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. "
Risk Managment (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Risk Managment (Score:2)
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
I think they mean the 'solutions' aren't ready. (Score:2)
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
Re:Risk Managment (Score:2)
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!"
Re:Risk Managment - not just PHB (Score:2)
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)
Re:Already released? (Score:2)
Re:Already released? (Score:2)
Ugh (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Ugh (Score:2)
Re:Ugh (Score:2)
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ugh (Score:1)
Sorry to be so harsh, but that's the truth.
Re:Ugh (Score:1)
Re:Ugh (Score:1)
Re:Ugh (Score:1)
People who promote public-facing corporate blogging argue that it creates a (BUZZWORD ALERT) conversation between the enterprise and its customers.
Re:Ugh (Score:2)
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.
Re:Ugh (Score:1)
Re:Ugh (Score:1)
Right, and by simplifying they strip the word of meaning. That's what I have an issue with.
-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
Let's be realistic (Score:1)
Re:Ugh (Score:1, Informative)
"The term may include blogs and wikis."
Re:Ugh (Score:2, Funny)
"The term may include blogs and wikis."
Not for long.
brb
Re:Ugh (Score:1)
Allow me to introduce you to my friend Venn Diagram [wikipedia.org].
-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny that link at the bottom of your blog looks collaborative: "Leave a comment".
Re:Ugh (Score:2)
What's changed? (Score:5, Funny)
When haven't they predicted this?
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:1, Informative)
Re:Did I miss the boat here? (Score:4, Interesting)
Unabashed, unvarnished hype. Anything new-and-cool.
I think XMLHttpRequest is pretty neat, I'm rather fond of AJAX, but Web 2.0 just makes my knee jerk so hard I want to turn it into a snap-kick at anyone plugging it.
It's starry-eyed technology evangalists.
It's the new bandwagon.
It's social networking, and the new dot-com bubble. Myspace sold for 580 million, possibly it could pull that. Facebook thinks itself worth two billion. That's with a B. The tulipmania [wikipedia.org] hasn't gone so far as to find anyone insane enough to take that price though.
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.
Re:Did I miss the boat here? (Score:2)
That'd be OK for me, if there wasn't a sea of DISINFORMATION around.
(BTW, thanks to the guy who provided the link to wikipedia)
Re:Did I miss the boat here? (Score:2)
Say wha? (Score:1, Redundant)
Ok I'm a web developer working every day
Re:Say wha? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Say wha? (Score:2)
Re:Say wha? (Score:1)
Re:Sheesh.... (Score:1)
Pageflakes anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:2)
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
Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:2)
Get a clue (Score:5, Funny)
Shit, did you go to DeVry or something?
Re:Get a clue (Score:2)
All of them really. They should degrade properly so that the site still "works".
Nice joke though
Re:Get a clue (Score:2)
Maybe I could degrade my sites to a redirect popup that says: "You have 30 seconds to enable Javascript in your browser, before a full screen popup opens with an image of horrible gay porn."
Re:Get a clue (Score:2)
I don't trust Javascript or the script programmers, sorry.
I don't install executables all willy-nilly either.
Expecting people to enable javascript to see your site at all is limiting to your market.
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:Get a clue (Score:2)
As long as JavaScript is not really save on clients it s wise to disable it. So, ofc AJAX applications wont work anymore. however the web site offering the AJAX application still could
angel'o'sphere
Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:2)
Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:2)
Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:1)
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:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:2)
Re:Pageflakes anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Daisy (Score:3, Funny)
IMB. Is that like HLA?
What was wrong with the old one? (Score:1)
Coming soon: (Score:2, Funny)
Web 2.0 Goes to Jail
Re:Clarification for the stupid, please... (Score:2)
web2.0 business apps (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the revolution.
Like business enterprise software is even ready (Score:1)
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.
Oh-no! (Score:2)
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)
Be afraid (Score:1)
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.
Wiki = Web 2.0? (Score:1)
Re:Wiki = Web 2.0? (Score:2)
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