May 1, 2007 0
Michael Lamoureux did an interesting thing by calling this SCM 2.0 implying that something of a change is necessary in that same ol’, same o’ SCM 1.0. But that begs three questions:
1. What is SCM 1.0?
2. What is Web 2.0? and
3. What is SCM 2.0
I’ll begin with (2) because that is probably the least unknown of the three. (1) will reveal itself when (3) is sufficiently fleshed out. Since (1) is really dependent on (3), perhaps an analogy mapping from (2) to (3) might be sufficient at this point.
So what is Web 2.0?
Web 2.0 is a marketing gimmick – nothing but hype. So says, Tim Bray about Web 2.0:
I just wanted to say how much I’ve come to dislike this Web 2.0 faux-meme. It’s not only vacuous marketing hype, it can’t possibly be right. In terms of qualitative changes of everyone’s experience of the Web, the first happened when Google hit its stride and suddenly search was useful for, and used by, everyone every day. The second syndication and blogging turning the Web from a library into an event stream is in the middle of happening. So a lot of us are already on 3.0. Anyhow, I think Usenet might have been the real 1.0. But most times, the whole thing still feels like a shaky early beta to me.
Now, that you’ve heard from the opposition – a contrary opinion simply pleading a lack of visibility and the very need for a name for something that is not that big of a deal, I’ll go to the proponents case for what Web 2.0 is. This article at O’Reilly – What is Web 2.0 describes the position quite well. If you have the time to peruse the article, I think it’ll be worth your while. However, what is of immediate interest to the me can be found on page 5 of the article – Web 2.0 Design Patterns (Refer to the grey box on the right side of the page).