WTF is this mythical Web 2.0
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hughesjr Feb 18, 2008 7:49 AM EDT |
Servers are servers ... do we increment to web X.0 everytime some new functions come out? People have been using java applications on websites for a long time ... so who determines if a website is web 1.0, or 2.0 or 3.0 .... just wondering |
| tuxtom Feb 18, 2008 8:17 AM EDT |
Did you read the article? It has nothing to do with servers. They are discussing a desktop app that combines local files with files from the Net using web technologies. Basically a browser that has full access to local files and remote files and auto-generates markup to display both on the same page. Sounds simple enough, but the security implications are mind boggling. |
| Abe Feb 18, 2008 8:23 AM EDT |
Quoting:so who determines if a website is web 1.0, or 2.0 or 3.0 ....The technology for what it does and furnishes. It has to be a quantum leap to increment the version. Ajax Runtime Environment is. Web 1.0 for html based services on servers for desktops Web 2.0 for AJAX collective technologies on servers for desktops Web 3.0 for AJAX collective technologies on desktops for desktops Web 4.0 for collective technologies on Xnet for thin client (no OS). |
| tuxtom Feb 18, 2008 8:41 AM EDT |
hughesjr, Web *.0 is really a colloquial term used as hype in the industry. It may indicate technological and aesthetic trends, but it is not a universally defined index of anything, really. AJAX technologies have been around since "Web 1.0". It is the consistent conformity of mainstream browsers to standards that made these existing technologies a viable way to develop web apps. Abe, I'm not sure if you made a typo or not. Web 2.0 AJAX collective technologies run on desktop browsers...client side. The technology on the server remains the same as Web 1.0...AJAX is merely a new method of making requests to the server. Same with Web 3.0, except the browser would have functionality to use local files in addition to traditional server requests. The server reamins the same. You could argue that XML is a new server technology but I would argue back that it is just markup and a server pumping our markup text with an identifying header is hardly anything to be called a *.0 leap. |
| Abe Feb 18, 2008 9:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:Web 2.0 AJAX collective technologies run on desktop browsers...client sideTuxtom, It is true that AJAX runs on the desktop, and XML wasn't what I was referring to. But the Async/Synch XMLHTTP requests, initiated on the desktop, are made to run code and/or to fetch data on the server for the desktop. That was already in use the conventional way, but AJAX made it more streamlined, extensible and powerful with lots of improvement to the desktop UI, optimization of network usage, and better utilization of abundant resources of servers. I guess my second item could have been written better as Web 2.0 for AJAX collective technologies on desktop-servers for desktops I have written a whole EDMS app (Electronic Document Library/vault System with work flow) that utilizes AJAX & LAMPP(XAMPP). One of these days I will have a captured video published on LXer (if they let me). Every time I plan to do that, I find more enhancements to make. That is what I meant by extensible. |
| tuxtom Feb 18, 2008 10:27 AM EDT |
Well put. It is practices rather than technologies that affect the server side. The server has no specific "AJAX" technology. Many people have written libraries in many languages to assist in the development of AJAX apps on the server, but to the server an HTTP Request / Response are still exactly the same as they've always been. There is no standard server-side equivalent of XMLHttpResponse as implemented in the client XMLHttpRequest. I am a big fan of XAMPP myself, but lately I am working on projects involving RADIUS on Slackware servers and need to compile specific LAMP stack source versions against freeradius for my production and development/testing environments. I made it part of the way there with XAMPP, but in the end had to do it the "right" way for my needs. Still, it is an outstanding tool to use on any major OS and I've always found it better and easier to use than any distribution's included LAMP stack. It's a godsend for web developers/designers without admin skills. Are you using it in production? |
| Abe Feb 18, 2008 10:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:Are you using it in production?Not yet, but it is in production quality. I have loaded the database with about 65,000 docs of all types. It is Fire Fox dependent (Intentionally to spread FF and to streamline with AJAX) for some of the File System IO used to download/upload of files individually and in bulk, and to show the progress, per document, of such operations. This is the area where FF is going to beat IE. I did that on my own spare time just to play around. It took me some time but it was real fun. It will be used when the company decides on using FOSS in certain areas. This is a new development I heard about recently in the company, after I pestered the 2nd man in IT for a while, and now he tells me I was right all along about FOSS. |
| tuxtom Feb 18, 2008 11:09 AM EDT |
> ... I pestered the 2nd man in IT for a while, and now he tells me I was right all along about FOSS. That's been the story of my life since 1997...and the suits always try to take credit for it even though they were vehemently opposed to it at the beginning when I recommended it. |
| jezuch Feb 18, 2008 3:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:so who determines if a website is web 1.0, or 2.0 or 3.0 .... Tim O'Reilly. Actually, sir Tim Berners-Lee said that what is now hyped as "Web 2.0" is what he envisioned for "Web 1.0" (or just WWW). But the small minds of common people didn't get that and so now we have this "revolution" and rediscovering of his ideas and stuff... |
| jacog Feb 19, 2008 12:39 AM EDT |
Yarrr, it's all just marketing and hype. There are people in the world who love to take every mundane new feature and bill it a "revolution", give it some flashy name, and before you know it, every half-assed tech journalist who knows nothing about tech uses it in articles. And I will submit that one for the run-on sentence of the year award. I'm a buzzword hater. Probably because I work with a whole lot of suits that are easily impressed by buzz / hype. This is the same mentality that's helping keep Linux/FOSS back. Fortunately FOSS has become a ninja tech... sneaking its way into people's lives without them necessarily knowing it. |
| Abe Feb 19, 2008 8:05 AM EDT |
Quoting:Yarrr, it's all just marketing and hype...I agree there is lots of hype, but I disagree on all of it. There are a lot of new technical ways of doing things that weren't available before. They are making Web Services more pleasant, effective and productive. |
| hughesjr Feb 19, 2008 8:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:There are a lot of new technical ways of doing things that weren't available before Agreed. However, isn't the web (or WWW, or internet, or any other term you want to use) just the routing infrastructure that serves to allow you to connect to other computers. Maybe you can also include the servers that host content. Maybe you can also say that we are going to SHARE that so that each machine is going to be a server that hosts content. Sure, you can redesign apps that put files on the local computer (just really another from of cache/temporary internet files) ... and even put databases on the local computers and only update the info. You can also change the infrastructure from wired copper to fiber to wireless. It is still just 2 computers passing back and forth 1's and 0's with some software on both ends. On device "serves" one device "reads". I see no "Web 2.0" or "Web 3.0" ... just some updated software. Maybe I am just too dense :-) |
| Abe Feb 19, 2008 9:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:I see no "Web 2.0" or "Web 3.0" ... just some updated software.That is all what it is, updated software. It is a collection of programming languages, tools, interfaces and standards combined under one name called Web Services software. For short, I believe it is referred to as Web. They give it a version # just like any application to differentiate its enhancements and highlight its progress. What I listed above is how I see this collective technology being different from one version to the other. |
| hughesjr Feb 19, 2008 9:34 AM EDT |
Quoting:What I listed above is how I see this collective technology being different from one version to the other. First, let me say that I have no issues with what you posted, and I will even suppose that it is totally correct. But, what if I choose something other than AJAX to do the local files with (maybe .NET or Mono or some other yet unwritten software) ... I get no Web 2.0 or 3.0 goodness for my app??? Also, the only source of the pictures that Jane Doe wants to share can't just be her computer, otherwise Aunt Millie can only look at the pictures when Jane has her computer turned on. So ... what we must be talking about is the "automaticness" of getting the pictures from Jane's computer to one (or more) places where people can see them. Still seems just like the same old client / server web to me. |
| tuxtom Feb 19, 2008 10:18 AM EDT |
>> What I listed above is how I see this collective technology being different from one version to the other. I must reiterate that the only "new" technology is really just the standardized implementation of XMLHttpRequest in the major browsers. Everything else is just more sophisticated application development with existing technologies. As I mentioned above, Web *.0 refers to Practices much more than it does any technology itself. Icon design and clean page layout with a bunch of DHTML eye candy and encapsulated server calls (via XMLHttpRequest) feeding the DOM is a Practice, not a technology. Some might even call it a Fad (not me). Of course, everyone wants to be bleeding edge and think they've invented something earth-shattering. In reality most sites implementing AJAX do so to be trendy or for technology's sake in itself...little pet projects for bored programmers. Very few are actually introducing any significant efficiencies other than being "Wow, that's pretty cool". Some are downright annoying. Plenty of the big boys are still Web 1.0: Google Search, Craigslist, LXer... >> There are a lot of new technical ways of doing things that weren't available before. It's not that they weren't available, it's that they weren't viable (due to browser incompatibilities) or more importantly, they weren't fashionable. Javascript (ECMA script) got a real bad rap in "Web 1.0" for popups and other nefarious practices. Now it has become accepted as a standard way to develop the client-side functionality of web apps (most due to popup blockers, methinks). |
| Abe Feb 19, 2008 10:39 AM EDT |
@hughesjr, tuxtom I guess you missed my point about some of the benefits the new methods bring to the table. Quoting:That was already in use the conventional way, but AJAX made it more streamlined, extensible and powerful with lots of improvement to the desktop UI, optimization of network usage, and better utilization of abundant resources of servers. e.g. Google & Microsoft Maps, Google online Office suite, Microsoft live.com, etc... I wouldn't say they couldn't have been done using standard Web 1.0, because one could. But they would be a hell lot more complicated and ugly than with Web 2.0. |
| tuxtom Feb 19, 2008 10:55 AM EDT |
Agreed...that's why I qualified "Google Search". I'm not anti-Web 2.0. It's just not a hard index for any particular technology. Many consider social websites like MySpace and Facebook Web 2.0...referring to the way the Web is used, not to any technologies that implement such uses. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 19, 2008 1:47 PM EDT |
You ain't seen nothing yet. The "WEB" is going to change more than you can imagine. People who don't know that "you can't do that" will find a way to do that. People who have needs that we cannot imagine will find ways to meet those needs, in ways we cannot imagine. Culture will spin the web, so will local conditions. Look at those 5 year old kids fixing the OLPC machines, ya think they all have their A+? And soon many of you are going to say "The web was better back when...." Web 9.2 w00t. Web 46.0 w00t. |
| tuxtom Feb 19, 2008 1:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:You ain't seen nothing yet. I've seen a heck of a lot. Mosaic was my first browser, and I was surfing pr0n with telnet before that became available to me. Quoting:The "WEB" is going to change more than you can imagine. I hate to sound morbid, but I fear an ever-pervasive Orwellian nightmare. We should enjoy it while we can. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 19, 2008 5:53 PM EDT |
t..t.. You and Orwell might have nightmares but the next few generations will just be realizing their dreams. Stick around, things will get more and more interesting. |
| tuxtom Feb 19, 2008 7:15 PM EDT |
I admire your optimism. Don't worry, I will be deep in the mix until my last breath. Those next few generations need mentors. I only wish I got started sooner. My first computer was a 286...got started a little late in the game. Missed out on all the Apple II stuff my friends were into. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!