Flock, the Web 2.0 Browser? 263
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!)"
flash??? (Score:5, Funny)
Dropping into a seizure because of all the blinky lights and animated characters is more like it.
Flock, the Web 2.0 browser? (Score:2)
Re:flash??? (Score:2)
Re:flash??? (Score:2)
Re:flash??? (Score:2)
This is still the case... as far as I can tell flock is 32bit only and installs the 32bit flash plugin when you first start it up... meaning that it won't work in a pure 64bit environment (but who in their right might runs a _pure_ environment anyway? emul-x86 libraries ship with every distro I know of and every distro has 32bit emulation turned on in kernel...)
As for getting it running on a 64bit linux distro.... all I did was:
emerge f
Re:flash??? (Score:2)
The less people become dependant on the older technologies, the more easily hardware vendors can abandon backwards compatibility and concentrate on developing new innovative technologies.
Once a technology becomes sufficiently obsolete, backwards compatibility in hardware is completely unnecessary, since emulation
Re:flash??? (Score:2)
I think the past has shown that dropping backwards compatibility isn't all that great of an idea... much better to slowly transition. Right now we're in a transition phase... no biggie.
My point was that using a pure 64bit environment has _zero_ advantages over the more flexible 64/32 environment. I have both a native compiled 64bit firefox and a 32-bit binary in gentoo... are you implying that simply having the choice is bad?
Yelling and sc
Re:flash??? (Score:2)
Re:flash??? (Score:2)
Re:flash??? (Score:2)
I've got a present for you: A Firefox build that will work with Flash and Java on an AMD64 system. Download Swiftfox [getswiftfox.com], the one compiled for Athlon 64. It says the compile is 32-bit, but it runs well on my pure AMD64 Ubuntu 6.06 system (with no chroot environment). Then go to a site with flash, and allow it to install the flash player.
A couple of caveats:
1) The flash pl
Re:luddite alert (Score:2)
Re:luddite alert (Score:2)
Also, the most common use of flash is for noisy flashing adverts, which are highly irritating and distract from the
Web 2.0 Browser Eh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Web 2.0 Browser Eh... (Score:2)
Re:Web 2.0 Browser Eh... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm being left behind! What ISP's support Web 2.0?
I'm worried now!
(/sarcasm off)
Flash! (Score:5, Funny)
Get the Flock out of here! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Get the Flock out of here! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Get the Flock out of here! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Used since first Alpha (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Used since first Alpha (Score:2)
Re:Used since first Alpha (Score:4, Funny)
Like what?
Re:Used since first Alpha (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Used since first Alpha (Score:2)
Re:Used since first Alpha (Score:2)
Re:Used since first Alpha (Score:2)
Hype, hype, hype and even more hype (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone looking for blog features in Firefox should take a look at the Performancing extension instead.
http://performancing.com/firefox [performancing.com]
Re:Hype, hype, hype and even more hype (Score:2)
That's where Google Magic comes into play [google.fr] (just use the Google Cached pages).
Re:Hype, hype, hype and even more hype (Score:2)
The best quote therefrom [72.14.209.104]:
When Occam's razor is used on Web 2.0 all you are left with is a shred of pink cotton shirt and Web 1.0. That's when the dimensions come back together and reality is normalized to what it was before all this idiotic social "technology" nonsense.
Gives you the warm fuzzies, doesn't it?
But Flock is Chock Full 'o Web 2.0! (Score:2)
Mashups! Sorry, I appear to have Tourette's Syndrome 2.0.
Re:Hype, hype, hype and even more hype (Score:2)
Though I personally prefer Deepest Sender [mozdev.org]. Supports more blog APIs, a pretty neat interface. Works great with LiveJournal and is probably best LJ client for Linux, but it doesn't work that well with Typo [typosphere.org]-based sites (I can post, but can't tag or categorise as I go).
Anyone know a Firefox extension blogging client that would also do proper previews for Textile [textism.com], the markup that Typo supports? Almost all
Re:Hype, hype, hype and even more hype (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, to clarify a couple of c
Re:Hype, hype, hype and even more hype (Score:2)
Re:Hype, hype, hype and even more hype (Score:4, Funny)
Ego 2.0? (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Target audience? (Score:5, Funny)
Emo kids, unite!
Flash works on AMD54/Firefox (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Flash works on AMD54/Firefox (Score:2)
Just remember, if you find bugs (and you will) please remember to send reports.
Wow... it's already in Fedora!? (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re:Wow... it's already in Fedora!? (Score:2)
Re:Wow... it's already in Fedora!? (Score:2)
[root@internet]# flock --exclusive http://www.myspace.com/* [myspace.com]
[root@internet]# alias "flock --unlock" "flock --exclusive"
Yes, Flock is an awesome browser.
Re:Wow... it's already in Fedora!? (Score:5, Funny)
Let me guess, you did the following:
$ man humor
No manual entry for humor
The only difference between... (Score:4, Funny)
Web 2.0... (Score:4, Insightful)
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'.
i thought this was hype too (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:i thought this was hype too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:i thought this was hype too (Score:2)
Re:i thought this was hype too (Score:3, Interesting)
It's also a lot better about memory usage. I've found that you can utilize these advantages in firefox just by overwriting firefox's .so files with flock's. So far I've yet to run into any problems. I'm currently calling the combination "fireflox".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:i thought this was hype too (Score:3, Informative)
WWJPD? (Score:2)
Until then -- pshh, whatever.
How much of these features... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How much of these features... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, del.icio.us, Flickr and blogging have all been going strong for longer than 12 months already, so... odds might not be so great that they'll just be "passing fads".
Buzzword Bingo (Score:2)
Web 2.0 Browser??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reed
Oh... FLOCK (Score:4, Funny)
Mac version??? (Score:2, Informative)
Needs Feeds (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Servers have definitely improved (Score:2)
This brings up privacy issues with related service (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not a new distro approach instead? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Grow up... (Score:3, Insightful)
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??
Re:Grow up... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's a reaction to the fact that web 2.0 is a meaningless term. Is it the (non-existent) symantec web? AJAX? Blogs? Uploading photos? Web services? RSS? Wikis?
It just seems to be a new buzzword for a bunch of technologies that actually aren't even that new themselves, and have already been or are being over-hyped.
Yes, there is a trend to sites that are more interactive, but sites don't interact with each other much so its really just people sharing info on the single sites.
I would bet though,
flock of ...Segulls? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:2)
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:5, Funny)
PFI_Optix [slashdot.org] wrote:
So I guess that "I'm too busy away from teh intarweb thingee" pose isn't working so well.
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:2)
Oh, you know what he really meant! (Score:2)
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:2)
Not in a week ... 3 days. the posts don't tike more than a minute or two each, but you have to read the articles, peruse the threads, etc. I'm sure you were on slashdot for more than 15 minutes the last 3 days - maybe you're experiencing distorting side-effects from the site design :-)
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:2)
My in-laws will benefit from this... you should see their eyes glaze over when 'RSS' or 'Firefox extension' leaves my lips. Let them have their fun and write their silly blogs, while you can go ahead and do whatever it is you do.
And, like it or not, the ultimate success[1] of Open Source browsers depends upon solutions that do what Joe Sixpack wants without requiring major twe
Different (key)strokes (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Different (key)strokes (Score:2)
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:3, Interesting)
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!".
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Hmm, Sounds Like a Browsers... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Uh? (Score:2)
Re:Uh? (Score:2)
Re:Flash on AMD64 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Flash on AMD64 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Flash on AMD64 (Score:2)
Re:Flash on AMD64 (Score:2)
Much better (future) way to do flash... (Score:3, Interesting)
using an opensource plug-in [gnu.org] (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, ma
Re:Sounds to me like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, if you want a truly minimalist graphical browser, may I suggest Dillo [dillo.org]; 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!
Re:Sounds to me like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds to me like... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sounds to me like... (Score:2)
It's a separate project. I get what you're saying, but it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me if someone wants to start their own browser based on Firefox. (And I've seen reports, although I have absolutely no clue how true they are, that Flock outperforms Firefox.)
Features that less than 1% of 1% of their users will ever even look at
I use RSS feeds. I blog. I use Flickr. Every one of the features they mention sounds like somet
Re:Sounds to me like... (Score:2)
Foxylicious [ganx4.com] + Firefox works _way_ better in my opinion.
Why doesn't flock make use of my del.icio.us tags? It lists them... yes... but it really should create hierarchies like foxylicious does. Having all of my favorites in one big flat file list is a _terrible_ waste when I've spent so much time tagging them.
I do appreciate the Flickr integration... even though it's not terribly useful to me (how often are you viewing the pictures you would like
Re:F-L-O-C-K-S-T-A-R! (Score:2)
Not that I disagree with your sentiment about those kinds of people, but I don't think that the Internet is all that lacking in serious content, nor in ways to find the relevant content among the dross.
Even then I think there's an overabundance of just about everything online. Any idiot that has some cash and a smidge of knowhow can create their own Super Duper News Site Page Thing. Only an infinitesimal amount of what is
Re:Polished Features? (Score:2)
Re:No M$N?! Oh.. wait NM thats great! (Score:2)
(sarcastic, if you can't tell... I hear the internet is bad for that sort of thing)
Re:No M$N?! Oh.. wait NM thats great! (Score:2)
To be honest I don't know why M$ would want their search engine listed in a communist web browser anyway.
Re:don't get it (Score:4, Funny)
Re:don't get it (Score:2)
Re:rolling back standards (Score:2)
Um. So... don't use it, then? Is someone from Flock standing next to you and holding a gun to your head?
And in the meantime, people who do use Flickr, del.icio.us, etc. may be happy to have something that offers tighter integration with those services. To each his own.
Re:another (Score:2)
Disinformation. This is 2006, not 2003.
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ [mozilla.org]
Re:another (Score:2)