Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Web 2.0 Goes To Work 100

Posted by Zonk from the about-time-you-started-pulling-your-weight dept.
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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Web 2.0 Goes To Work More

Web 2.0 Goes To Work

Comments Filter:

  • Risk Managment (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RunFatBoy.net ( 960072 ) * on Friday April 28, 2006 @12:17PM (#15221703)
    The enterprise will always be behind for the simple fact that any new sort of technology assumes a certain amount of risk and that risk is most apparent when that technology is new.

    Even something as straight forward as a wiki will be seen as a risk. When wiki's were first being utilized, I'm sure every PHB out there was asking the statement, "There's no way we can trust our customers to provide documentation, at least not without some sort of oversight by us!"

    Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ [runfatboy.net] -- Exercise for web 2.0.

    • Re:Risk Managment (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrotherNO@SPAMoptonline.net> on Friday April 28, 2006 @12:31PM (#15221817) Journal

      From the article: However, Smith said that a lot of Web 2.0 software still has serious technical pitfalls, like security, which should worry corporate customers. "If I'm mixing AJAX and wiki technology, I'm really creating a hacker's paradise," Smith said.

      And that right there is the risk a lot of IT managers will not be willing to take, until these technologies can prove they are robust enough and secure enough to keep someone from gaining easy access to their systems. Companies spend vast amounts of time building defenses and aren't about to hand out the keys to the back door if they can help it.

      • until these technologies can prove they are robust enough and secure enough to keep someone from gaining easy access to their systems.

        In this case "technologies" really means coding practices. Because we are talking mostly about something you do rather than something you use. The technologies can probably be used both securely or insecurely, there are benefits to both approaches. What it is really about is giving enough time for best practices to float to the top. Which means a lot of writing on messgebo
        • Actually I think "technologies" here really means "solutions" (a real buzzword-of-buzzwords); basically people are saying/complaining that if they went out right now and grabbed an AJAX package and a Wiki package, melded the two of them together, it would be insecure.

          I don't think there's any debate that if you planned it well, you could make a secure web-delivered application using AJAX and which had some wiki-like functions (at least as secure as any other web delivered application), but a ground-up codin
    • "The enterprise will always be behind for the simple fact that any new sort of technology assumes a certain amount of risk and that risk is most apparent when that technology is new."

      That's funny, I never thought about the risks of new technology holding them back. I just thought that the Enterprise was slow because it was crappy technology. Now give me a Wraith Hive Ship or Spaceball 1, and it's Ludicrous Speed and we can talk technology.

      "Lonestar: It's Spaceball 1.

      Barf: They've gone to plaid!"

    • I'm sure every PHB out there was asking [how can we ever trust this

      It's not just the Pointy Headed Boss that should be asking this. Any sys-admin through to junior technician that's worth their salt should shy away from implimenting bleeding edge technologies or ideas in a mainstream production environment.

      I might be able to cope with using apt-get or SUS to download and install patchs FULL without testing (who has the time or resources to thourghly test every patch?? We test on a disposable server to s

  • Already released? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, 2006 @12:17PM (#15221708)
    I thought Web 2.0 was still in beta.
    • Are you sure you're not thinking of Google 5.0 [slashdot.org]?
    • Web 2.0 is still in the annoying buzzword with no actual meaning phase. The next phases of Web 2.0 are: bickering over its meaning, widescale uninformed implementation, related budgetary over allocations, failure to live up to its promise, radical reduction in usage, and finally elminiation resulting with a very very small practical subset of the originally planned rollout. So yeah, in Google terms it is still Beta.

  • Ugh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Wellington Grey ( 942717 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @12:18PM (#15221719) Homepage Journal
    For example, Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs and AJAX are starting to show their potential behind corporate firewalls, analysts said.

    Ugh. If you are going to use a buzz word, at least try to use in the right way [wikipedia.org]. I keep a blog [wellingtongrey.net] and there is nothing 2.0 (collaborative) about it.

    -Grey
    • But corporate blogs typically are collaborative. Even if each person has their own they interlink to other employees. And collaborative departmental blogs are also becoming popular. They were simplifying by just saying "blogs", but how they're being used by companies is relatively new.
      • We're having terminology problems. Collaborative doesn't mean 2.0 either. Web 2.0 means making xmlhttp requests (aka Ajax), and most blogs don't.

        • Re:Ugh (Score:4, Informative)

          by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @01:29PM (#15222233) Homepage Journal
          AJAX means AJAX. Web 2.0 mean collaboration: "Web 2.0 generally refers to a second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that lets people collaborate and share information online." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2)
          • Somebody just went and made that up. It's not authoritative. Web 2.0 is a stupid marketing term with no clear definition, and anyone that uses it demonstrates their utter lack of tech cred.

            Sorry to be so harsh, but that's the truth.
            • It's good to know that you are the passer-outer of tech cred. Can I have your home phone number, so I can request tech cred? Thanks!
              • I actually work through a clearinghouse that outsources all the background checks to a Pakastani firm with Indian management. There's no working phone lines as yet, but just reply to any of the spam you get with your personal information and it'll be on the way in a jiffy.
      • Also, the collaboratve nature of blogs emerges in the form of comments. Take, for example, what we're doing right now - Slashdot users create much of the site's value through their responses to the articles and to one another.

        People who promote public-facing corporate blogging argue that it creates a (BUZZWORD ALERT) conversation between the enterprise and its customers.
        • (BUZZWORD ALERT) conversation

          I hope you're not calling conversation just a buzzword. I think it's real and pretty darn important.

          Plus "conversation between the enterprise and its customers" is very important too.
          • Oh, no - conversation is real and important! And one of the great things about blogging is the way it connects companies and customers. In the context of Web 2.0-driven marketing, however, the word "conversation" has become a buzzword in much the same way that "quality" was in management circles a while back.
      • They were simplifying by just saying "blogs"

        Right, and by simplifying they strip the word of meaning. That's what I have an issue with.

        -Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
        • Yeah, but the word we're talking about is 'blogs.' It's main purpose as a word is to help people who would feel sissy about keeping a diary keep a diary. It's not exactly an important word we're dealing with here.

    • Re:Ugh (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      From the linked Wikipedia article:
      "The term may include blogs and wikis."

      • Re:Ugh (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        From the linked Wikipedia article:
        "The term may include blogs and wikis."

        Not for long.

        brb
      • From the linked Wikipedia article: "The term may include blogs and wikis."

        Allow me to introduce you to my friend Venn Diagram [wikipedia.org].

        -Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

    • Re:Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)

      by c4seyj0nes ( 669515 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @03:40PM (#15223166)
      I keep a blog and there is nothing 2.0 (collaborative) about it.

      Funny that link at the bottom of your blog looks collaborative: "Leave a comment".
    • Surely, you cannot expect people to actually know what Web 2.0 means? I mean, that tends to be rather hard about words which have no defined meaning...

  • What's changed? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Marlow the Irelander ( 928776 ) <marlow@vatican.org.uk> on Friday April 28, 2006 @12:19PM (#15221721) Homepage
    It's a shift that could shake up the traditional enterprise-software model, experts predicted

    When haven't they predicted this?
  • All I read about Web 2.0 is that it's a bubble, a new name for already working technologies... but with all this new publicity I ended up knowing nothing.

    Can anybody tell me WTF Web 2.0 is (supposed to be)?

  • Say wha? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
    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.

    Ok I'm a web developer working every day
    • Depends who the consumers are. End users don't have to read that mumbo-jumbo. They just have to use the pretty web site.

      My customers are the wanna-be entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs, and "Web 2.0" and this kind of language is working wonders as far as sales & marketing goes for my consulting services.
    • Part of the underlying beauty of Web 2.0 is that most Web 2.0 business plans sound like a parody of Web 2.0.
    • The technical part sounds like a collaborative interface to something like the Google Homepage platform, applied in an enterprise environment. The meta-marketing part sounds like "Enterprise software makers are starting to use astroturf posting on web discussion boards to promote their products." Neither of them sounds like an enormous deal that is worthy of much hype. But the, big change is just the aggregate of lots of minor evolutionary steps, a lot of times.

  • Pageflakes anyone? (Score:3, Informative)

    by LibertineR ( 591918 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @12:37PM (#15221866)
    I hate the Web 2.0 hype as much as anyone, but if you havent checked out Pageflakes at www.pageflakes.com, you dont know what Web 2.0 is, or can be. Very cool implementation (no, I dont work for them, or know anyone who works with them) and some of their stuff was done with .NET. Go figure?
    • and some of their stuff was done with .NET. Go figure?

      The "magic" of Pageflakes has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with the server. It's all about client-side javascript. The server side can be kept relatively simple.

      Don't get me wrong. I hate .NET [msversus.org]. But pageflakes isn't a good selling point for it.
      • I'm aware.

        I only remembered reading that their site was developed using Microsoft's AJAX plugin called Atlas. I only mentioned .NET, because as far as I know, its the only popular Web 2.0 app that I know of that has anything at all to do with Microsoft's dev tools, even though AJAX is supposedly their invention?

    • Yes, its neat but its scaping content from other sites which is rude. Isn't it?
      • I dont know, I guess it depends on what deals if any they have with their feeders. I think the way they handle RSS is nice, but who ISNT grabbing content from other sites these days?
    • I hadn't seen it before, but looking at it, it doesn't seem a whole lot different than any of Google's personalized pages (and it seems less responsive), so I don't see why its an "If you haven't seen this, you haven't seen Web 2.0".

    • Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Wow! PageFlakes is awesome! It's new! It's innovative! It's unlike anything that "My Yahoo" or all the other "personalized aggregation portals" did in 1996 because ... er ... it uses JavaScript differently!

      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 ... on the Web ... with AJAX!" This changes *everything*!
    • Very nice implementation IMHO. I must start brushing up on AJAX methinks.

      Work will never use it though - I can run javascript on a web page when it's on the net, but Explorer blocks it when the page is stored locally. Seems to be the wrong way round but hey ... they (the IT crowd) can't do php either.

    • At first using Opera and after 2 minutes it still said "Loading your start page...". I have to say it's a totally awesome implementation of whatecver buzzword you give to losing the visitors interest.

      Turns out it's one of my ad filters (proxomitron) causing the issue (not Opera) but I have nothing amazingly aggressive blocked. To me this just demonstrates how fragile Web 2.0 websites are, I mean it didn't even have a failsafe so I could see something.
      • Damn pressed submit. This site also break my middle click (new tab) behaviour and therefore poses an annoyance in my otherwise familiar my tabbed browsing experience. It use hyperlinks does it not, so why are the href's not filled in with valid URL's?

        There is also another issue, the top of the window that comes up for article viewing can be moved so that the top bar is outside of the browser viewing area and therefore the window is essentially 'lost' and can no longer be moved back into any other position.
    • You know what's funny to me? The only time I ever hear the phrase "Web 2.0" anymore is when someone is bitching about the hype.

    • Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by scwizard ( 941758 )
      Has anyone looked at their error console after loading this site. Console2 for FF gave me 72 warning and errors for javascript + css (a lot of them were relating to it trying to change my cursor...)

  • I dont know... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by j3one ( 949806 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @12:45PM (#15221918) Homepage Journal

    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

  • Obligatory b3ta [b3ta.com] post.

  • Coming soon: (Score:2, Funny)

    by crerwin ( 971247 )
    Web 2.0 Goes to Camp
    Web 2.0 Goes to Jail

  • web2.0 business apps (Score:3, Interesting)

    by steveb3210 ( 962811 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @01:30PM (#15222243)
    I work at a small financial services company and we're currently replacing the in-house contact management system that was written in Access/VB. Our new replacemenet is in Ruby On Rails /w an interface that mimics that of a real operating system. Views all of edit tags taht spring up boxen that can be moved around like real windows, edit you data, hit save, ajax updates all the fields on the view page all your dialog box closes. To the users, its quick and mimcs the interface their used to while completely negating the problems of being tied to the office/VPN/db connections/ODBC connections, etc.

    This is the revolution.
  • I like how this writer acts like the business world has successfully figured out enterprise architectures and SOA for such a long time, and now even regular home users that are nothing more than hackers are doing the very same thing.

    Riiiggghhhtttt.... I'd like to see this writer's experience with enterprise architectures. The book for the business world is just at the beginning of being written. It's far from closed.
  • > the grassroots direct-marketing techniques of the consumer world are starting to be used to tout enterprise software

    I hope that doesn't mean unwanted phone calls just as you are about to eat dinner.

  • Web 2.0 == multiple cooperating web servers? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @02:58PM (#15222858)
    My impression of Web 2.0 is that no single web site has to engineer every one of its part, nor there must be a hardwired master-slave anymore. A travel site might get its presentation services from google-maps, its hotel list from Sabre, financial transactions from citibank, and so-on. There will be all these services sitting around- presentation, search, news, banking, streaming video, etc., etc. which can be easily glued with utilities like xml, AJAX, etc.
  • "It's a shift that could shake up the traditional enterprise-software model, experts predicted."

    Funnily it's the tradional enterprise software experts who rage against the "unsecure" "hype" "for which the technology is unfit" that is web 2.0. I doubt their motives, but the marketeers feed them plenty of hype word ammo.
  • How is a wiki based application an example of Web 2.0? WikiWikiWeb was first created in 1994 and wikis have been somewhat programmable for quite some time. Not saying it isn't a cool idea, just saying it isn't Web 2.0. Unless of course Web 2.0 just means "everything we do from now on". Sigh.

    • Wikis embody many of the core concepts in Web 2.0, that is: collaboration, user-contribution, and 'radical trust'--as Tim O'Reilly puts it. 'Collaboration' certainly isn't a new concept, neither is 'user-contribution'. But it's only now that we're seeing these concepts becoming a consistent trend in a new wave of successful, mainstream web applications.

      Wikipedia, Flickr, Del.ico.us, etc. all rely on user-contributed content. These web services provide a framework for users to create this content in, but it

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close