Firefly: good-bye Windows Explorer and Finder?
Yes, I’m still living in a bubble browser. It’s been around 40 days with minimal use of client applications: just Firefox 3, a bunch of extensions and some web services. The most often used application after Firefox during all this time? According to Wakoopa, a service that tracks my app usage, it’s Windows Explorer. Maybe it’s time to change that.
For basic file browsing, I was simply entering a drive path in the Firefox address bar, but that’s extremely limited. That’s why I got excited to see the Firefly extension featured on gHacks (shown above from my UMPC). Not just because it has the same name as one of my favorite television programs, but also because it’s quite powerful and useful. With it installed, I can easily browse through my file system; more importantly, I can manipulate the files. There’s cut, paste, move to, open with, rename, sorting, multiple views and more. Call it your basic file explorer because it might not have all the bells and whistles of a Windows Explorer or Finder. One thing missing (or inadvertently overlooked by me): search functionality. You can however, filter by file extensions. I also noticed on the Mac that I had to customize the Start Page settings by indicating my device’s hard drive. Prior to that, I was staring at a blank screen, but it’s all good now.
This has to be one of the largest extensions I’ve added yet: 1.4 MB. Still, on a netbook or UMPC with minimal storage capacity, I’m starting to think that regardless of the installed OS, the effective OS can be the browser. Shiny!
(via Download Squad)
Interesting… I may have to give it a try.
As for Firefly the TV show… absolutely loved it. Loved Serenity as well, and I really wish someone would bring it back as a continued series, because it has so much potential.
Another app installed on your machine. IMHO
Cody B, I am confused why some believe that it’s a bad thing to install browser extensions for working in the cloud. Why is that a bad thing? If a simple tool makes the work easier than why not?
Neither the series nor the film were ever shown here but fortunately I accidentally downloaded it from the internet one day. Because of that one ‘illegal’ download I ended up buying the DVDs of the series and the film! So maybe those thugs that take old ladies and puppies to court should give me some money.
Bad thing, no.
When you install something on your PC to be able to work from the cloud it gets gray that’s all. Saying you use only your browser to do everything becomes gray as well. You just moved the code from one location on your hard drive to another. Now you have two file browsers for that matter. I don’t understand why you need two. If you’re working from the cloud you shouldn’t have to browse local files at all. Ok, the last part is a bit of a stretch right now. Many businesses have had users running from the cloud of years and years. Citrix for example is a great solution. The environment truly works from the cloud. It even uses only around 54 kb/sec connection.
Wow that got longer than I expected. From my point of view firefly is another app installed in the Firefox directory. Why not install it the programs files (windows) and get it over with.
I’m very interested in seeing others point of view (even though its already been discussed here before).
I used 6 different machines during a normal day (3 windows, 2 linux, and a MAC). I really want to work from the cloud. But I don’t want to have to install extensions and apps on 6+ machines every time I find one I like.
I completely agree with you Cody. That’s why I’m following Mozilla’s Weave project so closely. It will sync not just your data, but your environment (themes and extensions) as well.
Hey, you lot! Firefly’s captain is now Captain Hammer. Go see Doctor Horrible from genius Joss Whedon:
http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/go-see-doctor-horrible/
I agree with Cody. Just because the code runs within the frame of the Firefox browser window doesn’t make it a cloud app. I haven’t tried Firefly yet, but other than maybe the advantage of being able to use the same UI on different platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux), what is the advantage of this extension over the operating system’s native file browser (or some other 3rd party native app)?
And this just further proves how far ahead of the times Windows 98 was.
What you’re doing, your experiment, is a large part of the philosophy behind Win98. The idea that you could use a browser for anything. Help files, Windows explorer (you could customize indiviual directories with an .HTM file and a change to desktop.ini), the rendering of messages in Outlook Express, content availalbe on some select channels of the windows application WebTV (I only tried it with PBS), even HTML applications (.HTA extension) is precisely what Microsoft was trying to revolutionize 10 years ago. Makes you wonder what things would look like today without the anti-monopoly lawsuit.
You’re trying to turn the Browser into the OS, an arguement made by Firefox diehards, but the browser could have just as effectively been incorporated into the OS with extensions (ActiveX) providing a way to perform native tasks. Reverting to Win98 would have effectively been the same test. Granted it isn’t exactly the same thing, but I fully believe we’d be futher along if it hadn’t been for the trial and lawsuites.
Kevin– I’ve been trying just to sit back and enjoy the natural unfolding of your “cloud” computing experiment. My guess was that you had probably come to this experiment looking for answers but would ultimately leave with a better sense of the question. My comment here is directed more toward the people who have left questionable comments on this series of posts, rather than any of your posts or own responses to those comments.
I endured graduate school using a UNIX system that I almost never sat near. I was accessing this system from clients running at least four different operating systems, depending on where I was. When I was lucky enough to be on campus, I had graphical shell access via an x-session over Ethernet. Sometimes this access came through a single virtual desktop, and other times the x-session windows were natively managed by the client’s operating system. When I was off of campus, I had text-mode terminal access over the modem, once again, from many different operating systems. Because of these circumstances, I tried to limit my workflow to text-based, platform agnostic tools as much as possible so that my productivity could generalize to whatever quality of access I had.
Your experiment to live “with a” browser reminds me of those days. I chose all of the words in that last sentence as deliberately as possible. I think that the catching point for a lot of people trying to carry the “purist” flag is that they expect your experiment should be to live “in any” browser. The distinction that I am trying to force here is two-fold. First, I think that they want you to live exclusively “in” what gets rendered in the browser, and not use tools provided by the browser. Second, I think that they want you to be able to do it with “any browser” on “any platform”, with no dependency on extensions or needing to have a specific browser or OS on hand. In other words, if you can do it with Firefox on Windows but not Opera on Linux or even K-Meleon on Windows, then it’s “gray”.
My feeling right now is that the “complaint” that some people make when you use Firefox add-ons to fill in the gaps is somewhat justified, although not really an important complaint in the grand scheme of things. As most people know, a browser like K-meleon uses the same rendering engine as Firefox (for now), without brining the XUL bloat to the party. This is why it’s a go-to solution for low resources computing, such as UMPCs. XUL is ultimately just another toolkit, and one of it’s claims to fame is giving cross-platform comforts to developers. Another popular cross-platform development platform is Java. I think that if you are willing to invite XUL to the “cloud” party via Firefox, then you might also think about inviting Java, if only because Java is available to even more browsers than XUL. And, to kind of bring this full circle, there are tools such as “Java VNC” that can run IN browser and provide you with graphical shell access to a host operating system. This is exactly what I was doing back in graduate school, the only difference being that the client was not programmed in Java and running in my web browser. In this sense, you can totally satisfy the puritanical desire to live “in any” browser for ever if you’re willing to degenerate your entire computer into a “dumb terminal” as provided by the browser.
When you first described the experiment that you were setting out on, it sounded to me like you were asking the question, “can I turn my web-browser into a terminal for remote computing”. Of course, I now realize that you weren’t, and those were my biases getting read into it, because I already knew that the answers was “Yes, run Java VNC in any browser and make sure that your host computer provides the resources that you will need.”
Rather than trying to stuff my perceptions of what you are trying to do into your mouth, I am hoping that maybe you can come back to us with an up-to-date description of the problem that you’re trying to solve. It would probably make the comments section a more fun place to hang out for some readers.
And finally, I for one see you as an under-appreciated folk hero. Most people either can’t or won’t try what you’re trying, and in taking one for the team, you’ve uncovered a lot of great tools and insights. Thanks.
Wow, what a great comment. First, let me say thanks for the effort and thought that you put into it. I do sincerely appreciate it.
Secondly, in your last paragraph, I think you’ve hit PRECISELY on what I’m trying to do here: not just determine an answer, but to determine the question. [Why did The Matrix just pop in my head: "what is the question, Neo?"
]
Some of what I do here is to define my own computing needs and then find solutions. However, I also try to strike out and try new scenarios so we can all learn together on the journey. I really don’t think my current “challenge” has a defined end. And if it did, it would only be defined for me, and therefore, not of value to everyone.
When I first started out, I’ll admit that I wanted to use a simple browser and various web-based apps. However, I quickly learned something (and I hope others did as well): web-based apps and services aren’t really mature enough at this point in time to fully embrace. Could I have ended my journey right then? Absolutely, but I think pushing forward in a slightly new direction was valuable enough to continue onward.
So what else have I learned? That a relatively low-powered device with relatively limited storage can be a “nearly-full-functioning” device for me right now thanks to the Firefox platform. I think I could use a device that solely had an embedded version of Firefox along with connectivity and extensions for my personal computing needs. That’s something I honestly never dreamed of nor envisioned when I started this.
You also hit upon something that’s key to what I try to do day in and day out when you said: “you’ve uncovered a lot of great tools and insights”. THAT is what blogging is all about in my opinion. It’s the risks taken, the experiences shared and the opinions respectfully debated that add value. I try to do that each and every day and I appreciate those that gain value from it.
Thanks again for the excellent insights; I hope my response sheds a little more light.
This reminds me of the people who did everything they could in emacs, using extensions. If you put a lot of extensions in emacs it is not a “pure” text editor anymore (I use vim, different topic) and the same is true for Firefox and the add-ons.