by the way … WordPress.com != WordPress.org

Just not to forget to say a few words about this basic difference.

So… what do we have here org vs com! Looks like opposing a business company to a non-profit organization and we’ll see that’s quite close to the truth.

Mainly this is about having your blog hosted on your own server account and to delegate this responsability to some blog hosting service. WordPress.org does not host your blog on the internet, you will have to find out a web hosting provider, it is just the underlying blogging software platform. … and one of the best (many voices may claim that). The software itself is open source, you do not have to spend a penny for it,  but having your own “space” on the Internet, that could cost you some money.

WordPress.com is a free web hosting service like Blogger.com (a competitor let’s say 🙂 ).

Which will be the advantages of using one or another ? Read more

Cloud computing … is it up in the sky or down on Earth?

One phenomenon (actually I don’t know how to call it or to find an apropiate name for it, maybe the metaphore nailing a jelly to a wall is still valid here) closely related to Web 2.0 is cloud computing. The definition on Wikipedia states that cloud computer is actually the development and use of computer of technology based on the Internet… personally I don’t think that this is telling too much since a large section of the computer technology is growing based on the Internet. I can go farther by saying that the utility of computers (from small embedded systems to PC’s) outside Internet boundaries, is going to decrease to zero.

Again I’ll have to refer to ExplainingComputers.com, one of the most intersting resources that I’ve found so far.

One of the first that Christopher Barnatt is doing in his article is comparing and tracing the differences between Web 2.0 and cloud computing. As he says Web 2.0 is making new forms of online connections between people, services and applications, whilst cloud computing is the detachement of computing resources from any even notional location. More about clouds

Web 2.0 … but why not web 1.1 ?

While searching on the net for a valuable explanation of Web 2.0 concept I have found two short videos which kept my attention.

First is made by Christopher Barnatt, currently an associated Professor of Computing and Future Studies in Nottingham University Business School and author of ExplainingComputers.com, its name Explaining Web 2.0 and the second one named Web 2.0 … The machine is Us/ing Us, created by dr. Michael Wesch, a guy coming from social sciences field, to be more precise he is  “a cultural anthropologist exploring the effects of new media on society and culture”. Really interesting and exciting Michael’s video, this was indeed confirmed by a big slice of blogosphere community, it had ~10million viewers on its first release date on Youtube. Besides this you’re not “forced” to listen a buddy wearing eyeglasses and it gives us a snapshot of the effects that the Internet and the Web are having on us, as human beings.

More about his research projects and academic portfolio you can find here .

So the first one, here you have it below…

This one is more informative, it begins by a straightforward statement, which actually denies any possibility of clearly giving a definition for such term : defining exactly what is meant by Web 2.0 is about as difficult as nailing a jelly to a wall. If you cannot define something, I mean strictly speaking, at least you can say what is made of: people and software, we’ll neglect for the moment the infrastructure. Having those two sides face to face, we can infer three types of connections which in fact are constituting the three fundamental aspects of Web 2.0.
– those between people, called interpersonal computing
– those between web applications, called web services
– those between users and software applications, called software as a service (SaaS).

Each of them is taken and roughly explained.

But before going into this classification let’s try to roughly answer the stupid question in the title. Web 2.0 term is closely associated with the name of Tim O’Reilly. It has nothing to do with updates, patches, but to continuous changes in the way that people are using the Internet and Web. It is written in the form of a major software release, 2.0, only as a tribute to the huge development of software applications that over time decisively transformed what is generally called Web. Web 1.0 is about static web pages and HTML, as Michael’s video shows from one web page you can “link here”, “or here” or “anywhere”, but it doesn’t go farther, you, as an user, cannot act upon web pages and make them how you like it. Web 2.0 basically relies on dynamic web pages, it is not only about retrieving information, it is interactive, you can run applications through your browser.

Probably the most important aspect it is that you can participate, you can get involved in creating the Web. The difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is that the first one looks as the developer wants it to look like, and the second is like the user wants it. We can make an analogy with HTML and XML, first one was the pioneer language for Web 1.0, here code is important and there are no user defined tags, latter can be considered among pioneer languages for Web 2.0, and here data is more important than code, and it goes beyond pre-defined tags, it “extends” them. One widely known analogy that Tim O’Reilly himself traced is the one between Netscape and Google. Here you have it quoted:

Netscape focused on creating software, updating it on occasion, and distributing it to the end users. O’Reilly contrasts this with Google, a company which
does not focus on producing software such as a browser but instead focuses on providing a service based on data. The data here, of course, are the links
Web page authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Web search based on reputation through its “Page Rank” algorithm.
Unlike software, which undergoes scheduled releases, a service such as Google is constantly updated, a process called the perpetual beta.

Now let’s go back to the classification me made at the beginning. Read more