<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Performancing plugin</title>
	<atom:link href="http://commavee.com/2005/12/27/performancing-plugin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://commavee.com/2005/12/27/performancing-plugin/</link>
	<description>from John Minnihan, founder of Freepository.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:00:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Messina</title>
		<link>http://commavee.com/2005/12/27/performancing-plugin/comment-page-1/#comment-94</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Messina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:52:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commavee.com/?p=307#comment-94</guid>
		<description>Cool, no worries! And this theme is much better than the previous one! ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cool, no worries! And this theme is much better than the previous one! <img src='http://commavee.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jbminn</title>
		<link>http://commavee.com/2005/12/27/performancing-plugin/comment-page-1/#comment-93</link>
		<dc:creator>jbminn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commavee.com/?p=307#comment-93</guid>
		<description>I appreciate the clarification about Flock&#039;s ultimate goal (normalization of two-way communication), Chris.   Now that makes sense &amp; does create differentiation.

As for extensions, I agree that there are some real dogs out there, and self-regulated QA doesn&#039;t generally produce high levels of either quality or assurance... but many of the extensions are simply great.

As for my fork supposition, I see (again) that Flock is simply based upon the Mozilla codebase, but it isn&#039;t actually a fork.  Somehow my mind read that as &#039;fork&#039;.  I stand corrected.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I appreciate the clarification about Flock&#8217;s ultimate goal (normalization of two-way communication), Chris.   Now that makes sense &#038; does create differentiation.</p>
<p>As for extensions, I agree that there are some real dogs out there, and self-regulated QA doesn&#8217;t generally produce high levels of either quality or assurance&#8230; but many of the extensions are simply great.</p>
<p>As for my fork supposition, I see (again) that Flock is simply based upon the Mozilla codebase, but it isn&#8217;t actually a fork.  Somehow my mind read that as &#8216;fork&#8217;.  I stand corrected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Messina</title>
		<link>http://commavee.com/2005/12/27/performancing-plugin/comment-page-1/#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Messina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:26:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commavee.com/?p=307#comment-92</guid>
		<description>Hey John, Flock really isn&#039;t a fork of Firefox. Yes, we&#039;re going off in a different direction but we&#039;re not forking the platform to do so. In fact, development is much slower because we&#039;re working around Firefox as our core platform. Ideally our work will be able to be pulled back to Firefox, either as extensions and or platform improvements -- after all, that&#039;s the beauty of open source.

Now, in terms of my duct tape comment, I was referring generally to extensions -- since oftentimes the quality varies to a great degree from one extension to another. Personally, I&#039;m a big fan of extensions and use quite a few myself. But I know that, for example, if I wanted to get my mom (or even my college-aged brother) blogging, he&#039;d be hard pressed to get going. There are so many things that we who are already blogging have figured out on our own that aren&#039;t simple, aren&#039;t intuitive and aren&#039;t easy about publishing online. I mean, I used to work on a &lt;a href=&quot;http://civicspacelabs.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;platform&lt;/a&gt; that was dedicated to web publishing. It wasn&#039;t easy -- and oftentimes the meager results of using a web-page based editor left authors disappointed and frustrated.

With Flock the goal is make it possible to better use your browser for two-way communication, whether via blogs, podcasts, video and so on. We&#039;re still figuring out the infrastructure to support all of these new mecasting technologies, and so we see that these platforms would all benefit from having a client that can actually interface with their APIs in one unified interface. Let&#039;s face it, learning a new UI paradigm every time there&#039;s a new web service is counterproductive. Long term, Flock aims to ameliorate that problem.

Anyway, it&#039;s quite clear that we need to better communicate what we&#039;re doing, how we&#039;re going to do it and get releases out in a timely manner. We&#039;re learning an awful lot in the process. Seeing projects like Performancing come out is actually very encouraging -- because it&#039;s clear that having publishing tools in the browser does make sense for a lot of people. We just need to perfect the user experience and suddenly (or at least the hope goes) Flock will begin to make a lot more sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey John, Flock really isn&#8217;t a fork of Firefox. Yes, we&#8217;re going off in a different direction but we&#8217;re not forking the platform to do so. In fact, development is much slower because we&#8217;re working around Firefox as our core platform. Ideally our work will be able to be pulled back to Firefox, either as extensions and or platform improvements &#8212; after all, that&#8217;s the beauty of open source.</p>
<p>Now, in terms of my duct tape comment, I was referring generally to extensions &#8212; since oftentimes the quality varies to a great degree from one extension to another. Personally, I&#8217;m a big fan of extensions and use quite a few myself. But I know that, for example, if I wanted to get my mom (or even my college-aged brother) blogging, he&#8217;d be hard pressed to get going. There are so many things that we who are already blogging have figured out on our own that aren&#8217;t simple, aren&#8217;t intuitive and aren&#8217;t easy about publishing online. I mean, I used to work on a <a href="http://civicspacelabs.org" rel="nofollow">platform</a> that was dedicated to web publishing. It wasn&#8217;t easy &#8212; and oftentimes the meager results of using a web-page based editor left authors disappointed and frustrated.</p>
<p>With Flock the goal is make it possible to better use your browser for two-way communication, whether via blogs, podcasts, video and so on. We&#8217;re still figuring out the infrastructure to support all of these new mecasting technologies, and so we see that these platforms would all benefit from having a client that can actually interface with their APIs in one unified interface. Let&#8217;s face it, learning a new UI paradigm every time there&#8217;s a new web service is counterproductive. Long term, Flock aims to ameliorate that problem.</p>
<p>Anyway, it&#8217;s quite clear that we need to better communicate what we&#8217;re doing, how we&#8217;re going to do it and get releases out in a timely manner. We&#8217;re learning an awful lot in the process. Seeing projects like Performancing come out is actually very encouraging &#8212; because it&#8217;s clear that having publishing tools in the browser does make sense for a lot of people. We just need to perfect the user experience and suddenly (or at least the hope goes) Flock will begin to make a lot more sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
