanted to force you onto their website, and keep you there, like a TV channel. Today, with Wiki's, Blogs, etc., everything is much more decentralized.
Interestingly, something like Facebook has pulled off an interesting balancing act, where links are pervasive, but you still stay on the Facebook site while exploring the games & applications that are all integrated.
Anyway, with any trend, the hype often outstrips the reality. The only important thing is that Web 2.0 implies "The Web is Back".
-Stu