This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
foolswisdom: In regards to http://www.flockbrowser.com/ which calls itself "Flock Web Browser Community", I look forward to seeing them becoming that, but currenty I have not seen interaction with Flock Inc or the community. Do they include information on their site saying who they are? There are quite a few sites and blogs with more relevant Flock information, and much more community buy-in.
Some measuring stick is needed, site rank, longevity, or otherwise.
Where do sites like:
http://flocq DOT 100free DOT com/ (which is blocked by the spam filter)
http://flocksucks.wordpress.com ((dead link (3/2/09))
fit into this?
I just added a few lines that talk about Cardinal's release and its major features. Llyod,will you look at it and then edit it if I made any major errors.Thanks man Killeroid 11:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The photo should be updated to show the newest version of Flock 0.7.0.16.2 or just a 0.7 release, as there is a great difference in appearance between the 0.5 and 0.7 releases.
Yeah and make it a picture on OS X too. So it's a pretty picture and not that butt ugly WINDBLOWS all the time Ugh.
Now that the Beta is out, can this page be updated, stating a stable release is available?
What are the requirements for activating the spell check in flock?
Um I'm kinda new at editing wikipedia so can someone take out the quotes? -- Coolkid602006 00:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok so theres a controversy over It being Mozilla or Flock Inc. I think it's Mozilla but I may be wrong. Or maybe a branch off? There isn't a page for Flock Inc. anyways. What do you think?
Myspace currently does not work for flock. To see which bloggers work look here [2]-- Coolkid602006 22:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone create a release history? -- Pascal 11:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know exactly which OSes it's NOT compatible with?... _> MonstaPro: Talk: Contrib. 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Included here in full, with important parts highlighted by me:
In conclusion, it seems that not all of Flock is open source, but the article makes this claim. Furthermore, since according to my knowledge, only the LGPL permits inclusion of closed source components, it seems that the license of the open source portions is limited to the LGPL in the final released product. 82.71.48.158 03:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad that you brought it up. I am not using any "open source" software that uses the phrase "Intellectual property." I am not standing on a soapbox but this thread shows that the neutrality disputed tag is appropriate for the article right now. -- Kushal t 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the information stating that Flock is GPL licensed. This article raises the question of what the license field in the template should reflect - licenses that the makers of the software think they are using, or only the ones that are factually legally compatible with the circumstances? 82.71.48.158 05:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If you download the source code, you'll fin that a number of files from the /flock/mozilla/flock/ directory explicitly license themselves under the GPL v2, whereas others use the MPL 1.1. Can anyone explain how this is possible, given the viral nature of the GPL? --Tyr -- 78.32.81.25 ( talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that Flock is built on similar technology as Firefox, but that doesn't mean that the features section should be defined as a contrast with Firefox. I'm going to change it so that Firefox is excluded, you can bring up qualms here. I also scratched the final paragraph since it was blatant pov. The freddinator ( talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, does every single bullet point have to strat with the word "Flock"? -- 129.67.178.32 ( talk) 11:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I tagged with {{
advert}}
because:
I hope this helps. Please remember that that tag does not accuse anyone of deliberately trying to do this, but merely states that it has occurred. --
Thinboy00's
sockpuppet
alternate account 02:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this still reads like an advertisement, even though some of Thinboy's issues have been resolved. There is no criticism. Personally when I tried to use the Flock browser some time ago, I found it much less stable than Firefox. --
Ezra Wax (
talk) 04:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Criticism or not, this article still sounds like a huge advertisement for Flock. Throwing in criticism from a commercial doesn't stop it from being a commercial. 69.121.234.23 ( talk) 03:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You guys - blogs are not sources. You can't say "Flock has been criticized for ..." and use a blog to support that claim. Either find a reliable source who you can directly ascribe the criticism to or take out the sentences.-- daniel folsom 23:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This article reads like a press release. It needs editing for a more neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnyder9 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
-- 58.38.41.77 ( talk) 08:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the reception adequately covers the currently covers the current reception of flock as many of its users have become fed up with their lack of responding to future plans for the product and an increasing number of mostly ignored bug reports.
http://getsatisfaction.com/flock is filled with dissatisfied users.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Removed Flock's alternative browser recommendations for two reasons. 1) the flock.com link is dead, so there's no citation for their recommendation. 2) even if it existed, it's a little too unencyclopedic / press release-ish to include their recommendations. It's like if a shampoo tells you to wash/rinse/repeat, do you include that in the shampoo's WP listing? I hate MS/IE as much as the next guy, but any Flock user is savvy enough to know to go with Firefox/Chrome without this nudge.-- Petzl ( talk) 22:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems like they're coming back and probably won't beat Google Chrome. 99.224.11.47 ( talk) 20:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems the release date of 2.6.2 was not July 2010, but January 2011 and if even more exact January 27, 2011 (from digital sign of flock-2.6.2.en-US.win32.exe and file change dates inside). Current proof links are not valid. Man who added info about 2.6.2 version just had changed version numbers w/o updating proof links. 81.30.162.26 ( talk) 07:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This version does not exist. Google has no info on it. The latest version of Flock was 3.5.3.4641 from February 1, 2011 (exact date taken from digital sign of mini_installer_4641.exe). The one who added this info about 3.6.4 was just vandal in my opinion... 81.30.162.26 ( talk) 10:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It looks like all this speculation about Flock being re-started has come to zero. Right now the the second lead para details this, but given that it all came to naught I am proposing that all that text be removed as "non-notable". - Ahunt ( talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Flock (web browser). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Flock (web browser). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flock (web browser). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
foolswisdom: In regards to http://www.flockbrowser.com/ which calls itself "Flock Web Browser Community", I look forward to seeing them becoming that, but currenty I have not seen interaction with Flock Inc or the community. Do they include information on their site saying who they are? There are quite a few sites and blogs with more relevant Flock information, and much more community buy-in.
Some measuring stick is needed, site rank, longevity, or otherwise.
Where do sites like:
http://flocq DOT 100free DOT com/ (which is blocked by the spam filter)
http://flocksucks.wordpress.com ((dead link (3/2/09))
fit into this?
I just added a few lines that talk about Cardinal's release and its major features. Llyod,will you look at it and then edit it if I made any major errors.Thanks man Killeroid 11:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The photo should be updated to show the newest version of Flock 0.7.0.16.2 or just a 0.7 release, as there is a great difference in appearance between the 0.5 and 0.7 releases.
Yeah and make it a picture on OS X too. So it's a pretty picture and not that butt ugly WINDBLOWS all the time Ugh.
Now that the Beta is out, can this page be updated, stating a stable release is available?
What are the requirements for activating the spell check in flock?
Um I'm kinda new at editing wikipedia so can someone take out the quotes? -- Coolkid602006 00:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok so theres a controversy over It being Mozilla or Flock Inc. I think it's Mozilla but I may be wrong. Or maybe a branch off? There isn't a page for Flock Inc. anyways. What do you think?
Myspace currently does not work for flock. To see which bloggers work look here [2]-- Coolkid602006 22:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone create a release history? -- Pascal 11:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know exactly which OSes it's NOT compatible with?... _> MonstaPro: Talk: Contrib. 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Included here in full, with important parts highlighted by me:
In conclusion, it seems that not all of Flock is open source, but the article makes this claim. Furthermore, since according to my knowledge, only the LGPL permits inclusion of closed source components, it seems that the license of the open source portions is limited to the LGPL in the final released product. 82.71.48.158 03:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad that you brought it up. I am not using any "open source" software that uses the phrase "Intellectual property." I am not standing on a soapbox but this thread shows that the neutrality disputed tag is appropriate for the article right now. -- Kushal t 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the information stating that Flock is GPL licensed. This article raises the question of what the license field in the template should reflect - licenses that the makers of the software think they are using, or only the ones that are factually legally compatible with the circumstances? 82.71.48.158 05:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If you download the source code, you'll fin that a number of files from the /flock/mozilla/flock/ directory explicitly license themselves under the GPL v2, whereas others use the MPL 1.1. Can anyone explain how this is possible, given the viral nature of the GPL? --Tyr -- 78.32.81.25 ( talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that Flock is built on similar technology as Firefox, but that doesn't mean that the features section should be defined as a contrast with Firefox. I'm going to change it so that Firefox is excluded, you can bring up qualms here. I also scratched the final paragraph since it was blatant pov. The freddinator ( talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, does every single bullet point have to strat with the word "Flock"? -- 129.67.178.32 ( talk) 11:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I tagged with {{
advert}}
because:
I hope this helps. Please remember that that tag does not accuse anyone of deliberately trying to do this, but merely states that it has occurred. --
Thinboy00's
sockpuppet
alternate account 02:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this still reads like an advertisement, even though some of Thinboy's issues have been resolved. There is no criticism. Personally when I tried to use the Flock browser some time ago, I found it much less stable than Firefox. --
Ezra Wax (
talk) 04:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Criticism or not, this article still sounds like a huge advertisement for Flock. Throwing in criticism from a commercial doesn't stop it from being a commercial. 69.121.234.23 ( talk) 03:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You guys - blogs are not sources. You can't say "Flock has been criticized for ..." and use a blog to support that claim. Either find a reliable source who you can directly ascribe the criticism to or take out the sentences.-- daniel folsom 23:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This article reads like a press release. It needs editing for a more neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnyder9 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
-- 58.38.41.77 ( talk) 08:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the reception adequately covers the currently covers the current reception of flock as many of its users have become fed up with their lack of responding to future plans for the product and an increasing number of mostly ignored bug reports.
http://getsatisfaction.com/flock is filled with dissatisfied users.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Removed Flock's alternative browser recommendations for two reasons. 1) the flock.com link is dead, so there's no citation for their recommendation. 2) even if it existed, it's a little too unencyclopedic / press release-ish to include their recommendations. It's like if a shampoo tells you to wash/rinse/repeat, do you include that in the shampoo's WP listing? I hate MS/IE as much as the next guy, but any Flock user is savvy enough to know to go with Firefox/Chrome without this nudge.-- Petzl ( talk) 22:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems like they're coming back and probably won't beat Google Chrome. 99.224.11.47 ( talk) 20:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems the release date of 2.6.2 was not July 2010, but January 2011 and if even more exact January 27, 2011 (from digital sign of flock-2.6.2.en-US.win32.exe and file change dates inside). Current proof links are not valid. Man who added info about 2.6.2 version just had changed version numbers w/o updating proof links. 81.30.162.26 ( talk) 07:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This version does not exist. Google has no info on it. The latest version of Flock was 3.5.3.4641 from February 1, 2011 (exact date taken from digital sign of mini_installer_4641.exe). The one who added this info about 3.6.4 was just vandal in my opinion... 81.30.162.26 ( talk) 10:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It looks like all this speculation about Flock being re-started has come to zero. Right now the the second lead para details this, but given that it all came to naught I am proposing that all that text be removed as "non-notable". - Ahunt ( talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Flock (web browser). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Flock (web browser). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flock (web browser). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)