You wrongly assume that most Firefox users have the time and the interest in finding and installing such plugins, let alone struggling to get them to work properly (as is often times the case). They just want something that works, and that is what this is. Now, it probably won't appeal to your average geek. But it very well may be a very useful tool to those who don't want to be hassled by Firefox plugins.
While you, as a technical person, might struggle with the theme, I'm sure they've done research into this matter and found that it's very usable for your average emo teen.
Mac OS X is not built upon FreeBSD. It is built upon Mach and the NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP framework. It does use some userland utilities from FreeBSD, but at its core it is Mach-based.
The services they integrate with are essentially what the WWW is to the Internet. They're protocols for performing specific tasks. And to bring them together like this is what the innovation is. This is just doing to the WWW what the WWW did to the Internet: the WWW tied together various technologies, including HTML, yperlinking and HTP, all built on top of the Internet.
So in a sense they are somewhat correct to bill it as "Web 2.0". It really isn't the second version of the WWW or anything of that sort, but it does improve the experience for many non-technical users.
Perhaps you don't have a problem. But there are many people who do not have your astounding level of computer knowledge. It benefits such people greatly if they can have all of the modules, combined with Firefox, provided for them as a single, coherent package.
They're doing much what most Linux distributions do. Except in this case the kernel is Firefox, and the supporting applications are the plugins. They're integrating all of these projects so that average users don't have to.
If you want a lightweight browser, then you could always use Konqueror or Opera. They have nowhere near the bloat of Mozilla-based browsers, yet still offer all of the features expected from a modern browser.
Just so web developers know, the User-Agent string of this browser (under Linux) is:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b5) Gecko/20051019 Flock/0.4 Firefox/1.0+
So if you see it in your server logs, it's because the user is using Flock. If you do see it, please post here so we can gauge the spread of this browser.
Indeed, day in and day out Sweden proves to be the world's true bastion of freedom. When nonsense like this arises, the right of the individual are made most important.
We often hear about how America is such a great supporter of liberty, but then you realize that most of these copyright-related trouble originated in America, and involve American companies. But perhaps that's just because America today is where Sweden was 900 years ago; financially pillaging other nations. Today it's American and American-corporation-dictated WIPO copyright law ruining the freedoms of the rest of the world, rather than Viking warships. At least Sweden showed that with some time, even the most ruthless of nations can become the leaders in peace, freedom and liberty. Unfortunately, we might have to wait a thousand years for that to happen with the United States.
You should be able to find an item quickly and efficiently. That is impeded by small icons, plus numerous lines of text, all stuffed together. That is a bad design.
But again, the problem is that the click is undefined. It's well known that a click on a traditional button will perform some sort of action (which is usually listed as the label on the button). What happens when you click on that album image? Does it open the Amazon.com page for that CD? Does it locate the lyrics for it? Does it play the first song? Does it open up another window asking you to select which song to play? Indeed, the problem is that its behaviour isn't obvious.
That must just be a trait with American managers. I've primarily worked in the UK and other European nations. With the exception of one, every manager I ever had was responsible and did listen to the employees' concerns. We were able to explain the situation and any solutions in full. And you know what? Those firms always did well,financially and otherwise.
It sounds like it's just American managers who do not listen to their employees.
Bosses and managers also care about productivity. And when productivity drops, they'll come to find out why. If it can be explained to any serious manager that the problem is the interface of the software they're using, then that software will be phased out.
When it comes to real users, bubbly GUIs like those shown in most Windows Vista screenshots do not appeal. Most serious users will mock such sassery.
When it comes to configuring Apache or a SQL database, nothing compares to being able to directly edit text files and run services easily from the command line. This is what UNIX, Linux, BSD and Solaris offers.
They'll at least need to get Monad finished, and it will have to trump the existing UNIX command line in some fashion. But if they keep throwing bubbly interfaces as professionals, the bubbly interfaces will hamper the ability of such professionals to get work done.
Except this doesn't involve typing anything somewhat obscure command or anything of this sort. It just concerns being able to determine what on a GUI can be clicked, for instance. When you can't tell background apart from componentry, then there is a problem. It doesn't matter if you're an expert with 30 years of computing experience (such as myself), or if you're Aunt Judy who has just mastered turning on her computer. When you run into problems with such a basic operation, then you know the system is flawed.
If that's the "classic" view, then I fear to see what the "modern" view is like. I can only imagine it'll be an even bigger mishmosh of image and text, without any defined components.
I'd be inclined to blame their use of PHP for their server troubles. PHP has shown time and time again that it is unsuitable for sites receiving many hits, unless you can throw massive amounts of hardware at it.
Look at all the text there! That's not a very good interface for finding the icon you want quickly and efficiently. There's too much textual distraction.
It takes forever to find out what it is you can click on, since buttons and other components are not well defined. I mean, is each album entry something I can click on? What will happen if I do click on them?
I hope that the Linux desktop community does not fall victim to the same shenanigans. GUIs are best when they consist of well-designed components, each with a clear and well-understood function. Microsoft's new fascination with random text/image mixtures is often counterintuitive and leads to applications which are difficult to use.
Slashdot Mirror
You wrongly assume that most Firefox users have the time and the interest in finding and installing such plugins, let alone struggling to get them to work properly (as is often times the case). They just want something that works, and that is what this is. Now, it probably won't appeal to your average geek. But it very well may be a very useful tool to those who don't want to be hassled by Firefox plugins.
While you, as a technical person, might struggle with the theme, I'm sure they've done research into this matter and found that it's very usable for your average emo teen.
It's not just Opera that is capable of that. It's also Konqueror, Netscape, and even (like it or not) Internet Explorer.
There have been many non-technical sites reporting increased Firefox usage. A simple search at Google will give you such results.'
Mac OS X is not built upon FreeBSD. It is built upon Mach and the NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP framework. It does use some userland utilities from FreeBSD, but at its core it is Mach-based.
It makes me think of "frock", as in "defrock". Indeed, perhaps this will become a tool that Catholic priests will use to entice teen boys with.
The services they integrate with are essentially what the WWW is to the Internet. They're protocols for performing specific tasks. And to bring them together like this is what the innovation is. This is just doing to the WWW what the WWW did to the Internet: the WWW tied together various technologies, including HTML, yperlinking and HTP, all built on top of the Internet.
So in a sense they are somewhat correct to bill it as "Web 2.0". It really isn't the second version of the WWW or anything of that sort, but it does improve the experience for many non-technical users.
Perhaps you don't have a problem. But there are many people who do not have your astounding level of computer knowledge. It benefits such people greatly if they can have all of the modules, combined with Firefox, provided for them as a single, coherent package.
They're doing much what most Linux distributions do. Except in this case the kernel is Firefox, and the supporting applications are the plugins. They're integrating all of these projects so that average users don't have to.
If you want a lightweight browser, then you could always use Konqueror or Opera. They have nowhere near the bloat of Mozilla-based browsers, yet still offer all of the features expected from a modern browser.
There are a lot of kids like that. It's not a bad market to tap, from a financial standpoint.
At least the HTML of their page is standards compliant:
k .com
o soft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.floc
Unlike that of Microsoft's Internet Explorer site:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.micr
But then again, that's not surprising.
Just so web developers know, the User-Agent string of this browser (under Linux) is:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b5) Gecko/20051019 Flock/0.4 Firefox/1.0+
So if you see it in your server logs, it's because the user is using Flock. If you do see it, please post here so we can gauge the spread of this browser.
To me it looks like a pair of breasts. A pair of breasts with pointy nipples. Pointy nipples pointing sideways.
Of course I've heard of Monad. Read the bottom of my post, and notice the direct reference to Monad:
They'll at least need to get Monad finished, and it will have to trump the existing UNIX command line in some fashion.
I know it's not like UNIX shells. That's why I said it has to prove itself better.
Indeed, day in and day out Sweden proves to be the world's true bastion of freedom. When nonsense like this arises, the right of the individual are made most important.
We often hear about how America is such a great supporter of liberty, but then you realize that most of these copyright-related trouble originated in America, and involve American companies. But perhaps that's just because America today is where Sweden was 900 years ago; financially pillaging other nations. Today it's American and American-corporation-dictated WIPO copyright law ruining the freedoms of the rest of the world, rather than Viking warships. At least Sweden showed that with some time, even the most ruthless of nations can become the leaders in peace, freedom and liberty. Unfortunately, we might have to wait a thousand years for that to happen with the United States.
You should be able to find an item quickly and efficiently. That is impeded by small icons, plus numerous lines of text, all stuffed together. That is a bad design.
But again, the problem is that the click is undefined. It's well known that a click on a traditional button will perform some sort of action (which is usually listed as the label on the button). What happens when you click on that album image? Does it open the Amazon.com page for that CD? Does it locate the lyrics for it? Does it play the first song? Does it open up another window asking you to select which song to play? Indeed, the problem is that its behaviour isn't obvious.
Apparently TripMaster's grades in his pre-algebra class were falling, and his mother told him that he can not longer post here as much as before.
That must just be a trait with American managers. I've primarily worked in the UK and other European nations. With the exception of one, every manager I ever had was responsible and did listen to the employees' concerns. We were able to explain the situation and any solutions in full. And you know what? Those firms always did well,financially and otherwise.
It sounds like it's just American managers who do not listen to their employees.
Bosses and managers also care about productivity. And when productivity drops, they'll come to find out why. If it can be explained to any serious manager that the problem is the interface of the software they're using, then that software will be phased out.
When it comes to real users, bubbly GUIs like those shown in most Windows Vista screenshots do not appeal. Most serious users will mock such sassery.
When it comes to configuring Apache or a SQL database, nothing compares to being able to directly edit text files and run services easily from the command line. This is what UNIX, Linux, BSD and Solaris offers.
They'll at least need to get Monad finished, and it will have to trump the existing UNIX command line in some fashion. But if they keep throwing bubbly interfaces as professionals, the bubbly interfaces will hamper the ability of such professionals to get work done.
Except this doesn't involve typing anything somewhat obscure command or anything of this sort. It just concerns being able to determine what on a GUI can be clicked, for instance. When you can't tell background apart from componentry, then there is a problem. It doesn't matter if you're an expert with 30 years of computing experience (such as myself), or if you're Aunt Judy who has just mastered turning on her computer. When you run into problems with such a basic operation, then you know the system is flawed.
If that's the "classic" view, then I fear to see what the "modern" view is like. I can only imagine it'll be an even bigger mishmosh of image and text, without any defined components.
According to Netcraft the server is your common Apache on Linux combination.
/ /www.cooltechzone.com
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:
I'd be inclined to blame their use of PHP for their server troubles. PHP has shown time and time again that it is unsuitable for sites receiving many hits, unless you can throw massive amounts of hardware at it.
Indeed! I find these new attempts at GUI creation to be terrible.
5 231_2_cpl.jpg
5 231_wmp11.jpg
I mean, look at this screenshot:
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/vista
Look at all the text there! That's not a very good interface for finding the icon you want quickly and efficiently. There's too much textual distraction.
There there is something like: http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/vista
It takes forever to find out what it is you can click on, since buttons and other components are not well defined. I mean, is each album entry something I can click on? What will happen if I do click on them?
I hope that the Linux desktop community does not fall victim to the same shenanigans. GUIs are best when they consist of well-designed components, each with a clear and well-understood function. Microsoft's new fascination with random text/image mixtures is often counterintuitive and leads to applications which are difficult to use.