Web 2.0 Goes To Work 100
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. "
Did I miss the boat here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anybody tell me WTF Web 2.0 is (supposed to be)?
Re:Did I miss the boat here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I dont know... (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter what technology is employed, people are once again realising that the online world is the place to be. So people want money right? Right. And if you can think of somthing first and make it work first, you could end up with a giant pay out + fame and fourtune right? Ok, maybe.
So, while we may be anoyed with all the buzzwords and hype, realise that the world is moving forward with 2.0 so quit whining, and get out there and develop stuff so we dont have to live with what IMB thinks is web 2.0
Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:1, Insightful)
Web 2.0 is a bold new world of fresh opportunities. I'd better get my patent monkeys cranking out registrations, e.g. "Patent describes a unique and proprietary method for performing business transactions
Re:Get a clue (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny that link at the bottom of your blog looks collaborative: "Leave a comment".