A very useful tool for forums

[whiteflags]

I'm going to invent a web site that combines the best aspects of facebook, myspace, and twitter, and also sell pets and rent houses, and I will make billions of dollars by advertising for people who make actual things. Maybe.

[Mario F.]

I don't think it's about the technology, but how we use it.

I hear this argument all the time, and often by people who should know better and whose memory is playing tricks on them. Nothing changed in the way we used the web. We have always been producing content like crazy since the time of the BBS. Personal pages, discussion groups, manifests, political oriented websites, blogs (only they weren't called blogs), wikis (only they weren't called wikis). That and a lot more, have always been produced by all kinds of people and the biggest group has always been those with the least technological inclination and less talent.

Web 2.0 meanwhile is simply a buzzword with unclear origins and even less clear definition, created to satisfy our pop culture need to sustain the illusion their asinine existence has a real meaning. Web 2.0 is nothing. Means nothing and amounts to nothing we haven't been doing for the past 30 years.

What do you want? If it is something that reduces the DIY potential of the web, then it is a bad idea. Right now, you don't even have to know how to program or spend any money to have a web site, and it should remain that way. Otherwise, you hand control over to the highest bidder, plain and simple, because the "expertise" will be mercenary (as it almost always is).

Clearly it hasn't been so, since the web content always grew more on the backs of the folks at home than it has on corporations doing websites for the folks at home.

In any case what I want? I want people stop saying Web 2.0, for a start. How about that?

Next, I would hope someone realized we have been driving this road on cars without safety belts, defective breaks and no speed limit. That we are constructing a web that is becoming increasingly more insecure, increasingly more complex, that is becoming more violent, that is becoming a safe haven for illegal activities, and yet we insist on having it support most of our lives, our relationships and businesses. And we have been doing that at an increasingly faster and uncontrollable speed(*). In a way the web is becoming just like real life, you can say that. But you did ask me what I wanted, so there you have it.

And for that, I would want for the technology to evolve. For the real Web 2.0 to emerge with something better than the very old TCP/Insecure Protocol and with something more appropriate than the old HTML which served us so well in the past, but which client-side limitations are today too apparent. Limitations that, by the way, have been feeding the corporations you are so quick to include in your already known leftie vitriol.

(*) an example being this amazing new concept of cloud networks for businesses. Thankfully, most of the people in charge on many of these businesses is a lot smarter than the dimwits having girly fits every time someone shouts Web 2.0. They just don't fall for buzzwords so easily. And Cloud Networks means they lose control of their databases security, integrity and update cycles. And as such many have been saying no thank you.

[cyberfish]

Well, I haven't been around for 30 years (and only about 10 years online), so I don't know what it's like back then. From what I remember, though, even as little as 7-8 years ago, posting something on the internet is not nearly as common as it is now.

Nowadays, you can just sign up for an account on wordpress, and get a personal blog in a few seconds. A totally non-technical person can learn to use the interface in just a few minutes, and start posting. No knowledge of hosting, HTML, DNS, etc are needed.

As for the name, it's actually the second or third time I've heard of it. I had to look it up on Wikipedia. I couldn't care less about the name, but the web sure has been changing.

[Mario F.]

Yes, I agree it has. But a lot more important changes that created the conditions for its widespread didn't justify the moniker. CSS was a revolution in the way content started to be presented, Server-side scripting changed the face of businesses on the web, ICQ brought people together like never before, broadband changed everything.

Meanwhile the social web is simply a byproduct of these things. And not even that, because it has always existed, since the early days of online presence. It just moved along taking rightful (I won't deny it that) advantage of the new technologies. The type of activity you see today on blogs for instance, you should see USENET some 10-15 years ago, or have connected to IRC social servers if you wanted to experience facebook-like activities. The Web itself meanwhile has pretty much always been dominated by home-made content intended to inform and communicate. Forums, for instance, the oldest direct communication method on the Web have always been largely owned by private, non-business, individuals.

Sure, I won't deny many things took new and more efficient (for their purposes) forms. But a revolution? A Web 2.0?

[laserlight]

In any case what I want? I want people stop saying Web 2.0, for a start. How about that?

Heheh, this reminds me of:

I've stayed out of this for now, but I do think I should lend a little justification to the version number thing.

First off, I think I forgot to count some time ago. If I'd started on 6.0 and made every release a major version (I think that's how Linux releases are made these days, right? , we would be on Slackware 47 by now. (it would actually be in the 20s somewhere if we'd gone 1, 2, 3...)

I think it's clear that some other distributions inflated their version numbers for marketing purposes, and I've had to field (way too many times) the question "why isn't yours 6.x" or worse "when will you upgrade to Linux 6.0" which really drives home the effectiveness of this simple trick. With the move to glibc and nearly everyone else using 6.x now, it made sense to go to at least 6.0, just to make it clear to people who don't know anything about Linux that Slackware's libraries, compilers, and other stuff are not 3 major versions behind. I thought they'd all be using 7.0 by now, but no matter. We're at least "one better", right?

Sorry if I haven't been enough of a purist about this. I promise I won't inflate the version number again (unless everyone else does again

Of course, the Web and Linux distributions are very different in how they develop, but I think the point is that it is a matter of marketing (to companies: you need to update your website to be Web 2.0!; to users: join my Web 2.0 community and interact with your friends/share your content in a new way!), so many people who use the term just want to keep up with the Joneses.

[MK27]

Web 2.0 meanwhile is simply a buzzword with unclear origins and even less clear definition, created to satisfy our pop culture need to sustain the illusion their asinine existence has a real meaning. Web 2.0 is nothing. Means nothing and amounts to nothing we haven't been doing for the past 30 years.

Yes, it is a buzzword. I too find it gimmicky, but unlike you, I am not content to rest on my first impressions of something about which you are (apparently) completely ignorant.

The origins of the term are not in any way unclear. If you can control your revulsion long enough, you will find it spelled out on the wikipedia page. Those O'Reilly conferences, incidentally, are now gigantic industry events held annually in New York and San Francisco.

Again, the technology which makes "2.0" content distinct from previous web content is real, easily defined, and <15 years old. Altho the wiki page does get caught up in ambiguous terms ("information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration") -- more buzzwords that could be crudely applied to some previous content as well, if you examine each of them carefully it becomes easier to see how the "2.0" concept explicitly encapsulates them in concrete ways and has developed specific technology to implement and develop them.

Most of this revolves around exploiting dynamic content and possibilities in the client server relationship (which may be less limited than you appear to believe). None of the things you mention -- USENET, BBS, etc -- do this because they are 100% static content.

So "Web 2.0" does apply to a concrete phenomenon, just as the word "usenet" refers to a concrete phenomenon. You may not like usenet, but it is just silly to ask people to stop referring to a real thing just because you don't like it.

And I'm not saying this because I love a bandwagon, either. I find the kind of corporate PR which has been mostly responsible for the dissemination of the term into the public imagination largely tasteless. And some of the technology does appear to me to fall into the "technology for technology's sake" category and otherwise ill-considered, eg, cloud computing, which has already had a number of disastrous, expensive failures, was still all the rage at the last Web 2.0 conference I attended.*

To be fair tho, I am probably one of the last people you would want working in your PR department, so little surprise that I do not appreciate that kind of "work". I think the reason there are so many vague buzzwords associated with "Web 2.0", rather than just the concrete technologies which enable silly ideas like "data driven design" and "collaborative content", is a conscious attempt to engage the public imagination, which, lets face it, most web users still do not know or care what javascript (a concrete technology) is.

* Me and a friend have been getting free tickets for a few years now. The first time I went, I had more or less Mario's attitude -- 2.0 shmoopointoh, it's all the same thing. I turned out to be wrong and now have a more open-minded attitude, esp. since recognizing that many or most of the things I appreciate about the web today were made possible by "web 2.0" developments and dynamic content. Fav activity at said conference: getting as much swag as possible at the MS pavilion ("Silverlight! Silverlight!" -- bah, that one really is the same old crap) so I can leave it piled on top of the garbage bins outside the exit...just kidding.

[Mario F.]

Most of this revolves around exploiting dynamic content and possibilities in the client server relationship (which may be less limited than you appear to believe). None of the things you mention -- USENET, BBS, etc -- do this because they are 100% static content.

Right. As if we haven't been exploring dynamic content since CGI way back in the early 90s. Web 2.0 by your funny definition would have happened immediately after ASP, ColdFusion and PHP were dominating the web. Nothing much really changed since then. Only the production.

And USENET or BBS were used in my text exclusively as illustrative examples of how the online social aspect has been petty much reality since, well ever. They are not meant for as direct comparison, because they have nothing to do with the web.

And I'm not saying this because I love a bandwagon, either.

I know. You are saying this because, and let me quote you: <i>"The origins of the term are not in any way unclear. If you can control your revulsion long enough, you will find it spelled out on the wikipedia page. Those O'Reilly conferences, incidentally, are now gigantic industry events held annually in New York and San Francisco."</i>

You are thus saying it because someone else said it. And you actually believe those that said it are smarter than you. And they must be right, because it was on an O'Reilly Conference; a gigantic industry event.

Well, O'Reilly Conferences are actually called O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conferences. And lots of meaningless buzzwords, predictions and girly fits always come out of Emerging Technology Conferences. These are by no means gigantic industry events, neither they have been ever industry defining events.

* Me and a friend have been getting free tickets for a few years now. The first time I went, I had more or less Mario's attitude -- 2.0 shmoopointoh, it's all the same thing. I turned out to be wrong and now have a more open-minded attitude, esp. since recognizing that many or most of the things I appreciate about the web today were made possible by "web 2.0" developments and dynamic content.

Yes. Going to a conference for the first time without proper defenses and someone more experienced close by to filter the nonsense out of your ears, will make you believe pretty much anything, like seeing God in your ascii.

The result is pretty much you came out a new man. A man that writes exactly that paragraph. Congratulations! You've seen the light.

Indoctrinated.

[Mario F.]

Let me try this in another way:

"Web 2.0" exists because some people finally understood years after the fact (and after the technology was ready) that social networks had a huge business potential. Since Geocities and Tripod social websites that this potential has been tapped. It was broadband and the massification of the internet that finally made this very apparent. And even then only a few years later.

There was a need to define and explore this potential. So "Web 2.0" emerged simply as a marketing device. No real definition, no concrete evidence, not even supported by new technology. Just a few enlightened speakers, all hyped by the potential of a nearly decade old technology made more obvious by broadband and the massification of the internet, giving a name to this idea and trying to hype their listeners with promises of a fat wallet. Exactly what you get on any Emerging Technology Conference worth its salt.

And boy, they were right or they were right! Facebook, You Tube, MySpace, digital sharecropping...

[MK27]

Right. As if we haven't been exploring dynamic content since CGI way back in the early 90s.

Which is not 30 years ago, but YMMV. Asychronous transfer is central to "Web 2.0" development and represents a much more recent technology. Previous to that, "dynamic content" just referred to feedback from forms (the traditional CGI model), so again it is a concrete step.

Web 2.0 by your funny definition would have happened immediately after ASP, ColdFusion and PHP were dominating the web.

No, "Web 2.0" is an umbrella term to refer precisely to this trend and the possibilities it engendered (which now dominate the web) and can be understood to include ASP, PHP, as used toward this end.

You are thus saying it because someone else said it. And you actually believe those that said it are smarter than you.

Actually, I never consider anyone to be smarter than myself I am not saying the term "Web 2.0" has an indisputable and clear origin because this is some "belief" of mine, or regurgitating someone else's opinion, I am just stating a fact.

Well, O'Reilly Conferences are actually called O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conferences. And lots of meaningless buzzwords, predictions and girly fits always come out of Emerging Technology Conferences. These are by no means gigantic industry events, neither they have been ever industry defining events.

The event to which I refer is, in fact actually called "The Web 2.0 Conference", and it is gigantic in the sense that they manage to fill the floorspace in one of the largest convention centers in NYC for a week, and attract most or all of the major players in internet hardware and software. In this sense, I would imagine it is, in fact, one of the larger tradeshow specifically centered on internet technology. For all I know it is the largest, but probably not -- I have not done any research in this regard, tradeshows in general are not an interest.

Going to a conference for the first time without proper defenses and someone more experienced close by to filter the nonsense out of your ears, will make you believe pretty much anything, like seeing God in your ascii.

I am an unabashed cynic/skeptic and don't require anyone to help me with this, usually it is me that plays that role. My parents are in manufacturing and I grew up around PR, tradeshows, technology punditry, sales people, etc, it's nothing new.

Indoctrinated.

Not at all. I am not pushing for the viability or greatness of anything involved, I'm just observing that it does exist, and perhaps trying to point out something about the scale to you -- "Web 2.0" is not simply at term gadgetry pundits employ in blogs, but in fact a professional term which is used meaningfully in the internet field.

You also seem to have confused the term "social networking" (another valid professional term) with "Web 2.0", and your vague criticism seems to meander between the too. You've already said elsewhere that you have forbidden your children to use social networking sites, so with that closed a mind, it is hard to see how or why you would want to represent yourself as knowing anything about them.

If there are more erroneous claims you would like proven wrong, we can continue.

[jeffcobb]

I agree, wikis are the best thing ever.

What does blog have to do with this, though? A blog is like an online diary. I have one myself. It's not supposed to be a platform for knowledge exchange, but for socializing.

Not always; I publish source code and different techie how-to's on mine. Once in a while its about some fest we have attended or some anime I have seen but a lions-share are (hopefully) educational, if in a rather narrowly-defined way...

[Mario F.]

If there are more erroneous claims you would like proven wrong, we can continue.

LOL! As if you have proven anything wrong

EDIT:

You caught me there with no free time on my hands and couldn't answer properly. I understand that one liner by itself is worthless. But there it goes now a proper reply, as to why.

Which is not 30 years ago, but YMMV. Asychronous transfer is central to "Web 2.0" development and represents a much more recent technology. Previous to that, "dynamic content" just referred to feedback from forms (the traditional CGI model), so again it is a concrete step

You keep insisting on the "30 years". That's for the network applied to social endeavors. And it's indeed 30 years old. Or as old as we have been online. As for Asynchronous Transfers, the technology by far predate this notion of Web 2.0 by nearly a decade. So again, it was already there for quite a while. So the step was taken way before this Web 2.0 nonsense and had been applied for all sorts of other tasks since then.

The event to which I refer is, in fact actually called "The Web 2.0 Conference"

You aren't listening. The Web 2.0 Conference or Summit or whatever did not invent the term Web 2.0. It's the result of the previous year discussion. In 2003 the Emerging Technologies Conference (ETech) introduced two major topics "Social Networks" and "Web Applications". Each topic had several events by several speakers. And they exactly tried to demonstrate the benefits of adopting both these concepts and technologies in the business sense.

This conference happened early in the year. By the end of the year, papers were already circulating coining the term Web 2.0, inspired no doubt by the talks at the conference and the debates that issued. The first person to have publicly spoken the words "Web 2.0" in this context was probably Kingsley in September that year, after a large interview with none other than Jeff Bezos (one of the most enthusiastic adopters of what was then called Rich Internet Applications). The first Web 2.0 Conference happened next year, spurred by 2003 talks and events and finally popularized a term that had been more or less been discussed as early as 2000. The 2003 ETech is here, for your reading pleasure.

I am not pushing for the viability or greatness of anything involved, I'm just observing that it does exist, and perhaps trying to point out something about the scale to you -- "Web 2.0" is not simply at term gadgetry pundits employ in blogs, but in fact a professional term which is used meaningfully in the internet field.

By whom exactly? And meaning exactly what? Not you, not anyone can clearly describe the term without avoiding the problem that there is nothing new about it. That all it tries to describe is technologies and behaviors that predate it. That the web didn't suddenly wake up one morning and got an upgrade in the way users use it, and technologies run it. Not even the fact that it describes a web that is different than what was before it.

Critics including Tim-Berners Lee and several web entrepreneurs, some of them deeply integrated in this field you call Web 2.0 like Josh Kopelman, consider the term inappropriate, misleading or even a complete fail as an attempt to inspire, motivate or even market. Bruce Sterling even said it is now a dead concept in its power to rally people. That you choose to question their judgment, it's fine. But don't speak to me of a "a professional term which is used meaningfully in the internet field". That's just going around in circles. That's exactly what I say isn't happening and never happened.

You also seem to have confused the term "social networking" (another valid professional term) with "Web 2.0", and your vague criticism seems to meander between the too.

There's nothing vague about my criticism. It's very concrete. You just choose to ignore it to sustain your I'm-ever-right attitude. Blindness may also have something to do with it.

But hey, please. Don't let reality and your inability to actually give Web 2.0 a non conflicting definition get in the way of your beliefs. More power to you.

[VirtualAce]

I'm going to invent a web site that combines the best aspects of facebook, myspace, and twitter, and also sell pets and rent houses, and I will make billions of dollars by advertising for people who make actual things. Maybe.

Wow. Your site won't have much on it then.

Come to think of it I can't think of any 'best' things on facebook, myspace, or twitter.

Twitter is the rudest thing in the world. As if I really care to read about the boring happenings that is everyone else's life. Most are like:

'Well I went to the store today and picked up.....'

Really? Earth shattering stuff there. Twitter just sucks big time and is a way for people to supplement their boring life by reading about everyone else's boring life.

[Subsonics]

Some of the things Mario said in post #17 made me curious, have there been any serious attempts or plans, research or otherwise for a replacement for the tcp/ip protocol suite? Not new technologies built on top but starting from scratch.

[cyberfish]

It would be disastrous.

To build something from scratch would mean breaking compatibility with all existing things (hardware and software). Basically re-invent computer networking.

Or we can have them in parallel, but how can it compete with TCP/IP?

Even IPv6 is going very slowly. Most people don't find IPv4 annoying enough to worth the hassle.

[Subsonics]

I'm not asking from a practical standpoint, purely out of curiosity. It would be interesting to read about how it would or could be done today given what we know about how internet is used today. I saw something about some military proposals just now, not exactly what I had in mind but.