Talk:Flock (web browser)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


foolswisdom: In regards to 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) ((dead link (3/2/09))

fit into this?

EliasAlucard wrote: (It does not matter if it's highly ranked in search engines, it's clearly a site dedicated to Flock, and it provides good information about Flock. Definitely should have a link in its own right

Cardinal's Release[edit]

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 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?

Yes, I'll get to that a bit later today. --Merovingian {T C @} 22:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Spell checking.[edit]

What are the requirements for activating the spell check in flock?

The most recent Flock browser has a built in spell checker for text applets, just like Firefox. 12:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Spread Flock[edit]

Um I'm kinda new at editing wikipedia so can someone take out the quotes? --Coolkid602006 00:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Done--Coolkid602006 00:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the name change!--Coolkid602006 00:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I took out the after each one too. I mean it is displayed on the site but its not really a reference. But maybe it is? If you think its better the other way you can always change it back.--Coolkid602006 00:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not spam! I'll try to set it up like the firefox article though [1] Hopefully this will clear up the confusion.

Mozilla or Flock Inc.?[edit]

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?

Read the article - it states that Flock is produced by Flock and NOT Mozilla, but both are open source, so a lot of the people making the products work on both. 12:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Myspace currently does not work for flock. To see which bloggers work look here [2]--Coolkid602006 22:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Release history[edit]

Can someone create a release history? --Pascal 11:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OS Compat'[edit]

Anyone know exactly which OSes it's NOT compatible with?... _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There currently are only Win32, Linux x86-32, and Mac OS X 10.3 or later builds. Since Flock includes CLucene, that is often the gating factor when attempting to port it to new platforms. Littlematt (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed: installer displayed user license may not reflect GPL[edit]

Included here in full, with important parts highlighted by me:

The accompanying executable code version of the Flock browser and related documentation ("Product") is made available under the terms of this End-User Software License Agreement ("Agreement"). IF YOU CLICK "ACCEPT" OR INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT, YOU UNCONDITIONALLY CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS HEREIN, DO NOT CLICK "ACCEPT" AND DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THIS PRODUCT. Source code for this Product is available for use, modification and distribution under open source licenses at Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit any rights granted under such open source licenses.
Flock grants you a non-exclusive license to use the executable code version of the Product. Flock and its licensors shall retain all intellectual property rights in the Product, except for the rights expressly granted in this Agreement. You may not remove or alter any trademark, or logo (collectively, "Marks"), copyright or other proprietary notice on the Product. This license does not grant you any right to use Marks of Flock or its licensors. If you breach this Agreement, the above license and your right to use the Product will terminate immediately and without notice, but all other terms of this Agreement will survive termination and continue in effect. Upon termination, you must destroy all copies of the Product. Except as expressly and unambiguously permitted by this Agreement, you shall not, nor permit anyone else to, directly or indirectly: (i) copy, modify, or distribute the Product; or (ii) reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile or otherwise attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of any portion of the Product that is not distributed in source code form (except to the extent applicable law prohibits such restrictions).
As a condition to your use of the Product, you represent, warrant and agree that you will not use the Product: (i) to infringe the intellectual property rights or proprietary rights, or rights of publicity or privacy, of any third party; (ii) to violate any applicable law, statute, ordinance or regulation; (iii) to disseminate information or materials in any form or format ("Content") that are harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, or otherwise objectionable under applicable laws or community standards. You, not Flock, remain solely responsible for all Content that you upload, post, e-mail, transmit, or otherwise disseminate using, or in connection with, the Product. You acknowledge that all Content that you access using the Product is at your own risk and you will be solely responsible for any damage to any party resulting therefrom. THIS PRODUCT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, MERCHANTABILITY AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW LIMITATIONS ON HOW LONG AN IMPLIED WARRANTY LASTS SO THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
If the user or licensee of this Product is an agency, department, or other entity of any Government, the use, duplication, reproduction, release, modification, disclosure, or transfer of this Product, or any related documentation of any kind, including technical data, software, and manuals, is restricted by the terms of this Agreement. All other use is prohibited. No rights other than those provided in Agreement are conferred. This product was developed fully at private expense.
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the Product, and may only be amended in writing by authorized representatives of both parties. You may not assign this Agreement or any rights or obligations hereunder without Flock's prior written consent. You may not download, use or otherwise export the Product except in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of California, excluding its conflict of law provisions. Any dispute under this Agreement shall be decided exclusively by state or federal courts in Santa Clara County, California, and the parties consent to such jurisdiction and venue. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods shall not apply. Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement is not a waiver of future enforcement of that or any other provision.

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. 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. --Kushalt 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What now?[edit]

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? 05:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GPL is mentioned in source files[edit]

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 -- (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

MPL 1.1 files are derived from files originally created by the Mozilla project, such as the build system Makefiles, or Flock-original files specifically requested to be tri-licensed by Mozilla. Original Flock code is generally (with the exceptions of the trademarks of Flock and their partners, as well as the aforementioned contributions to the Mozilla project) licensed under the GPL. Saying things like "the viral nature of the GPL" is flamebait, and incorrect. Flock licenses its source code under the GPL (as it is specifically allowed to do via the Mozilla tri-license). The prebuilt binary you download is not, hence the EULA quoted above. It contains Flock's trademarks, and therefore can not be considered entirely open-source, just as Firefox was not considered entirely open-source by the Debian folks who then created Iceweasel. Littlematt (talk) 17:52, 17 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"? -- (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


I tagged with {{advert}} because:

  • use of "you" with features
  • complete lack of criticism of current version
  • generally seems non-neutral in its presentation of features over facts.

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)

If you can find reliable sources of criticism, they can be added. An article isn't an advertisement simply because it lacks criticism. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added some drawbacks. I haven't sourced them, because it is a bit more work, so if I don't do it, I'd appreciate anybody else who does. If you wish to remove any of the drawbacks, please don't unless you think it likely that they cannot be sourced. --Ezra Wax (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
What you posted were more opinions than criticisms. I've removed them as such. I'll try and find some time this week to find some sources of criticism that satisfy WP:V, but what you added doesn't meet that policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what that means. --Ezra Wax (talk) 00:47, 23 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. (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet, no one has been able to point out what makes it an advert. If folks could actually offer specifics, it would help. A vague "it's a commercial" really doesn't help us fix whatever the problem is. 11:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandThatFeeds (talkcontribs)
Well, for example, it lists a lot of details that belong to a press release and not to an encyclopedia, like a list of inversors of the previous company. The sections "company", "Recent funding" and "Reception" should be united on a "History" section, with this section explaining in prose how it was received. Awards should be only on the "Awards" section unless they had a relevant impact on the company, and this impact should be explained. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This is actually helpful. I agree, the investors and funding really don't have much place here. Reception & awards could be merged, along with criticisms, into a single section. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I realize the article may be in need of fixes against bias in favor of the browser, but I just thought that some of the references to the criticism were of quite subpar quality. The "source" for sluggish performance is for example a web forum post; I'm not sure that's a quality Wikipedia should look for. — Northgrove 08:48, 9 September 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.--danielfolsom 23:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a fight a while back about people saying the article was "biased" and read like an "advert," so we wound up with this poorly sourced Critcism section. I'm all for excising it until some reliable sources of criticism can be found. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

POV tag added[edit]

This article reads like a press release. It needs editing for a more neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnyder9 (talkcontribs) 21:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) Please read the sections just above this one. What makes you think the article is "like a press release" and non-neutral? No one has really pointed out specifics we can fix. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 03:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Physical address/location of the company.....???[edit]

-- (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. is filled with dissatisfied users.

Removed Flock's posthumous browser recommendations[edit]

Support for Flock was discontinued in April 2011 and the developers recommended users switch to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox instead.[1][2]
  1. ^ "Official End of Support Notice". 
  2. ^ Sneddon, Joey (2011). "End of the line for Flock social browser". OMG Ubuntu. Retrieved 15 April 2011.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Removed Flock's alternative browser recommendations for two reasons. 1) the 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)

I have restored the ref from the Archived version because I think it is useful, but left the text you removed out. - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Flock has updated their website[edit]

Seems like they're coming back and probably won't beat Google Chrome. (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That is currently noted in the second paragraph of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It was not at the time of me writing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2012
There is no indication that this is anything other than an email harvesting site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that nothing has happened there, but you can't just post suspicions without citing a ref that shows that a reliable source is concerned about that as an issue. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the domain has changed hands a couple of times since the browser was discontinued. The site is now at ip and based on Wordpress, using a Google Analytics plugin with id UA-30907629-1. Not very professional. has it listed with id UA-342283 at ip The browser's site was ip ref. The info first changes 26 feb 2011, shortly after Flock was acquired. OR to be added to the article but worth noting here. I consider it unlikely that there is a browser behind this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
That is interesting - thanks for all the data! - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The link to goes to an entirely different company and concept, it's not an aggregate browser from what I can tell. Can someone confirm? p.s. I miss the Flock browser 21 April 2017 User:dawna67

Version 2.6.2[edit]

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. (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Version 3.6.4[edit]

This version does not exist. Google has no info on it. The latest version of Flock was 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... (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it is all fixed now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Resurrection text in the lead[edit]

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)

It has been a week with no objections, so I will remove all that. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)