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, @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.

Related Links

·   Articles on Developer
·   Also by Jim
·   Contact author

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


		"I tried to play with some toy applications and enjoyed it." -- Werner Trobin
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.