Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Hmm. Isn't that SetUID or Sticky or something?

That's better than many of the people he interviewed to be a sysadmin.

> I'm still fuzzy on exactly what the hell "Web 2.0" actually is. Does 
> anybody actually have a definition for it?

You know what "B2B" and "B2C" means? Business to Business and Business 
to Consumer? I think most of the Web 2.0 stuff is "Consumer to Consumer".

Of course, it started off as a marketing term. O'Reilly said "Let's call 
it Web 2.0. What will it be about?"

There are other terms you should be familiar with too:

"Developer's Wiki" - We're too lazy to actually write documentation on 
how to use the system, so we let the users reverse-engineer it and 
maintain the documentation for us. This has the additional advantage of 
having all documentation inaccessible whenever our server is down, which 
is often, because we don't care enough to write the documentation in the 
first place. And *another* advantage that there's no good starting 
point, and no way to know when the feature you're looking for *isn't* 
available!

"XML" - We're too lazy to document our data interchange formats, so 
we're hoping that by using an inefficient format, it'll include enough 
information that you can guess what we mean by looking at examples. 
Plus, it lets us pretend to parse it correctly by writing simple but 
incorrect code ourselves!

"REST" - Rather than use an RPC format that is capable of being 
generated automatically like SOAP, which (like XML) we don't really 
understand, we're going to use a catchy phrase like "REST" which is 
completely inapplicable in all practical implementations. Plus, it gives 
us the advantage of making you reimplement all parsing and security 
mechanisms for every service with which you interact.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message