0 day.漏洞_Day Web 2.0死亡-CSDN博客

0 day.漏洞

For a lot of people, the term “Web 2.0,” ceased to mean anything real a long a time ago. For some, it never really meant anything to begin with. As someone who writes about the so-called second version of the web for a living, I think I’ve held onto the Web 2.0 term as long as I could. But today, “Web 2.0” has officially jumped the shark for me. That doesn’t mean I’ll stop using it — as a blanket term to describe the industry that I write about it can be helpful — but I have to admit that it has now become somewhat of a parody.

对于很多人而言，“ Web 2.0”一词早在很久以前就不再意味着任何真实的东西。对于某些人来说，它从一开始就没有任何意义。作为撰写所谓的第二版Web来谋生的人，我认为我一直坚持使用Web 2.0术语。但今天，“网络2.0”已经正式跳下鲨鱼我。这并不意味着我会停止使用它-作为一个笼统的术语来描述我所写的行业可能会有所帮助-但我必须承认它现在已经变得有些模仿。

Defining Web 2.0 has been something like a fun parlor game for a few years now. There’s a long history of people trying to come up with a unified definition of Web 2.0. But like the elusive theory of everything in physics, a single, agreed-upon definition of what Web 2.0 really means has been hard to come by.

几年来，定义Web 2.0就像是一个有趣的客厅游戏。人们尝试建立Web 2.0的统一定义已有很长的历史。但是，就像物理学中所有事物的难以捉摸的理论一样，很难对Web 2.0真正意味着什么达成一致的共识。

Probably the most widely accepted definition is Tim O’Reilly’s compact definition: “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.”

可能最广泛接受的定义是Tim O'Reilly的紧凑定义：“ Web 2.0是计算机行业的商业革命，它是由于将互联网作为平台而引起的，并试图理解该新平台上成功的规则。 ”

But even O’Reilly’s definition has changed and evolved to get to that point.

但是，甚至O'Reilly的定义也发生了变化并发展到了这一点。

So what caused me to finally admit that Web 2.0 has jumped the shark? It was waking up today, and finding a link to this story at PC World, a very mainstream computer publication: Web 2.0 Tactics for Successful Job-Hunting.

那么，是什么使我最终承认Web 2.0跳出了鲨鱼呢？它今天醒来，并在PC World(一个非常主流的计算机出版物： Web 2.0成功求职的策略)上找到了与这个故事的链接。

Among the “Web 2.0 tactics” that PC World recommends: letters of recommendation, staying current with your skills, and networking. Isn’t that how people have been searching for jobs nearly forever? What the heck is “Web 2.0” about that? The only item on the list that could be even mildly considered to have some sort of tie in with what we generally like to think of as Web 2.0 was “Upgrade your online image,” in which the authors recommend joining relevant online social communities like LinkedIn, and Twitter, blogging, and making sure your profiles at other social sites are clean of college party photos.

PC World推荐的“ Web 2.0战术”包括：推荐信，与您的技能保持同步以及建立联系。这不是人们几乎永远寻找工作的方式吗？ “ Web 2.0”到底有什么用呢？列表上唯一可以被认为与我们通常认为Web 2.0有某种联系的项目是“升级您的在线形象”，作者建议加入像LinkedIn这样的相关在线社交社区。，Twitter和博客，并确保您在其他社交网站上的个人资料中没有大学聚会的照片。

In other words: Web 2.0 is now a mainstream marketing term. In reality, Web 2.0 has always been a marketing term. O’Reilly’s company, which owns the trademark on the term, uses it to promote their hugely successful web-focused conference series, for example. But until today, I hadn’t actually seen it applied in a way that so blatantly targets a mainstream audience in an effort to make something rather dull appear more hip (I’m sure it’s happened before, this was just the first time I’ve seen it).

换句话说：Web 2.0现在是主流营销术语。实际上，Web 2.0一直是营销术语。 O'Reilly的公司拥有该商标的商标，例如，该商标用于推广他们非常成功的以网络为中心的会议系列。但是直到今天，我还没有真正看到它以如此明显地针对主流受众的方式应用，以使某些平淡无奇的外观显得更加时髦(我确信这是以前发生的，这只是我第一次我看过)。

All that said, the confusion over Web 2.0 — whatever it means and however it is now being used — has been helpful.

综上所述，对Web 2.0的困惑(无论其含义是什么，无论现在如何使用)都非常有用。

Last April, I wrote that there really is no such thing as Web 2.0, or Web 3.0 for that matter, there is just the web. “Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 — they don’t really exist. They’re just arbitrary numbers assigned to something that doesn’t really have versions,” I said. “But the discussion that those terms have prompted have been helpful, I think, in figuring out where the web is going and how we’re going to get there; and that’s what is important.”

去年四月，我写道，实际上没有Web 2.0或Web 3.0这样的东西，只有Web 。 “ Web 2.0和Web 3.0 –它们实际上并不存在。它们只是分配给实际上没有版本的东西的任意数字，”我说。 “但是，我认为这些术语所引起的讨论对于弄清网络的去向以及我们如何到达那里很有帮助；那才是重要的。”

I think that’s still true, and as long as we continue to have that discussion and attempt to define these nebulous ideas, we’ll continue to get value from the discussion. I wrote in April that instead of telling people I write about Web 2.0, I’d tell them that I “write about the web, what you can do with it now, and what you’ll be able to do with it in the future.” I haven’t done a very good job in keeping with that promise, but I still like the idea.

我认为这仍然是正确的，只要我们继续进行讨论并尝试定义这些模糊的想法，我们就会继续从讨论中获得价值。我在4月份写的文章不是告诉别人我写的是Web 2.0，而是告诉他们“写关于Web的知识，您现在可以使用它做什么，以及将来可以使用它做什么？。” 我并没有很好地履行这一诺言，但我仍然喜欢这个主意。