faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
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? |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
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 ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
