The licenses for most software are designed to take away your ,freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free, software–to make sure the software is free for all its users.
The background image spacer can be made easily by this tool.
Enter your text, select your options and you have a logo! You can also “sign” your masterpiece to give yourself some well deserved credit!
It’s Not Too Late!
Quick! The Web 2.0 bandwagon is leaving and you are not on it! Don’t worry, there is still time if you act fast. Luckily web20generator.com is here to save the day!
this is a great tool allow you generate your site template from scratch by a click!
This is a mirror as the Digg link is killing the other page!
This is meant to be a parody of Web 2.0 Logos. While they are pretty cool, they are all kinda the same. It was created as a joke, not a serious logo maker. But feel free to use it to make a logo. 
Here we generate a single GIF image of a box with rounded corners, border, gradient, and/or text. You can use this image as background for your buttons, tabs, text box, etc.
All lengths are expressed in pixels, except for font size, which is expressed in points. We recommend specifying a color in ‘Corner background’ rather than making it transparent. The background color will help us generate an image with a smoother (anti-aliased) edge.
This fantastic tool allow you to customize the appearance of ajax loader icon:
Here we are!
Enjoy using tabs generator!
Tweak size, colors, corners and more, generate your design, then download and use in your css style sheet!
No more neverending PS sessions, trying to match your idea!
Tired of pixel-by-pixel painting, trying to create seamless stripes textures?
Here we are!
Enjoy using stripe generator!
Unleash your personal style, experiment and download the tile. You can use it directly in your css file or as pattern in Photoshop®!
Generate your cool web 2.0 button using my cool button generator.
look for these examples:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Use these tool easily from here:
http://www.mycoolbutton.com/
Web20Badges is a set of free and very cool web badges.They are probably one of the most popular trend in Web 2.0 time. It’s most over-used trendy little design technique in our days, they immediately attract visitor’s attention. Web badges have various round or square corners and eye-catchy colours.
Badges can be used to display a big ‘Beta’ message on your website or emphasize a price or a promotion. No web 2.0 site is complete without one.
Here is a roundup of web 2.0 badges text and video tutorials.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
make your own using this tool:
http://www.web20badges.com/
I’m using the term “Web 2.0 design” to describe the prevailing style of web design I introduce in my current style article.
Many people use the term “Web 2.0″ to describe:
- a resurgence in the web economy
- a new level of technological interactivity between web sites and services
- or social phenomena deriving from new types of online communities and social networks
Many others also use the term in reference to a recent school of web design.
I’m comfortable with using it in that context here.
In sociological terms, movements impact people on many levels: economic, cultural, political, etc.
Is skate-punk about entertainment and sport, music and the music industry, fashion, or the breakdown of society?
Shortcut to Web2.0 Style
If you don’t have the resources to create your own “2.0”-style site design, TemplateMonster have just (17 July 07) launched a new Web 2.0 Templates section.
Of course, a purchased template won’t always hit your goals perfectly,
but a custom design doesn’t always guarantee that either!
Many sites will benefit loads from applying a fresh,
current design, and purchasing a template for under $100 can be a great
way to achieve that! And TemplateMonster have been doing this for
years, so I’d certainly recommend taking a look.
Web 2.0: Compact Definition?
I said I’m not fond of definitions, but I woke up this morning with the start of one in my head:
Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web
2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic
advantages of that platform: delivering software as a
continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it,
consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual
users, while providing their own data and services in a form that
allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an
“architecture of participation,” and going beyond the page metaphor of
Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html
You’ve probably heard the phrase “Web 2.0″. You may’ve even read
some of the various definitions of it. And Web 2.0 does appear to mean
different things to different people, so you would be forgiven for
still feeling confused about the term. Here are some of the definitions
of Web 2.0 floating about:
Web 2.0 = the web as platform
Web 2.0 = the underlying philosophy of relinquishing control
Web 2.0 =
glocalization (”making global information available to local social
contexts and giving people the flexibility to find, organize, share and
create information in a locally meaningful fashion that is globally
accessible”)
Web 2.0 = an attitude not a technology
Web 2.0 = when data, interface and metadata no longer need to go hand in hand
Web 2.0 = action-at-a-distance interactions and ad hoc integration
Web 2.0 = power and control via APIs
Web 2.0 = giving up control and setting the data free
While at first glance some of those definitions may be
contradictory, we can distill from them certain characteristics of Web
2.0.
Web 2.0 is social, it’s open (or at least it should be),
it’s letting go of control over your data, it’s mixing the global with
the local. Web 2.0 is about new interfaces - new ways of searching and
accessing Web content. And last but not least, Web 2.0 is a platform -
and not just for developers to create web applications like Gmail and Flickr. The Web is a platform to build on for educators, media, politics, community, for virtually everyone in fact!
Web 2.0 is all of the above things - don’t let anyone tell you it’s one or the other definition.
Take a look at what the education community
is doing with the Web, for example. They are not only starting to use
the tools of Web 2.0 - blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc. They’re also
adapting to a new generation of kids who are growing up on the Web, the
so-called ‘Digital Natives’. The challenge for educators now and for
the future is to learn and teach Internet literacy, converse and
collaborate with their students using Web tools, and help our children
make sense of the huge amounts of information and media that surround
us.
Web 2.0 is about the people, when it comes down to it. So it has to
be inclusive. The definitions of technologists, social scientists, web
designers, philosophers, educators, business people, anybody - they all
count.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/?p=5
what is web 2.0?
Graph1There has been lot of discussion about what Web 2.0 really is, so we thought we’d use the power of Web 2.0 itself to come up with the answer, and here it is:
42.
Just kidding. What we actually did was take a look at all the tag data going back to February 2004 (the month of the first use of Web 2.0 as a tag on del.icio.us), and analyzed all the bookmarks and tags related to the term. We can report that as of October 31, 2005 there have been over 230,000 separate bookmarks and over 7,000 unique tags associated with the term “Web 2.0” by del.icio.us users. So for this exercise, we lopped off the really long tail and normalized some similar terms (e.g. combining blog, blogs, and blogging), and came up with this snapshot of what Web 2.0 REALLY is – at least according to del.icio.us users’ most popular tags through the end of October 2005:
ajax 9.9%
blog 6.1%
social 4.2%
tools 4.1%
software 3.3%
tagging 3.3%
javascript 2.8%
internet 2.6%
programming 2.5%
rss 2.5%
Other notable tags included rubyonrails (1.8%), del.icio.us (1.6%), folksonomy (1.4%), community (1.1%), wiki (.9%), flickr (.8%), free (.7%), trends (.6%), flock (.4%) and googlemaps (.3%).
So there you have it - interesting, but it still seems to fall short of a definitive answer. Maybe the blinding flash of the obvious is that Web 2.0 is best defined as arguing about what Web 2.0 is really about.
http://blog.delicious.com/blog/2005/11/there_has_been_.html
What Is Web 2.0
Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
by Tim O’Reilly
09/30/2005
Read this article in:
* Chinese
* French
* German
* Italian
* Japanese
* Korean
* Spanish
The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. The pretenders are given the bum’s rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other.
The concept of “Web 2.0″ began with a conference brainstorming session between O’Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O’Reilly VP, noted that far from having “crashed”, the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What’s more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as “Web 2.0″ might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.
In the year and a half since, the term “Web 2.0″ has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there’s still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.
This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0.
In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example:
Web 1.0 Web 2.0
DoubleClick –> Google AdSense
Ofoto –> Flickr
Akamai –> BitTorrent
mp3.com –> Napster
Britannica Online –> Wikipedia
personal websites –> blogging
evite –> upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation –> search engine optimization
page views –> cost per click
screen scraping –> web services
publishing –> participation
content management systems –> wikis
directories (taxonomy) –> tagging (”folksonomy”)
stickiness –> syndication
The list went on and on. But what was it that made us identify one application or approach as “Web 1.0″ and another as “Web 2.0″? (The question is particularly urgent because the Web 2.0 meme has become so widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means. The question is particularly difficult because many of those buzzword-addicted startups are definitely not Web 2.0, while some of the applications we identified as Web 2.0, like Napster and BitTorrent, are not even properly web applications!) We began trying to tease out the principles that are demonstrated in one way or another by the success stories of web 1.0 and by the most interesting of the new applications.
1. The Web As Platform
Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn’t have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core.
Web2MemeMap
Figure 1 shows a “meme map” of Web 2.0 that was developed at a brainstorming session during FOO Camp, a conference at O’Reilly Media. It’s very much a work in progress, but shows the many ideas that radiate out from the Web 2.0 core.
For example, at the first Web 2.0 conference, in October 2004, John Battelle and I listed a preliminary set of principles in our opening talk. The first of those principles was “The web as platform.” Yet that was also a rallying cry of Web 1.0 darling Netscape, which went down in flames after a heated battle with Microsoft. What’s more, two of our initial Web 1.0 exemplars, DoubleClick and Akamai, were both pioneers in treating the web as a platform. People don’t often think of it as “web services”, but in fact, ad serving was the first widely deployed web service, and the first widely deployed “mashup” (to use another term that has gained currency of late). Every banner ad is served as a seamless cooperation between two websites, delivering an integrated page to a reader on yet another computer. Akamai also treats the network as the platform, and at a deeper level of the stack, building a transparent caching and content delivery network that eases bandwidth congestion.
Nonetheless, these pioneers provided useful contrasts because later entrants have taken their solution to the same problem even further, understanding something deeper about the nature of the new platform. Both DoubleClick and Akamai were Web 2.0 pioneers, yet we can also see how it’s possible to realize more of the possibilities by embracing additional Web 2.0 design patterns.
Let’s drill down for a moment into each of these three cases, teasing out some of the essential elements of difference.
Netscape vs. Google
If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0, if only because their respective IPOs were defining events for each era. So let’s start with a comparison of these two companies and their positioning.
Netscape framed “the web as platform” in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the “horseless carriage” framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a “webtop” to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.
In the end, both web browsers and web servers turned out to be commodities, and value moved “up the stack” to services delivered over the web platform.
Google, by contrast, began its life as a native web application, never sold or packaged, but delivered as a service, with customers paying, directly or indirectly, for the use of that service. None of the trappings of the old software industry are present. No scheduled software releases, just continuous improvement. No licensing or sale, just usage. No porting to different platforms so that customers can run the software on their own equipment, just a massively scalable collection of commodity PCs running open source operating systems plus homegrown applications and utilities that no one outside the company ever gets to see.
At bottom, Google requires a competency that Netscape never needed: database management. Google isn’t just a collection of software tools, it’s a specialized database. Without the data, the tools are useless; without the software, the data is unmanageable. Software licensing and control over APIs–the lever of power in the previous era–is irrelevant because the software never need be distributed but only performed, and also because without the ability to collect and manage the data, the software is of little use. In fact, the value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage.
Google’s service is not a server–though it is delivered by a massive collection of internet servers–nor a browser–though it is experienced by the user within the browser. Nor does its flagship search service even host the content that it enables users to find. Much like a phone call, which happens not just on the phones at either end of the call, but on the network in between, Google happens in the space between browser and search engine and destination content server, as an enabler or middleman between the user and his or her online experience.
While both Netscape and Google could be described as software companies, it’s clear that Netscape belonged to the same software world as Lotus, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and other companies that got their start in the 1980’s software revolution, while Google’s fellows are other internet applications like eBay, Amazon, Napster, and yes, DoubleClick and Akamai.
http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html