I left out Operating Systems because I couldn’t see a dominant one, and I don’t have the knowledge the properly classify 2.0 elements in them, it’s just a place I rarely go. I only had so many words for the work, I went over 750 a long way anyways.
PHP, ColdFusion, Asp.Net, .jsp…none is dominant yet and this really felt like a different subject.
Speaking of .jsp, I left out the XSML element to formatting XML in AJAX; it didn’t seem relevant, I was worried about word count, and most importantly didn’t know what I was talking about, so I left it out.
Also left out were hardware platform devices like phone and iPods. This is unquestionably 2.0, the web reaching out beyond browsers, but it’s so hardware-technical-centric it felt like it deserved a piece of its own.
Unix and Open Source are 1.0, but I’m sure they fit into 2.0 somehow, I just don’t see it now.
Good summary of some Web 2.0 related terms.
Posted by Glenn Berry at September 4, 2006 09:57 AMThe whole thing becomes much much easier to deal with when you view "Web 2.0" for what it really is: a marketing campaign. the new "sexy" web that has no real meaning (at least at this point). Just a general term of reference, but the net has always been a living breathing thing that is always evolving.
The problem I have with it, is that we are going to get companies branding products with silly meaningless phrases like "Now Web 2.0 compatible!!" Which is going to cause me an inordinate amount of stress when my parents and other family members that I do computer support for start asking questions like: "Do I need Web 2.0 to be able to do this?", "I heard about this Web 2.0, do I need to buy it?", "Can my computer run Web 2.0?" Seriously.
I don't try to figure out how all the pieces fit together. I watch the emerging technologies and use what I need or want to.
While I love O'Reilly books, I really wish they wouldn't have coined the phrase (though I know someone would have).
Posted by Simp at September 4, 2006 10:10 AMUnix and Open Source are 1.0, but I’m sure they fit into 2.0 somehow
Unix and Open Source predate the Web by a significant number of years.
Posted by dj moonbat at September 4, 2006 10:10 AMpr, thnkng bt yr pnts, nd yr fnl pnt tht DC rbts my fl lttl smthng brthng dwn thr crps f nck, hv mst dfntly snsd frm th crp md, drng th pst yr r s, gnrl wrnss f pwr f nt thnkng. ndd, m smwht sng ths n th gnrl pblc.
sspct tht ths cld b tw-dgd swrd, nd ths s why m wrrd bt wb srvvl. Fr f th crp lrds ctlly bgn t wkn t thnkng tsd f thr rwlln sphr f nflnc, thn wht wld thy d? Thy wld d wht thy d: dstry.
S, w ll hv rsn t fr.
[Editor: ignore=off]I wish I understood all this stuff, but I don't.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by Toby Petzold at September 4, 2006 05:24 PMWeb 2.0 definitely has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with how it's used. It's also an artificial boundry, as some "Web 2.0" ways of doing things are already as old as the web revolution. Slashdot, self-publishing, even blogs. MySpace is nothing more than Geocities reborn. Heck, even comments and forums can trace their roots back to the Usenet and newsreaders!
If anything, this whole Web 2.0 brouhaha merely indicates the second wave of the Revolution, where the public reclaims the soapbox, where the barriers of entry are once again rendered irrelevant.
Posted by Saint Fnordius at September 5, 2006 06:44 AMI wish I understood all this stuff, but I don't.
We'll just add it to the list Tobes. At this point, shouldn't that just be a standard sig line for you?
Posted by Simp at September 5, 2006 10:24 AM