photo credit: jeremyfoo

It’s amusing sometimes to read about “new” ways of doing things, when they are actually just a rehash of the older way things were done.

Here’s one example – the use of the term, “Web 2.0.” Of course, there are various definitions as to exactly what this term means, but one of the generalized definitions describes Web 1.0 as being mostly information oriented, and Web 2.0 as being more content oriented. One key element of this distinction is that Web 2.0 not only relies on content, but actually depends on user participation to provide and share that content.

In the “pre-dawn days” of the Internet, there were systems called a BBS (bulletin board system), and networks like FidoNet. A BBS was a program that was run on a host computer that allowed users to literally dial-in via slow speed modems. Today’s model of that would be the user forums on individual websites. Users shared information, discussed topics of interest, and provided file transfers for images and software. In other words, the users provided the content.

As these systems began to grow, it was recognized that some method of sharing this information across the country (and later the world) needed to be designed. FidoNet was one of these new methods. If the host of a BBS wanted to expand, he could join FidoNet. Each day (usually at night), all the new material to be shared from his BBS would be packaged and compressed, then forwarded to larger FidoNet nodes. These nodes in turn would collect all the packages and send them on to the next stop. While doing this, FidoNet also combined the information it received, and sent it back to each member of FidoNet. This was the forefather of today’s Usenet. This process was done by telephone modems, and it could literally take days for someone to reply to a post you made. In my eyes, this was actually the precursor of the Internet, or what should really be referred to as Web 1.0. So “Web 2.0” should probably be at version 1.7 or something along those lines.

Another example is the concept of “cloud computing,” which is defined as the movement of software applications and services from individual PCs to centralized data centers, where they are made available via the Internet. Google and Microsoft are investing heavily in this concept. Ironically, this process also describes the old-fashioned data centers with mainframe computers and dumb terminals.

When I was a Network Consultant, I had a client that had an information system based on the AS400, but they also wanted to set up a local area network (LAN) using PCs to use more modern software tools. The solution was simple enough, as IBM manufactured a PC card and emulation software so that each PC could connect to the AS400 and pretend to be a dumb terminal while still offering the benefits of local computing on the PC.

So the CFO of this company made the decision that every employee that used a PC or dumb terminal should get a brand-new, top of the line PC with the emulation card and software installed, and they should all be networked together. As a consultant, I did my best to change his mind, even though this project was going to provide me with some hefty profits.

At first glance this “solution” may have seemed like a good idea. But the truth was, a large percentage of the people with dumb terminals did nothing but data entry. They had no use for a PC, and in fact, the AS400 emulation on a PC was not 100% bulletproof and required a larger number of IT personnel to train the users, manage and support the network, and keep the business running. The new CRTs and computers took up more desk space, and used more electricity. All of the existing dumb terminals were dumped (at the local landfill). Within the year, that company went bankrupt and several hundred people lost their jobs.

So this concept of “cloud computing” is nothing new, and it has the potential to create the same kind of problems I just described. Personally, I would prefer a hybrid of the two, but based on the needs of the individuals and not just because it is supposed to be the latest and greatest way to do things.