I'm still not sure I like all this ‘2.0' nomenclature. Apart from anything else, it's just too broad to really capture what people think they mean by it. Others think they know what they mean by it, but nobody else does. And those that know what people think they mean by it, are generally thinking something completely opposite to what people thought they knew they were thinking about it, if you know what I mean.
Imagine if the mainframe had been considered computing 1.0. That would have made midrange machines like the VAX described as 2.0, distributed servers like Unix boxes called 3.0, Windows NT would have ushered in 4.0 and thin server architectures from Citrix et al no doubt would be 5.0.
The whole Linux shout would probably have been 6.0 and now that we get to virtualisation of servers, storage and desktops, that would probably be known as 7.0.
The point is, the World Wide Web was only originated by Tim Berners Lee in 1989. Yet already we are to believe that we need a Web 2.0, or even as some are suggesting, 3.0.
Anyway I am equally unconvinced that there is any such thing as ‘Enterprise 2.0.' Yet a whole conference called just that just ran in Boston last week, attracting attendees from far and wide to hear what Enterprise 2.0 is all about.
Anyway, whether I think the concept is based in reality is perhaps a moot point. But for those who didn't make it along to Enterprise 2.0, here is a summary of the “top learnings” from the conference, according to David Spark and snipped from his blog [Click continue reading for more on this blog entry.]
Read full story... 
