The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: forking konqueror !
by christoph on Monday 31/Mar/2008, @11:41
|
If you _really_ need a simple browser, use the Qt 4.4 demo browser (WebKit based). It works quite ok in the current Qt snapshots.
But then, I hear your complaints about missing KWallet integration, missing this, missing that...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror ! - no need: Firefox
by Max on Monday 31/Mar/2008, @13:38
|
What's wrong with Firefox?
That's an awesome web-browser!!!
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror ! - no need: Firefox
by Grósz Dániel on Monday 31/Mar/2008, @14:51
|
Not KDE - looks different, starts slower and consumes more memory (due to not using shared KDE libs), cannot use kio slaves, cannot use kparts, cannot stort passwords in kwallet, doesn't open files with KDE's file associations etc.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror ! - no need: Firefox
by Dan on Monday 31/Mar/2008, @16:16
|
It's a piece of bloated shit.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror ! - no need: Firefox
by fred on Monday 31/Mar/2008, @21:02
|
Firefox is awesome in Windows. But Firefox in Linux is simply inferior compared to Firefox in Windows (major complaint: SLOW). I use Firefox in Vista, and in the same machine I use Linux - Debian, the same version of Firefox feels so slow and sluggish. Thats why I always use Konqueror/KHTML.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror ! - no need: Firefox
by yves on Tuesday 01/Apr/2008, @00:42
|
You will be happy to see that Firefox 3 is a *lot* faster, in painting in general, and as well in page rendering.
I switched to the beta some weeks ago, and whenever I accidentally launched firefox2 instead of firefox3, it felt as if my browser had a 100kg steelball towed to it's feet and was crawling on all fours
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror ! - no need: Firefox
by fred on Tuesday 01/Apr/2008, @07:50
|
That would be good news! Because I usually need to have 1 or 2 firefox tabs to open gmail or other google ajax application (sad - even though gmail works with Konqueror user agent spoofing, it has few annoying issues).
But I already fall in love with Konqueror/KHTML :D
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror ! - no need: Firefox
by T. J. Brumfield on Tuesday 01/Apr/2008, @07:51
|
Firefox has branches for all kinds of options and operating systems. It had a QT branch ages ago, but it was abandoned. Personally, I'd love to see a QT 4 branch of Firefox that integrates well into KDE.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror ! - no need: Firefox
by Grósz Dániel on Tuesday 01/Apr/2008, @12:34
|
Maybe a Gecko kpart would be more realistic.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: forking konqueror !
by makosol on Monday 31/Mar/2008, @14:03
|
Firefox is great indeed but not integrated into KDE at all
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror !
by Sutoka on Monday 31/Mar/2008, @14:24
|
Theres not really anything stopping anyone from writing a full web browser based on either QtWebKit or KHTML (or both).
I think it'd be interesting to see what a web browser equivalent of Dolphin would look like. I'd imagine it'd be much easier to maintain than something like Konqueror (which'd make sense, as Konqueror is far more than just a web browser), and fortunately most of the KDE infrastructure like KWallet is quite easy to use (I'd imagine the other side would be harder, i.e. knowing when you need the information and where to put it into the webkit/khtml widget). You could use something like Kross and D-Bus to allow plugins in a variety of languages as well.
I've actually been planning on trying my hand at writing a web browser based on QtWebKit in Qt4.4 (I did some work with Tech Preview 1, but ran into some bugs with QtWebKit in that version, and the Beta1 build for Windows didn't include the binaries needed for QtWebKit and I haven't gotten around to compiling it myself on Windows or Linux). If I /do/ make something thats somewhat decent I'll probably post it to kde-apps.org. And who knows, it may actually attract some attention and eventually be included in KDE 4.some-really-large-number (in which case I'd want to add support for using KHTML as an alternative backend).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
A Dolphin-esk web browser
by kwilliam on Monday 31/Mar/2008, @21:23
|
"I think it'd be interesting to see what a web browser equivalent of Dolphin would look like."
It's interesting, because Dolphin started out to be a simple, Nautilus-like file manager, but has become more powerful in some respects than Konqueror for file managing. (I like the favorites dropdown in the address bar and the Columns view.) Include tabs, port a few more of the views from KDE 3, and allow more than two folders in "Split View", and Dolphin would be completely superior for file managing. If a "simple" web browser was started based on WebKit, it might quickly surpass Konqueror in web browsing functionality. Don't get me wrong, I love Konqueror (I use it's split views all the time), but there doesn't seem much advantage to having a web browser and a file manager combined. Aside from forward and back buttons, there's almost nothing in common between web browsing and file browsing.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
simple web browser Re: A Dolphin-esk web browser
by Anon on Tuesday 01/Apr/2008, @01:15
|
> If a "simple" web browser was started based on WebKit, it might quickly surpass Konqueror in web browsing functionality.
Why does everyone assume this?
a) Read the post farther up saying what KDE-integration functionality you'd lose.
b) Where would all these magic developers come from? Lots of hype, no action.
c) Someone already started a WebKit browser. It doesn't do much.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: simple web browser Re: A Dolphin-esk web brows
by Louai Al-Khanji on Wednesday 02/Apr/2008, @15:33
|
If the browser you are referring to is safra in playground then that someone is me. It's a very young project, patience. ;) I'm also waiting for qt-copy to be updated.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: A Dolphin-esk web browser
by Grósz Dániel on Tuesday 01/Apr/2008, @12:42
|
What Konqueror has is not specifically web browsing or file management - it can display whatever type of file (directory, html, pdf etc. with kparts) which is accessed via whatever protocol (file:, http:, ftp: etc. with kio slaves). File management (directory via file: or sometimes ftp:, sftp: etc.) and web browsing (html, sometimes pdf, doc, etc. via http: or https:) are special cases of this, but not the only case that someone may want to use.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: A Dolphin-esk web browser
by Grósz Dániel on Tuesday 01/Apr/2008, @12:47
|
However, most of the kparts have a standalone application also (kpdf part has kpdf, etc., now file management dolphin part has dolphin) so a standalone app for html browsing wouldn't be a problem, if someone writes it. However, most web browsers are able to display not only html, but pdf and other file types also. That's what Konqueror can do easily and it would be silly not to reuse the kparts technology - and if a browser reuses kparts to display whatever file type, it is essentially the same as Konqueror.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: forking konqueror !
by DanaKil on Monday 31/Mar/2008, @15:31
|
konqueror is great as a file browser and as a web browser ! I just hope it get Kross one day :) (maybe a way to do some simple firefox-like extension)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror !
by Niklas on Monday 31/Mar/2008, @18:32
|
> ... but am i the only who thinks that konqueror is too much
Yup, you are ;-)
Konqui is the best horse in the stable!
feels lean and slippy - on the contrary - being able to even broaden konquis functionality with further add-ons would be great
"No fake - I'm a big fan of konqueror, and I use it for everything." -- Linus Torvalds
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror !
by SP on Tuesday 01/Apr/2008, @14:04
|
I don't understand. Why don't you just stop using it for other things than web browsing then?
I use Konqueror for a lot of things, web browsing is only a small part of it. I browse local files, remote directories, remote shares, source code repositories, zip/rar/tar-archives and web sites. I also view pictures and movies in it, along with pdfs, chm-files and other document types. The fact that it adapts itself to what you are doing is just awesome.
Every functionality that Konqueror has is actually just KParts. Konqueror loads all these parts on-demand, so if you're not using them, you're not 'paying' for them. What would be the point of removing this?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: forking konqueror !
by JRT on Wednesday 02/Apr/2008, @20:54
|
The myth of the _web_browser again. There is no such thing. Firefox is NOT a webbrowser; it is just a browser that can browse files in any location.
So, what do you mean by a webbrowser? Would it simply be a browser like Firefox that does not include a file manager? Or, do you want a browser application that is not able to use the protocol: "file:///" to browse files on your local system?
|
[
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)
