Re: Pleased with QtBrowser

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: Pleased with QtBrowser
by Jim on Thursday 17/Apr/2008, @03:53

> I support Webkit in KDE, but disposing KHTML now is just a plain stupid idea comes from people who does not know how open source works. I'm sorry, but seems you do not really understand how open source works. Saying: dump this because we have better alternative maybe will work in proprietary world. (I also hate when people say that KOffice is a waste of effort because we already have OpenOffice.org)

This is complete nonsense. There's nothing wrong or anti-open-source about dropping a branch when a fork is a better option. It's exactly what happened with GCC/EGCS. Do you think that the GCC developers don't know how open source works?

Related Links

·   Articles on Developer
·   Also by Jim
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Pleased with QtBrowser
by eds on Thursday 17/Apr/2008, @04:19

Nonsense, they are not the same. For the case of EGCS, the FSF themselves who officially announced that they officially terminated old branch of GCC and made EGCS the new GCC. For KHTML vs WebKit case, the (current) KHTML devs still do not want to drop KHTML until several issues have been addressed. Note that they are not opposed in this idea, they just want some issues to be addressed first. So in this case, there is no agreement yet.

And even in the case of KDE really wants to kick KHTML from official KDE (KDE 5 maybe?), everybody is free to maintain KHTML outside KDE.

Really, nothing wrong with dropping a branch or a fork, but you cannot force your opinion to some people who are willing to maintain it. And why the heck we need to drop a stable and actively developed rendering engine?

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pleased with QtBrowser
by Jim on Thursday 17/Apr/2008, @05:32

> For the case of EGCS, the FSF themselves who officially announced that they officially terminated old branch of GCC and made EGCS the new GCC. For KHTML vs WebKit case, the (current) KHTML devs still do not want to drop KHTML until several issues have been addressed. Note that they are not opposed in this idea, they just want some issues to be addressed first.

So why are you accusing luri of not understanding how open source works when he says that "webkit is the future"? He didn't demand that they drop it immediately or anything like that.

> And even in the case of KDE really wants to kick KHTML from official KDE (KDE 5 maybe?), everybody is free to maintain KHTML outside KDE.

Yes, just like anybody is free to maintain the old pre-EGCS GCC. What's your point?

> Really, nothing wrong with dropping a branch or a fork, but you cannot force your opinion to some people who are willing to maintain it.

Who is trying to force anything?

And if there's nothing wrong with dropping a branch, then why are you saying that doing so is anti-open source?

> And why the heck we need to drop a stable and actively developed rendering engine?

Josep already posted some good reasons why.

By definition, you can't drop something that isn't actively developed, so using the fact that it is actively developed as a reason to not drop something is circular logic.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pleased with QtBrowser
by blauzahl on Thursday 17/Apr/2008, @10:05

> He didn't demand that they drop it immediately or anything like that.

He sure implies they might as well.

> Josep already posted some good reasons why.

He didn't post good reasons. He posted poor reasons, and he didn't even bother trying the most recent version of Konqueror to compare. Instead he implies it is so buggy he couldn't even get it to work. It works just fine for me, so if he's having problems, he should be filing bugs.

> By definition, you can't drop something that isn't actively developed, so using the fact that it is actively developed as a reason to not drop something is circular logic.

I'd like to point out that khtml is still under active development. Look at the changelogs for the 4.0.x releases. It's also pretty stable: in all the time I've played with 4, I've only crashed Konq once, and once I reported it, it was fixed within the day.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pleased with QtBrowser
by Jim on Thursday 17/Apr/2008, @11:00

> > He didn't demand that they drop it immediately or anything like that.

> He sure implies they might as well.

No, he didn't. Saying something "is the future" is *explicitly* making a statement not about the present, but the future.

> > Josep already posted some good reasons why.

> He didn't post good reasons.

Fast startup, fast rendering, really simple, very easy to use... they sound like decent reasons to me.

> he didn't even bother trying the most recent version of Konqueror to compare.

Would that be the version of Konqueror tied to the version of KDE that end-users have been told *time and time again* to stay away from because it isn't finished yet? Are you surprised that people are actually taking this advice?

> if he's having problems, he should be filing bugs.

No, if he's having problems, then that justifies his preference for another browser. You can't blame users for choosing a more stable competitor instead of helping you track down bugs.

> I'd like to point out that khtml is still under active development.

I wasn't saying otherwise. I was pointing out that isn't a reason not to drop it.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"World domination doesn't come by itself." -- Ralf Nolden
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.