| |||||||||||||
"Dependent on" ???"Dependent on" ???Posted Feb 27, 2007 18:12 UTC (Tue) by i3839 (guest, #31386)In reply to: "Dependent on" ??? by AnswerGuy Parent article: Mitchell Baker and the Firefox Paradox (Inc)
It seems to try telling us that Firefox is better that most other open source software, because they've tougher competition. Which is rich, considering where it's coming from.
Firefox started as a Mozilla fork with reduced fat and different functionality. In the Phoenix and Firebird days each release produced a noticeably faster and better application. Unfortunately that line of improvement has been abandoned long ago after it was embraced as the default browser by the Mozilla project.
I don't see much realistic and usable alternatives for Mozilla/Firefox. Konqueror depends on KDE, Opera is closed source, anything else out there for Linux or BSD users?
(Log in to post comments)
"Dependent on" ??? Posted Feb 27, 2007 18:23 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I think a browser would only get enough attention from the developers if it's cross platform. We may see attempts to decouple Konqueror or parts of it from KDE once it's ported to Qt4.
"Dependent on" ??? Posted Feb 27, 2007 18:55 UTC (Tue) by tnoo (subscriber, #20427) [Link] and Safari?
"Dependent on" ??? Posted Feb 27, 2007 20:34 UTC (Tue) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] You mean something like: http://gtk-webcore.sourceforge.net/ ?(according to site, released open source October 19th, 2004)
"Dependent on" ??? Posted Feb 27, 2007 21:06 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] No, I mean a browser that uses more than just the rendering engine from Konqueror. Also, the choice of gtk+ doesn't seem very wise to me. I'm not aware or any large collaborative cross-platform project using gtk+. Whether we consider gaim or Evolution or gimp, the Windows port is always an effort of one or two developers. That won't work for a competitive browser. Using gtk+ also means that other Konqueror code just cannot be used, and it would likely discourage Konqueror developers from contributing.
"Dependent on" ??? Posted Feb 28, 2007 0:24 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I use Epiphany.
If you remember Galeon, it was 'Firefox' before there was a firefox. 'Just the web' sort of approach and used the Mozilla engine. Well Epiphany is a fork from that, and later Galeon development was folded back into Epiphany, more or less. It's now the official browser of Gnome.
It's lighter on the resources then Firefox, especially when used in Gnome, although it's not especially lighter.
I like it becaue of that, but also because it's not fancy and it integrates into Gnome much much nicer then Firefox. For instance through Gnome it supports theming properly and it does things like support the *.desktop standard properly so that applications you choose for media types through nautilus will be used by Epiphany's settings also.
I like how easy it is to arrange buttons along the top. I also like that it's using the mozilla engine.
It doesn't support Firefox's extensions although you can write your own in C, python or c# (rather then just javascript).
I don't care if it runs on OS X or windows or if supports all the plugins or add-ons and so on and so forth. I just want a browser and Epiphany does a decent enough job.
"Dependent on" ??? Posted Feb 28, 2007 0:26 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] ps. It does support firefox plugins though. Flash, java, totem-mozilla/gxineplugin, etc.
Just not all the extensions.
Konqueror works fine without KDE Posted Feb 28, 2007 13:33 UTC (Wed) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] Konqueror pulls in some KDE libraries, but I'm using it just fine in myfvwm2-with-xterms environment.
|
|||||||||||||