Slashdot Mirror
Flock, the Web 2.0 Browser?
escay writes "Cardinal, the Beta 1 version of Firefox-based browser Flock, was released Tuesday with many polished features. Some of the features include drag-and-drop photo uploading for Flickr and Photobucket, an in-built RSS aggregator, direct blogging tool, and shared favorites/bookmarks. In step with Web 2.0 philosophy, Flock provides a rich user-centric experience, making it easier to bring information to the user and vice versa. It is available for Linux/Mac/Windows, and you can download it here. (And for those of you trying to get Flash working in Firefox on an AMD64 Linux machine, try this and be pleasantly surprised!)"
Dropping into a seizure because of all the blinky lights and animated characters is more like it.
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
...just to be clear, will this still be backwards compatible with the old version of the web?
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Does it support all of Firefox's extensions?
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
This has come along way, and it's pretty slick how everyting is integrated into one "2.0" webbrowser. While just about everything here can be done via FF and a ton of extentions, this is the 'out of the box' solution for the non-geek crowd (read HUGE crowd) to get into blogging and other 'social' things on the web, or just do it much, much easier.
For the target market I think this is just an excellent example of what can be done with Open Source, they basically found/created their own nitch, and filled it. Seems like a good company thus far, but now comes the hard part... 4) Profit???
File alongside: Songbird (with almost all the same comments from above)
fak3r.com
Sounds like a Firefox browser that integrates a half-dozen third-party plugins to me.
Yes, folks, *most* of the functions I've read about so far on their site exist in some form as FF plugins. I think what they're doing is nifty...except that I have no use for it. The overhyped buzzword Web 2.0 is all about social networking, and frankly I just don't do much of that online any more. I'm too busy networking away from the internet to care about flickr and myspace.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Flock was (and is) mostly hype and silly buzzwords. The only good thing that came put of this was the Flock Sucks blog that lambasted Flock and the hype surrounding it. Too bad it's gone now, because it was really funny.
Anyone looking for blog features in Firefox should take a look at the Performancing extension instead.
http://performancing.com/firefox
Wow, they managed to port flash to AMD64 before Adobe/Macromedia did. This truly is amazing.
It looks to me like they just give you the 32-bit Firefox with 32-bit Flash. That has always worked on 64-bit machines.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
Its like AOL for firefox :)
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
Looks to me like a web browser, with extentions for all the things people who think the world cares what they say and have an ego so big it needs a 2.0 need in a browser - blogs and photos.
But seriously, anything that keeps teens out of the real world where they would be destroying things or taking jobs away from hard working illegal aliens, I'm 100% behind!
Go Flock yourself!
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Some of the features include drag-and-drop photo uploading for Flickr and Photobucket, an in-built RSS aggregator, direct blogging tool, and shared favorites/bookmarks.
Emo kids, unite!
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
The problem with AMD64 Linux, Firefox, and Flash, was that Firefox was compiled in 64-bit. The only available Flash plugin is only built in 32-bit mode, so the browser can not use it. You could then just use a 32-bit Firefox version to be able to use the Flash plugin. That's what I do on my 64-bit Linux system. So this "feature" offers nothing more than was already available.
Flash for Linux can be downloaded at http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.
Not that I'd use it, but the point is that Joe Average doesn't have to go looking for the right extension to do what he wants. Here's a pre-packaged bunch of them, all configured, all supported, all well tested. Joe Average just wants to do stuff, without spending at least an evening figuring out how to do that stuff first.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Honestly, the only reason Flash on AMD64 is so amazing to most people is because most of the other distributions are based on "pure AMD64" code and don't include 32-bit packages and compatibility code by default. And why I can understand why they'd want to do that – considerably cleaner system, etc. – I personally don't like it at all. I've been porting a distribution to AMD64 myself, and the first thing I decided was that packages like Firefox and MPlayer would keep using the 32-bit versions, because honestly, I'd rather a convenient system than a pure 64-bit one.
:-)
Speaking of Flock, that reminds me – have to update to the latest version sometime, because it would be kind of stupid if the first distribution to feature Flock as a standard package (mine) wasn't up to date
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
It seems that it has some really sweet features for locking files. Though I have to admit I don't see quite how to use it to browse the web.
flock (util-linux 2.13-pre7)
Usage: flock [-sxun][-w #] fd#
flock [-sxon][-w #] file [-c] command...
-s --shared Get a shared lock
-x --exclusive Get an exclusive lock
-u --unlock Remove a lock
-n --nonblock Fail rather than wait
-w --timeout Wait for a limited amount of time
-o --close Close file descriptor before running command
-c --command Run a single command string through the shell
-h --help Display this text
-V --version Display version
That's pretty much it, except it's not really based on Firefox itself but on Gecko.
I gave Flock a try a week or so ago though. I hated it, the look is bizarre and I don't care about photobucket or Flickr or all that crap, so the "strong points" of Flock were kind-of wasted on me.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
PFI_Optix wrote:
So I guess that "I'm too busy away from teh intarweb thingee" pose isn't working so well.
...BS 2.0 and BS 1.0 is that the former smells twice as bad.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
It's Web 1.0 with mandatory Flash support and new fonts, apparently.
People keep spouting off about all this innovation that makes up Web 2.0, but it looks like the same old stuff to me with the exception that the companies haven't run out of venture capital yet. That and what we used to call an AOL user, we now call a 'blogger'.
The thing is, though, Firefox isn't truly a minimalist browser – even though it looks fairly simple, and it's definitely lightweight compared to the Mozilla suite, it's nonetheless a pretty powerful program with a lot of configuration options, dialogs, features, etc., and not to mention an extremely complex rendering engine. I don't think a "minimalist" Web browser would use heavy-duty cross-platform GUI abstraction layers or take over an hour to build on a fast new Pentium4/Athlon system, either.
Now, if you want a truly minimalist graphical browser, may I suggest Dillo; while it isn't stated outright as one of the design goals, Dillo is definitely a very simple, compact program which does what it needs to, and does it well – but doesn't implement additional bloat. I suggest checking for one of the patched versions, because they add in nice features like tabs and anti-aliasing, but whichever Dillo version you choose, it's guaranteed a tiny little program for the real minimalist!
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
and then i used it. I am really not a "Web 2.0" person. I have photobucket and flickr accounts, have a de.licio.us acct i never use. I do have an abandonned blogger site and i have a site on wordpress. So i use the stuff, i'm just not a fanatic and not a fan of buzzwords.
I will say this though, i used it in alpha. I used it in linux (Ubuntu 6.06, Fedora Core 5) and i used it on XP. And after applying all the same tweaks in about:config that i do to Firefox, it ran faster than Firefox. I got a good many of my favorite extensions to work (though not all, and hence why i'm back to FF as it is now).
The only thing i did learn to love though, is that not a single firefox skin actually feels natural at all. Flock is slick as hell and without being an eyesore. The blog publishing was very useful, i didn't like the bookmarking at all, but the photouploading was nice too. And frankly, no extensions really pulled off what flock has, at the quality that flock has.
So i really don't get the complaints, i found it useful, i found it faster than firefox. I just value all my FF extensions more than speed, otherwise i'd be using Opera. But what Flock did, it did very well and i intend to check out the beta.
Are fads that are going to disappear inside of 12 months?
Good for you, that you have no need of it. And does your personal lack of need make this not a useful browser to everyone else?
Judging by the general tone of this discussion, yes.
There are an awful lot of people on the web, and on Slashdot, who don't seem to make a distinction between "X is aimed at a different target audience" and "X is pointless." (There's also a large segment of the population for which demonstrating disdain for something is a way of demonstrating superiority, but that's another issue.)
Maybe someone needs to write a "people have different needs and tastes" tutorial. It would have to be in the form of a HOWTO or maybe a man page.
I don't think you're getting the point. They don't need the firefox minimalist philosphy, that's what *firefox* is for. Flock is for the "I want tons of whiz-bang features" crowd. If a person (such as yourself and I) want a minimalist browser, they don't use flock, they use firefox. They are targeting two completely different types of users.
Wouldn't a Web 2.0 Browser be a web browser implemented inside another browser using Javascript, XML, and Flash?
Reed
Features that less than 1% of 1% of their users will ever even look at...
Actually, Flock is aimed at that 1%. And they're betting on that 1% growing.
Most of their target audience will be interested in the built-in feed reader, the drag-n-drop blogging, etc. Whether that's enough people to sustain a company (and whether Flock can collect enough revenue from partnership deals) remains to be seen. Certainly Opera's comparatively small marketshare, usually cited as less than 1% worldwide, has been plenty to sustain them for years,* so it's at least possible.
*Admittedly Opera's got more revenue streams than just partnerships, since they've got cell phone makers licensing their mobile browser, and they'll be selling the Nintendo DS and Wii versions, etc.
"Flock the web 2.0 browser"... okay. I misread that and though Slashdot articles had gotten rather blunt all of a sudden.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
For a windows only release, there sure are a lot of mac based screenshots on the Tour.
If it aggregated all my subscribed RSS feeds on a single page, with full text, I'd probably switch, as those photo and blogging tools look great.
It nearly does, but falls short. I can view full-text articles when viewing a single feed, but there's no way to view whole articles when looking at the complete list of subscribed feeds.
Why have only Safari's developers figured this one out?
Flock is hard to pronounce? What the hell are you talking about?
I don't have a photobucket or flickr or del.ic.ious (or whatever) account either...but it makes me wonder how 'honest' these services are if they're being integrated into an OSS web browser... I've seen plenty of photobucket.com posted pics, what are the privacy concerns for these services? Should I trust them, or should I continue to use Firefox and my own web server, manually uploading stuff?
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I never said it was bad or useless...in fact, I said I thought it was a good idea, just not the browser for me.
Honestly, I don't see Flock as being a particularly good browser for Joe Sixpack. I'd have to spend more time playing with it than I care to invest to be sure of that, but from what I read it strikes me as being a niche browser that will primarily appeal to those people who read the specs, understand them, and think "I could use this!".
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
From TFA:
If you are a power user (hint: if you use del.icio.us or a news reader or if you visit Digg, that probably means you) and if you have decorated your browser with, oh, say, 20 extensions or more, Flock may not be for you. We like these services as much as you do, and we share the basic values of transparency and control that are an essential component of the participatory web. We are trying to bring these services to mere mortals.
It's all good, but why not just create a Firefox distribution package with the best of Firefox + Extensions, and just write extensions for the things that aren't yet available from others?
I know this sounds too simplistic. That's why I like the Colbert Report. It doesn't matter if I'm right (because I'm sure the experts will show me many ways in which my take isn't feasible, isn't the way development "actually" happens, etc.); but my way seems like it would be easier.
I tried out flock but I need my firefox extensions and they don't seem to work with flock. (even after being converted to work with flock)
I really wish I could use it, the interface is so slick, I just want to have a sexy skin like that. Does anyone know where I can find an up to date flock skin? The ones I've seen are all old and don't look too great.
You may say, "How is that different?", but I would much rather have a browser that is ready to go out of the box instead of downloading the app, then hunting through a ton of extensions to find the ones I like and installing them individually. It would definitely ease the install process if it was all there to start with. Sure, it's not different, but it's faster.
I'm not bitter, I'm just unsweetened.
I'm getting quite sick of all people here bashing this browser and the whole web 2.0 thing.
Did you even TRIED the damn thing??
I probably will be modded down, but anyway, I just want to say this.
I really don't understand why a lot of the Slashdotters are reacting very VERY negative about anything that has to do with Web 2.0. I too hate the way marketing people are using this term, but we are definately experiencing a transition from the single sites based web to a web environment that is based on social interaction and sharing. Internet is just not the same as it was a couple of years ago. Or am I talking bullshit here?? Doesn't everything starts to become connected to everything?
Why does it irritate you when people start to see that big changes and name it Web 2.0? People are really over reacting here. Why??
Will this make my hair look strange? Will clouds of fog evelop me and will ambigously looking people be ridding hourses to new wave vibes? I'll have to admit, I'm a bit frightened by the whole concept. I think I saw a hichcock movie about this whole thing.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Just to mention that there's another way to get flash working on AMD64 (or PPC, or SPARC, or whatever else) :
using an opensource plug-in (and recompiling it for your platfrom).
GNASH uses openGL and Cairo for rendering, and it looks like it has recently started making alpha releases (0.7.1).
Right now, it doesn't support streaming and thus doesn't work with google video and youtube, but works already with most animations...
A wish to say a big thank you to the team working behind this.
In a couple of months, maybe we'll enjoy something that's compatible enough and will be considered as a viable alternative to flashplayer.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]