faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
|
Looks good!
by Jim on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @04:23
|
I cannot stress enough how important ad-blocking is. I'd never consider using any browser that didn't have something similar to Firefox's AdBlock.
I think Konqueror would also gain a lot more users if it was easier to extend. The extensions I have installed are the main thing keeping me on Firefox.
With Firefox, you can just write a bit of Javascript and XML. With both Firefox and Opera, you can add features by writing a few lines of Javascript with Greasemonkey/user Javascript.
How much quicker would this Konqueror ad-blocking have come about if Konqueror was as easy as Firefox to extend?
Does anybody know if there is ongoing development of KaXUL? Or has it been abandoned? |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Looks good!
by Mickael Marchand on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @04:39
|
well actually the extensions in firefox is also the source of their biggest security holes they have (hopefully _had_).
I prefer not having 'dynamic' extensions if I lose security.
I am fed up of all these browsers that in the name of extensibility drops basic security measures.
Firefox really disappointed me in that area.
These days, security in browsers should always be first and I have to say that konqui is one of those too few browsers I have never had major security concerns.
as soon as you allow a dynamic thing to come into your browser, you definitely open new security bugs.
just my 2c.
Cheers,
Mik
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Looks good!
by Jim on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @05:20
|
> well actually the extensions in firefox is also the source of their biggest security holes they have
What's your basis for claiming that?
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html#Firefox
Doesn't look like many of them are related to extensions as far as I can see.
> as soon as you allow a dynamic thing to come into your browser, you definitely open new security bugs.
Well then Konqueror is no good either, unless you switch off Java, Javascript, plugins, etc.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: On the current state of Konqueror
by Phase II on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @07:43
|
Agreed, Konqueror needs to be able to be extended. I'd like to see Konqueror to become as good as Opera as a browser. I still use Opera for all its small conveniences which is also where I find Koqueror (KDE 3.3 here) still lacking.. something like the session thing could be done as an extension, the rest probably needs to be done in Koqueror itself -- some kind of wishlist here:
- save & restore sessions (Operas *.win files), also session restoring for crashes
- mouse gestures (admittedly I didn't test KHotKeys yet but an Opera compliant preset would be nice)
- the hopefully soon arriving panning (aka continuous smooth scrolling)
- and some more settings as how many connections to allow for one site and overall
Problems I still have with Konqueror:
- different kind of tabs than Opera (again). This also applies to Firefox. The advantage of the more pushbutton like tabs in Opera is that they can be minimized so you can change which tabs you want to see and when. Any chance for it being implemented?
- fullscreen not really implemented? It's just half a fullscreen, menus, address bar (ok might be useful)and status bar still there. Will a full fullscreen be done where only the page can be seen? To me both seems useful.
- revenge of the kparts: currently an image is shown in a gwenview tab here where I can email or compress it or copy it to a location with a rightclick. Somehow this is lacking important functions for the image (on rightclick) like save it, copy it, copy url and properties. Don't really know if Konqueror can't show images on its own or if these functions are missing in the Gwenview kpart.
Konqueror is really good and usable apart from that, but at least for me needs still some tuning to make it first choice as a browser.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: On the current state of Konqueror
by m. on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @12:08
|
Konqueror has "panning", Shift+(UpArrow|DownArrow), at least in 3.4. It also has mouse gestures vie KHotkeys, and it works great and you can configure it as you like.
It also has sessions, called "View Profiles".
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: On the current state of Konqueror
by Hans on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @14:37
|
Konqueror has sommth scrolling (like firefox), just use the Suse RPMs
(or integrate Suse's patch into SVN)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: On the current state of Konqueror
by Phase II on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @19:04
|
But no panning on third mouse button which triggers the notorious x clipboard.
ok the Profiles seemed more like (and probably are) for setting the layout, but perhaps could be fleshed out, with the history of the saved sites. Wasn't that obvious under the settings tab. (usability to the rescue).
The stuff noted under "problems" remains.
Especially Konqueror loading an image in a Gwenview kpart should be emphasized.
This might be handy on a local filesystem, but it's just unusable on a website.
I'd just need about four basic operations on rightclick (save image..., copy image, copy image url, image properties)
and all four are gone because the picture is embedded in the viewing part of an application. Instead I can rotate it now in the browser.. *sigh*
Don't know anymore how it was handled before I installed Gwenview.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: On the current state of Konqueror
by cm on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @19:44
|
I think it's indeed Gwenview that decides what options are shown there.
If you don't want Gwenview to be used for embedded viewing you can tweak that in the control center under KDE Components -> File Associations (for each image type in question): Just change the "Service Preference Order" on the "Embedding tab" of each image type. The entry on top is used.
That way you can keep Gwenview installed and still use something else inside Konqueror.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: On the current state of Konqueror
by Dolio on Monday 13/Jun/2005, @17:05
|
Konqueror does have panning on the third mouse button.
Settings
> Configure Konqueror
> Web Behavior
> Mouse Behavior
> Middle Click Opens URL in Selection
That's enabled by default, but if you turn it off, it does scrolling just as in Firefox, IE and, I assume, Opera.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
How to switch on the ad blocker
by Roland Wolf on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @09:31
|
Hi Jim
I am using Konqueror with an open source ad-blocker:
http://www.privoxy.org
It removes all the blinking stuff from pages. The filter can be tailored to your needs. Give it a try.
Regards, Roland
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: How to switch on the ad blocker
by ac on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @10:43
|
Hmmm, that doesn't sound useful. If it removes all the bl*nking stuff from the page, what's left?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: How to switch on the ad blocker
by Anonymous on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @13:36
|
It's more useful and powerful than that, but it requires quite a bit of tweaking to adjust to your needs.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: How to switch on the ad blocker
by ac on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @19:30
|
You don't blinking say? =)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: How to switch on the ad blocker
by Jim on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @14:02
|
Sorry Roland, Privoxy just doesn't compare. With AdBlock, I see something annoying, I right-click, and block it. Messing around with a proxy every time I see something annoying is too much hassle, I'd rather just put up with the ads.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Looks good!
by Víctor Fernández on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @12:23
|
Firefox extensions create a lot of security holes and make it unstable. I'm the developer of Plastikfox and extensions usually step one on top of other forcing me to do dirty hacks to make it work. They have full access to all the parts of the browser, which is very dangerous. Also, extension developers don't usually care not to do things that could break other extensions. They just care their extension works but sometimes two extensions try to access the same resource causing problems. The result is a bunch of bloated dirty code running on your computer that could explode in your face at any time. If they were implemented in a clean way it would be a point but they don't. That's the reason I don't like extensions and I wouldn't like Konqueror to get that too, or at least in a similar way to Firefox. Perhaps if extensions were implemented in a way similar like plugins are (being them all independent and one extension not having access to others' variables an code) it would be much better.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Looks good!
by Jim on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @13:59
|
> Firefox extensions create a lot of security holes and make it unstable.
What is your basis for saying that? As I pointed out to another person who said the same thing, the facts don't seem to agree with your opinion.
> That's the reason I don't like extensions and I wouldn't like Konqueror to get that too
Erm... Konqueror has been extendable for years. What I'm talking about is making it *easier* to extend.
Right now, you need to extend Konqueror in C++, and that opens up a hell of a lot more ways for an extension writer to screw up than Firefox extensions.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Looks good!
by mabinogi on Thursday 09/Jun/2005, @15:31
|
and why did you think you'd find bugs related to 3rd party extensions in the mozilla bug database?
The trouble with Firefox extensions is that they've given full access to the browser, but are generally only written and maintained by one person. Often someone with very little experience.
They just don't have the same level of QA as the browser itself.
Obviously there are exceptions, but the Firefox extension mechanism opens itself up for a whole lot of half arsed buggy, insecure extensions.
|
[
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)
