Jeff Clavier and Paul Kedrosky note that the chmod 777 definition of 'web 2.0' is coming back into fashion. As Jeff nicely put it:
"Web 2.0 = chmod 777 web
For those (non-geeks) who don’t get the reference, chmod is the Unix command allowing you to change the access control of a file or a folder, and 777 means that everyone can read/write/execute your file or read/write/traverse a folder. I.e the Read/Write Web (no Richard, no cease and desist please)."
The chmod 777 meme got picked up recently by Tim Bray, who pointed to IBMer James Snell's definition a year ago. Incidentally, I was secretly thrilled to discover that Tim Bray likes my blog - always cool when your tech heroes acknowledge you :-) [Update: I neglected to mentioned that it was James Governor who brought up my name to Tim - thanks James!]
So getting back to chmod 777. It is an incredibly geeky definition. Also of course the whole 'defining web 2.0' thing is very much played out - I'll start issuing Cease and Desist letters soon to blogs that continue to do it :-) Even Mike Arrington has stopped using his 'Tracking Web 2.0' tagline and he thinks the 'Web as OS' theme is the next phase. I agree, because 'Web as platform' has always been my staple definition of... you know what.
But there is something nice about this chmod 777 definition of what's going on in the current era of the Web. Laurent Denoue emailed me about it, saying:
"each number maps to an entity:
- the first number maps to your permissions
- the second to the group permission
- the third to everyone's elseEach number is the decimal representation of the binary: RWX
R=Read
W=Write
X=eXecuteSo if you want to set full rights (read, write and execute) for a given entity, you use 111 <=> 7
in the end, using 777 means that you, your group and everyone else has full rights.
I think that the power of chmod 777 web is that it's not only readable (e.g. CNN), and writable (e.g. blogs), but also executable: you can actually do stuff (e.g. writerly, etc.)."
In any case, I don't really care what it's called these days. It's all about the evolution of the Web, when it comes down to it. My inspiration when I started R/WW was Dave Winer's Two-Way Web theory and of course Tim Berners-Lee, who as far as I know was the first to use the term 'read/write web' - but I haven't been able to confirm that. Anyone got a link to TBL using that term? Perhaps he just used the 'read/write' bit. Either way it'd be hard to credit anyone else but him for coining it, because right from the start TBL always wanted the Web to be read/write. FWIW this was my first post on the topic.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Cease and Desist defining Web 2.0.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2680
Yes, Web 2.0 has become a marketing buzzword for "anything that's cool," as venture capitalist Peter Rip puts it. But even as the term itself may be losing its meaning, I've been seeing the services and ideas behind Web 2.0--basically,... Read More
It must be that time again, if you are over the age of 30 you know what I mean - dot com fever. Everywhere I go, talking to friends in Canada, America, the UK, everyone is either involved in chmod 777 (the new non-hype term for Web 2.0) projects, thin... Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Right on time, chmod777web.com was snatched yesterday!
http://whois.domaintools.com/chmod777web.com
Posted by: Gabe | June 4, 2006 1:06 AMHeh, I imagine the marketing people would have a tough time with that one. 'The chmod 777 Conference' doesn't quite have the same appeal...
Posted by: Richard MacManus | June 4, 2006 4:49 AMYep, James Snell's definition is wonderful.
There's a load of timbl's old notes under DesignIssues, but I'd be surprised if you'd find "read/write web" anywhere, because writability was a core feature of the design - ever heard of a "read/write notebook"? As Bob Wyman points out, the amazing things is that this was forgotten. (Even by certain people that should really have known better...)
Posted by: Danny | June 4, 2006 5:32 AMBrilliant stuff, thanks!
'chmod 777 web' tell us exacltly what Web 2.0 applications need to allow for. They need to be readable, writable and executable by all.
These permissions enable 'harnessing collective intelligence' or O'Reilly's latest definition of Web 2.0.
http://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/05/tim-oreilly-and-defining-web-20.html
Web 2.0 - A movement in the evolution of the web where applications became readable, writable and executable by all which allowed for the harnessing of collective intelligence.
Posted by: Gomer | June 4, 2006 9:34 AMDoes this mean you're renaming your blog to
Posted by: Richard Cunningham | June 4, 2006 3:15 PMRead/Write/ExecuteWeb ? ;)
Richard C, the answer is an emphatic NO!!! :-)
Posted by: Richard MacManus | June 4, 2006 3:49 PMGreat new blog name Richard!
Looks like the links got stripped from my previous comment -
Design Issues:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/
Bob Wyman:
http://bobwyman.pubsub.com/main/2005/12/memex_the_first.html
should have know better:
Posted by: Danny | June 5, 2006 12:39 AMhttp://www.scripting.com/2000/06.html#worldOutline
Unfortunately chmod 777 cannot be used as a tag in del.icio.us, which kinda ruins it for me, chuckle.
Posted by: alharris | June 5, 2006 3:01 AMSorry Danny, my comments system is not optimal right now. My MT set-up can't handle the spam comments (i.e. doesn't junk them automatically), hence the moderation. But as long as I'm moderating comments, I may as well add the ability to put links in them. Doing that now...
Posted by: Richard MacManus | June 5, 2006 3:27 AMThat should be:
chmod 777 /dev/web2
In non-VC speak :)
Posted by: Kevin Burton | June 5, 2006 10:02 AMThanks Richard. I must admit the red links are growing on me :-)
Posted by: Danny | June 6, 2006 1:03 AMThis will change the way we view the web forever!
Posted by: Chris Black | June 6, 2006 10:50 AMOk, maybe not, but it does seem like an appropriate term in many ways-much more specific than "Web 2. whatever we're calling it this week" .
I should note that I'm not advocating using chmod 777 as the *new* Web 2.0 killer term. :-)
Posted by: Richard MacManus | June 6, 2006 1:31 PMCall it what you want, but Web 2.0 is primarily about changing the Web from "Page-to-Page Browsing" to "Online Applications". It's about replacing the BACK button with an UNDO button. It may be chmod 777, but it doesn't have to be...
Posted by: Matt Fausey | June 7, 2006 1:27 PMThe problem with web2 is that its not well defined. Having a nice easy-to-remember term like "Web2.0" is not in itself a bad thing...but now its so over blown...Stop Web 2.0. Stop it. We already have an internet
Posted by: kevin leversee | June 22, 2006 8:28 PM"chmod" - does not work in win64 :(
Posted by: NetTrader | July 23, 2006 1:24 PM