Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Flock, the Web 2.0 Browser? 263

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the little-more-hype-please dept.
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!)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flock, the Web 2.0 Browser?

Comments Filter:
  • flash??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by eggoeater (704775) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:31PM (#15534042) Journal
    And for those of you trying to get Flash working in Firefox on an AMD64 linux machine, try this and be pleasantly surprised!
    Pleasently surprised is not how I'd phrase it.
    Dropping into a seizure because of all the blinky lights and animated characters is more like it.

    • maybe, that question should be in "Ask Slashdot" section? :)
  • by Psychotext (262644) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:32PM (#15534054)
    ...just to be clear, will this still be backwards compatible with the old version of the web?
  • Flash! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:33PM (#15534065) Homepage Journal
    (And for those of you trying to get Flash working in Firefox on an AMD64 linux machine, try this and be pleasantly surprised!)"
    So it still doesn't work, then? Hooray!
  • by Photar (5491) <photarNO@SPAMphotar.net> on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:34PM (#15534070) Homepage
    Does it support all of Firefox's extensions?
    • There are conversion utilities (Flocker and Flockd) that will convert Firefox extensions for you - I can't say they always work, but it's converted all the extensions I've wanted to try.
    • by christopherfinke (608750) <chris@efinke.com> on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:45PM (#15534175) Homepage Journal
      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.

      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: id>
                      <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.
  • by fak3r (917687) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:35PM (#15534079) Homepage
    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)
  • by poulbailey (231304) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:36PM (#15534097)
    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 [performancing.com]
      • 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?

    • At least that's what the article summary says. Wait, on second thought no meaning is lost by removing the Web 2.0 phrase from that sentence, but I guess "Flock is working on enhancing the Firefox UI" is less exciting.

      Mashups! Sorry, I appear to have Tourette's Syndrome 2.0.

    • Anyone looking for blog features in Firefox should take a look at the Performancing extension instead.

      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

    • I honestly apologize to the hardworking devs at Flock for instigating such a nasty anti-Web 2.0 mudslinging in the name of your browser. I (erroneously) expected people to at least visit the site and see for themselves why this is an interesting app, instead of picking up on buzzwords. On hindsight, it was a pretty bad summary for a /. crowd - i should've stuck to saying how the Flock code was completely Open Source and totally developed with doses of caffeine and creativity.

      Also, to clarify a couple of c

      • I (erroneously) expected people to at least visit the site and see for themselves why this is an interesting app, instead of picking up on buzzwords.
        What makes you think that some (most?) people didn't already know about Flock? I've looked beyond the 36px type and the talk about expensive office chairs and it still didn't impress me.
    • by kindbud (90044) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @04:19PM (#15534844) Homepage
      "Performancing?!?!?!" I really hate it when people verbize nouns. Just stop it.

  • Ego 2.0? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Duncan3 (10537) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:43PM (#15534154) Homepage
    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!
  • by Mayhem178 (920970) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:43PM (#15534155)
    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!
  • by Paralizer (792155) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:43PM (#15534161) Homepage
    And for those of you trying to get Flash working in Firefox on an AMD64 linux machine, try this and be pleasantly surprised!
    I'm not surprised at all, the downloadable binary is 32-bit.

    flock-bin: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.2.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
    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.c gi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash [adobe.com].
    • I suggest you try out Gnash [gnu.org] . It certainly isn't perfect, but it's better then jury-rigging the propriatery blob of evil into working on a 64-bit platform.
      Just remember, if you find bugs (and you will) please remember to send reports. ;-)
  • by Erisian Pope (636878) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:46PM (#15534183) Homepage
    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
  • by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:51PM (#15534218) Journal
    ...BS 2.0 and BS 1.0 is that the former smells twice as bad.
  • Web 2.0... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ivan256 (17499) * on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:51PM (#15534219)
    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'.
  • by DigDuality (918867) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:53PM (#15534246)
    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.
    • Watch it, you're expressing a rational, informed opinion! This is Slashdot, we can't have that!
    • I just installed it today and I like it so far, but why did they remove the bookmark keywords feature (from Firefox)? That is one of the most useful Firefox (Mozilla?) features that I use. Is there a reason it had to be removed?
    • And after applying all the same tweaks in about:config that i do to Firefox, it ran faster than Firefox.

      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".

    • I will say this though, i used it in alpha ... it ran faster than Firefox.

      The first releases of Flock were based on the nightly builds of what would become Firefox 1.5. This was before Firefox 1.5 came out, so your point of comparison was probably Firefox 1.0. I doubt Flock has any speed advantage anymore.

  • I'll download it when JEFF PULVER buys in. That guy can see into the future.

    Until then -- pshh, whatever.

  • by rob1980 (941751) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @02:57PM (#15534271)
    Are fads that are going to disappear inside of 12 months?
  • I almost got a Bingo on that blurb. FFS, /. is supposedly for /nerds/, not suits and marketdroids.
  • Web 2.0 Browser??? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by reed (19777) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @03:20PM (#15534422) Homepage
    Wouldn't a Web 2.0 Browser be a web browser implemented inside another browser using Javascript, XML, and Flash?

    Reed

  • Oh... FLOCK (Score:4, Funny)

    by oahazmatt (868057) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @03:24PM (#15534458) Journal
    "Flock the web 2.0 browser"... okay. I misread that and though Slashdot articles had gotten rather blunt all of a sudden.
  • Mac version??? (Score:2, Informative)

    by ZerocarboN (415676)
    For a windows only release, there sure are a lot of mac based screenshots on the Tour.
  • Needs Feeds (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sockonafish (228678) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @03:29PM (#15534497)
    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?
  • I remember the last time Flock showed up on Slashdot, they only had a sign-up form for the alpha program and even that collapsed in a pile of molten silicon. The story has been up for an hour, and Flock's website is still responsive.
  • by TheDarkener (198348) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @04:23PM (#15534874)
    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?
  • by carpeweb (949895) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @05:05PM (#15535174) Journal
    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.
  • Grow up... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Peturrr (940456) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @06:02PM (#15535567)
    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??
    • Re:Grow up... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mant (578427)

      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,

  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @06:29PM (#15535804) Journal
    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.

Executive ability is deciding quickly and getting somebody else to do the work. -- John G. Pollard

Working...