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
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
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.
For the most part, yes. There is not much difference (that I've seen, anyway), behind the scenes of Flock and Firefox. Most of the extensions that I've written work in Flock without modification, but they would need to have Flock listed in their install.rdf file for Flock to allow you to install it.
: id>
So, developers, check your extensions in Flock and once you have them working, add this to your install.rdf:
<!-- Flock -->
<em:targetApplication>
<Description>
<em:id>{a463f10c-3994-11da-9945-000d60ca027b}</em
<em:minVersion>0.5.13.2</em:minVersion>
<em:maxVersion>1.0</em:maxVersion>
</Description>
</em:targetApplication>
Additionally, this site: http://outraged-artists.com/flockd/list.php converts FF extensions to work in Flock, which usually probably just consists of adding the above code to install.rdf.
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
PFI_Optix wrote:
So I guess that "I'm too busy away from teh intarweb thingee" pose isn't working so well.
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.
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.
Wouldn't a Web 2.0 Browser be a web browser implemented inside another browser using Javascript, XML, and Flash?
Reed