The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: KFirefox?
by anon on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @12:22
|
Well, when this is done, won't you just be able to use Firefox with Qt/KDE instead of GTK?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Probably
by QV on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @14:02
|
Right now, Firefox can be compiled on Linux against either GTK2 or GTK1. On other platforms (Mac or Windows, it can be compiled against their native toolkit. So there's no reason to not add a third toolkit option for Linux, as it's quite possible.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Tim on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @12:25
|
I agree. I spent ages trying to work out how to set my home page before realising that I couldn't have a filesystem home page and a separate web home page.
I think they should separate the web browser from the file browser. Allow the web browser to display local files and the file browser to display web pages, but you do different things in a web browser to a file browser...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Illissius on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @12:40
|
I agree. File manager and web browser should be two apps with a lot in common, rather than the same app except configured differently. Or even just giving seperate sets of preferences for the two would be enough...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Roberto Alsina on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @12:51
|
Uh... you can do that already.
Please lookup the docs for Konqueror profiles.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by ac on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @08:19
|
We've already done this. Yes, starting Konq the web browser can be made to have a different starting page than Konqueror the file manager. But when you hit the Home button in the web browser, suddenly you're browsing the filesystem. The docs for Konqueror profiles are silent on this subject (which is part of why I use Mozilla instead)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Roberto Alsina on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @08:39
|
Ok, that's trickier, but not impossible.
* Create a plugin that simply goes to your home folder (that's the hard step ;-)
* That plugin should now be available to add as a button in the toolbars
* On the web profile, use the "Home" action in the toolbar
* On the file manager profile, use the new plugin
Tada!
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by ac on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @14:47
|
I appreciate that a solution can be created, but I prefer my one-step solution: 1) Don't use Konqueror for anything but file browsing until this is fixed.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Roberto Alsina on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @15:00
|
Had you been any less of an asshole about it, I would have published the plugin, since I just wrote it. Your loss.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by CE on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @15:29
|
He isn't the only one who thinks that this behaviour is weird.
It would be great if it'll get fixed.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Roberto Alsina on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @16:49
|
It's a solution, sure, but it's also a dirty hack. May publish it on friday if I have any free time.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by ac on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @15:39
|
Can you not fix some CSS bugs that have been bothering me too? I just want to see how unhelpful I can make you.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Roberto Alsina on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @16:03
|
No, since that would involve actual work, instead of editing the example konqueror plugin and changing ten lines of code.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by fake on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @12:45
|
I don't think that separating web from file browser would be a good thing. Integration is the key KDE is so much powerful and so much different from the other desktops. If the problem with the homepage button is the only problem you have, it is a good sign that things are working quite good :)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Turd Ferguson on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @14:29
|
Yeah, I am not saying Konqueror should get slimmed down. I like its universal file viewer capability among any i/o slave, including the web. I mean, I think that it should have HTML capability, but I think that overall Konqueror makes for a poor web browser as opposed to Firefox and makes an excellent file browser as opposed to Nautilus, or heaven forbid, Windows Explorer.
But I think that Mozilla's extension system is the best around and it's foolishness not to support it.
KDE is full of duplicate applications and despite my constant complaining that a lot of these should get deprecated, like kedit, kpaint, and noatun (nothing against noatun, but I find the similarities with kaboodle and its uncapabilities compared to amarok reason for its removal) to name a few, what's bad about a new web browser for KDE?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by anon on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @14:51
|
> KDE is full of duplicate applications and despite my constant complaining that a lot of these should get deprecated, like kedit, kpaint, and noatun (nothing against noatun
- kpaint is already gone
- kedit will be gone whenever kate supports bidirectional-text (being localized is very important to kde)
- noatun+arts will be gone in kde 4.0, unless someone manages to port it to kdemm, which is unlikely since it's tied into arts very closely
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
They're dropping KEdit? Why?
by QV on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @20:52
|
Personally, I think if they're going to drop an editor, they should get rid of KWrite.
KEdit has an advantage in that it's very light. Kate has an advantage in that it's very powerful. I use both regularly, depending on what I want to do. KWrite is neither as light as KEdit, nor as powerful as Kate. I never use it, ever--there's no reason to.
Now, dumping Noatun, that I can agree with. JuK runs circles around it, IMO (I recently switched to JuK from XMMS, and like it quite a bit). Unfortunately, JuK doesn't support streaming audio, but AmaroK does. AmaroK also runs circles around Noatun, tho I prefer JuK to AmaroK in every area except streaming.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: They're dropping KEdit? Why?
by Morty on Sunday 12/Sep/2004, @06:53
|
To gain anything they have to drop KEdit, since KWrite and Kate are the same editor. KWrite is only a light version of Kate, without all the advanced stuff.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: They're dropping KEdit? Why?
by David House on Sunday 01/May/2005, @07:01
|
Personally, the only one I use is KWrite, because a lot of files that I look at would be a lot harder to use without syntax highlighting. If I need anything more powerful than KWrite I tend to jump straight into KDevelop.
I guess removing KWrite would work though, as we have a really light editor (KEdit) and a slightly heavier editor (Kate), and then a full development IDE.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Kostumer on Sunday 12/Sep/2004, @22:09
|
I for one don't want to see Noatun go for the very simple reason that Juk sound quality is not very good (I don't know why but the sound its garbled) as compared to Noatun which plays with very high fidelity. If someone has had the same problem and found a way to fix Juk let me know so I can fix it too..... otherwise I would hate to boot into Windows just to listen to MP3s
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Larry Garfield on Sunday 12/Sep/2004, @23:02
|
I had issues with Juk on certain files causing lots of static. My guess is it had to do with the bit rate or frequency or some other setting. I never did figure out what caused it, as it went away when I upgraded to KDE 3.3. :-) If you've not yet upgraded I suggest you do so, as there was probably a lot of cleanup internally for that sort of problem.
Noatun has always bugged me, as it takes a long time to load and then doesn't let me edit tags. Why bother with it? :-) (Or if it's supposed to, it malfunctions for me.)
Elsewhere in this thread someone mentioned that artsd is going away in KDE 3/4/4.0. Why is that? Has ALSA caught up to the point that artsd is redundant?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by David Bishop on Tuesday 14/Sep/2004, @14:25
|
Regarding the first point (why bother with noatun), I must say that I've been a long-time noatun advocate. I tried Juk for a week or so a little while ago, and loved the id3-editing portion. However, it fell down when it came to how I use my mp3-mplayer. I hate how it resets to whereever you starting playing in the playlist whenever you hit stop (rather than go to beginning of the the current song). In fact, I think that's the only thing that was wrong with it, and that alone was enough to drive me back to noatun :-) It's something that's very simple, but incredibally annoying if done wrong.
Secondly, arts and alsa are not on the same level. If KDE switched to alsa as it's multimedia layer, it would suddenly not be usable (for sound and video) on any *BSD, OSX, or Cygwin. Alsa does stand for Advanced *Linux* Sound Architecture, you know :-) The last I heard (and admittedly, it's been a while), kde-multimedia was looking seriously at gstreamer to use instead. There may be other systems, I forget. But basing it directly on alsa (or oss, or CoreAudio, etc) is simply not an option. Oh, and it definetly won't go away for 3.4, which by definition has to be compatible with all 3.x apps.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Anonnysauraus on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @15:29
|
I agree too! KHTML is great, but having the web browser integrated with the file manager is a real PITA. Homepages is one example (and I must commend the KDE team on there not being many more), but also just the fact that Konquror the file manager had more than enough stuffed into it with out need a web browser on top of that. Also, I can't see why they were married in the first place, a web browser and a file manager are two completely seperate concepts. Also, to the person who says this is good integration, it isn't! It would be good integration if clicking an HTML opened it in the appros browser (which I'm sure it does), but making and application bloated in terms of features is bad. Usability?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Anonymous on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @20:00
|
It isn't a matter of making Konqueror a bloated application. It's actually a relatively lightweight container. The parts which are loaded in order to accomplish a task don't need to be loaded at the same time unless you're using both. That goes for the kparts viewers that load directly in Konqueror as well. This argument is somewhat akin to stating that Netscape is a bloated app because Adobe's PDF plugin loads Acrobat Reader in the same window. The main difference is that the apps are more closely knit in KDE, with more options.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Anonnysauraus on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @20:16
|
Re-read my initial post. I said bloated in terms of features, not resources.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Anonymous on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @22:53
|
I did read it, but it seems to miss the point. Konqueror isn't a web browser or file manager. It's a container application, sort of a universal meta-browser. The file manager and HTML renderer are simply plugins. Features can be added or removed dynamically by adding or removing plugins. If you don't use it as a file manager, then it isn't. The same is true about the web browser portion. Calling it bloated in terms of features seems a bit silly since features can be added or removed dynamically. If you take that away, it's no longer Konqueror.
As an example, try right-clicking on a text file in the file manager. Choose "open in new window" from the menu that pops up. If you have the appropriate kpart, voila, Konqueror is now a text editor. Depending on what other plugins are present, other data types may have a part that can be loaded into konqueror. PDF files, filesystem trees and audio files are examples off the top of my head. You can use the location bar or even one of the plugins to access other plugins. IMO, it's a great model for data access that isn't constrained by a focus to be a single type of application.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by koos on Sunday 12/Sep/2004, @11:08
|
Completely agreed with mr. Anonymous from previous post.
If you think konqueror supports to much mimetypes, then go to the 'File Associations' dialog and remove unwanted mimes from the 'Embedding' tab. Eg. to make konqueror not supporting HTML anymore, simply configure it at text/html to not embed with the khtml part, and put your favorite browser on top of the 'Application Preference Order'.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Kosh on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @22:09
|
Actually it helps me get my work done faster that kde is network transparent all over the place and that konqueror is a kpart viewer that uses ioslaves to grab data. I do web stuff for a living and in my world a lot of html resources are on remote sites that I need to access with sftp, ftp, webdav, etc. With konqueror I can go to any url that the system can recognize and an appropriate kpart is launched. khtml will render pages just fine no matter what protocol is used to get them and that saves me many hours a week.
You may consider it bloated and horrible usability but for me it is the primary purpose I use kde. I have used gnome some and the integration was just too painful. In kde I set spellcheck ONCE. I set proxy settings ONCE. I set my default editing compenent ONCE. I set my address book settings ONCE. It just saves me so much time by having stuff network transparent in a world where resources really are network transparent it is just that most are not used to dealing with network transparency. I have also worked with windows and mac machines extensively over the years and for web app stuff I consider them unusable. Overall the ioslave system should be some vfs layer just about the os (ie still userspace but below almost all the rest of userspace) So that you have one http, webdav, sftp, imap, pop, gzip etc layer on the system and EVERY app that uses it can do so. Think of how much nicer many things would be if mozilla, opera, lynx, links, wget etc did not have any understand of http at all but used a very nice vfs layer instead. You could improve the protocol, add a new version, fix bugs etc and all transparent to the apps.
The kde way really is the right way to do this to stop so much duplication of effort and they really have not gone far enough but at least the developers seem to be pushing for more transparency over time.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Luke on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @04:31
|
Completely agree with Kosh - KDE's network transparency is awesome once you get used to it. It's good for new computer users as well - you shouldn't have to use different applications for each type of file resource. Lots of things fit very well into the ioslave model, so you have two great usability bonuses:
- Only learn one overall model for file access. (protocol:/[domain/]path, with graphical browsing to make the path part easy)
- Only learn one interface for file transfers and access (Konqueror)
Compare with the way GNOME are trying to do it - one model for the desktop (spatial), another for file dialogs (hierarchal/browsing), and then another for remote access (URL based). The internet is here to stay and KDE embraces it.
I prefer to think of Konqueror as a GUI equivalent of a shell. No one would say that bash was bloated because you can do a million and one things with it - it is the glue that allows you to use the other programs. Konqueror is the same for file access and viewing, except you don't need to have programmer leanings to use it.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by David on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @10:53
|
"KHTML is great, but having the web browser integrated with the file manager is a real PITA."
That's your opinion, but a lot of us love it. I started my GUI life with OS/2, and was consequently weaned on the document-centric model of the desktop. Windows is the opposite with the application-centric model. What Konqueror does is to provide more document-centricity to the desktop. It's not perfect (nothing is), but being able to browse anything without worrying what application you're using is a major feature.
"a web browser and a file manager are two completely seperate concepts."
Not at all! Think of them as purpose-specific browsers. One browses the web and the other browses the file system. The actions for each are remarkably similar (back, home, follow, etc). Konqueror is a universal viewer with browsing capabilities. It's a generic browser. It's not just for the web or just for the file system. You can browse an ftp site as if it were a remote filesystem, or an audio CD as if it were a digital CD full of MP3 and OGG files. You can browse your photo gallery without having to open each photo in a separate viewer or creating a gallery html page. Dump xman and browse your man pages in Konqueror! Etc, etc, etc.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Boudewijn Rempt on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @12:16
|
Exactly. What a lot of people seem to miss is that much so-called file-management is, in fact, document browsing. Go to some directory. View six out of eight files. Dump the first. Browse somewhere else. Check the contents of a text file.
I seldom use Konqueror for file management -- I more at home with bash -- but I use it a lot for document browsing. And that's where, for instance, the OS X finder falls short.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Monte Lin on Tuesday 07/Jun/2005, @07:32
|
I completely agree.
Take this. In Konqueror, split the content pane into left and right views. Then, click at the right view, click the <home> button to go to your home direcotry. Then, click at the left view, typing "ftp.kernel.org" in the URL bar to get a dirctory listing. Then click and click to find your favoriate version of kernel, point on it, drag it to the right view. After some minutes, you got the .tgz file in your home directory.
Now just double click and double click on the .tgz file to get a virtual directory tree of the new kernel. Right click on the Readme file, select "open in new tab" to view the file in other tab. Or do the same with a .c file and view the source with syntax highlighting. With some setting, you can even view the file in the left view without opening other tab.
I never saw such capability in any other desktop environment. I love and adore Mozilla, but I must dump it after migrating to Konqueror and KDE.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Michael Jahn on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @13:06
|
"Clicking on home takes you to your home directory."
For all those who don't like this behavior: Vote here: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8333. But please, don't add comments before reading through all the comments already made. This bug is already a mess.
BTW: I can only select Encoding: "Plain Text" and the html tags don't work when submitting a comment to the dot. Does anybody know why? I am using Konqueror 3.3
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by AC on Sunday 12/Sep/2004, @10:12
|
People used to abuse HTML comments, so it was disabled.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Morten on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @19:38
|
I'd like that very much.
I prefere Firefox, but I use konqueror because:
1. Little-to-none respect for (KDE's) file-associations in Firefox and Mozilla, when I click a link to a .pdf in my browser I want it to suggest opening it in the associated program. eg. kpdf.
(I know this might change, if/when KDE/GNOME starts the share MIME-types, but still)
2. Forms looks very bad (old) in Firefox.
3. Different filedialog from the rest of my apps (I use mustly KDE-apps)
4. Very bad printing dialog in Firefox.
5. Konqueror seems to start much faster.
This is NOT a bashing of Firefox, as I already said I prefere Firefox.
I think most of my complains would be resolved if Firefox were ported to Qt/KDE.
I miss my plugins and the better IMO pop-up protector. And oh, I don't want to change browser to use my home-banking, only Firefox+Blackdown-java-1.4.1 works with mine.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Scott on Sunday 12/Sep/2004, @00:54
|
No adblock was the only think keeping me from switching to konq until I found http://www.privoxy.org. Give it a try. It runs circles around adblock, and because it runs as a proxy you can have all your browsers go through it, which is really great if you need to use different browsers for different things during the day.
For me the killer feature in KDE right now is spell checking in every text box. That's why I finally had to switch to konq.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Larry Garfield on Sunday 12/Sep/2004, @22:58
|
Yes! I use/love KDE and Konqueror, but the tight browser/file integration drives me nuts.
To the various people below who point out that Konqueror is just a chrome around IOSlave plugins and that there are profiles etc. etc., you're missing the point. I know how Konqueror is built architecturally, but from a user perspective that is irrelevant. When I am MANAGING files, I want the application to work in one specific way. When I am viewing web pages (i.e., HTTP IOSlave to an apache server somewhere), I want it to behave VERY differently. I want my "browser application" to always have tabs visible, and my "file manager application" to never have tabs visible, because that's how I like to work. I want web URLs on my bookmark toolbar for my "browser application", and either none or common local URLs like my music directory or remote SFTP servers on my "file manager application". Doing that with a single unified program/chrome/framing system is extremely difficult. Perhaps profiles could help there, but the fact that I never figured them out is proof that they're not sufficient. :-)
If the solution is to have a KDEified Firefox as a standalone HTTP-viewing-only application and then just set Konqueror to direct HTTP to KFireFox or whatever, so be it. That would suit me fine.
As for the differences in the engines and their feature sets, welcome to the glory of Free Software. I love the auto-spellcheck in Konqueror. No reason that can't be ported into Gecko. I find the popup blocking in Firefox far superior to that in Konqueror. Port that over into KHTML/Konqueror. Let both engines share and improve. That's what makes FS/OSS superior to proprietary/closed software. Both sides can improve without anyone being bought out.
And if in the end we end up with Gecko-with-KHTML-inspired-improvements as the de facto default browser/engine for all FS/OSS web browsing, so much the better. This is the browser/engine that the entire security world and Homeland Security (in the US) is recommending over IE, so it's the one that clueful but pragmatic developers are going to support. If the OSS world can standardize on a unified "single target" browser and rendering engine, that provides a united front to make everyone's lives easier and try to stamp out IE, and making the Internet a safer place in the process.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KFirefox?
by Leire on Friday 01/Oct/2004, @02:48
|
I want to use Firefox, but I need that when I open a link to an image file, the file opens in a program different from Firefox. I can do it with konqueror, but I dont know if it is possible whit firefox
Can you help me?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
