Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE's Rekonq Browser Nears 1.0 w/ New Features

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Teho View Post
    Sure but that's already planned at least for rekonq.
    Support for Chrome extensions is planned since when? Two years or so? And that feature has semi-working code already. However, the Rekonq author (or his employer Blue Systems, not sure) found crap like sync support more important.
    Qt5 will have WebKit1 as well and until I see a port to WebKit2, I do not believe in it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Whether you like rekonq or not, any desktop environment these days has to inculde a web browser in their distribution. If only to let you download Firefox/Chrome/whatever. Making that default browser as good as possible, does not seem like a bad idea, no matter how you look at it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
        Support for Chrome extensions is planned since when? Two years or so? And that feature has semi-working code already. However, the Rekonq author (or his employer Blue Systems, not sure) found crap like sync support more important.
        Qt5 will have WebKit1 as well and until I see a port to WebKit2, I do not believe in it.
        Have you though that maybe implemented Chrome extensions isn't exactly trivial (like that there's a reason why no one has done that)? Why in the hell would browser use depracated API when newer is available essentially loosing all new features and improvements by doing so? Sure it might not happen righ away but it's obvious top priority. It will take some time before KDE will move to Qt 5 though. Also he is only sponsored to work on rekonq by Blue Systems and it's definetly not his fulltime job.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Teho View Post
          Have you though that maybe implemented Chrome extensions isn't exactly trivial (like that there's a reason why no one has done that)?
          Most work has already been done (by someone else, btw).
          While Sync support in browsers is currently the thing to do, I've never met anyone who actually used it. OTOH it's quite hard to find a Firefox/Chrome user who's not using at least one extension these days.

          If I was head of Blue Systems, I had put my money to pay for rather complete extension support. And if I was paying already anyway, I had extended the contract to cover Mozilla JetPack API extensions as well.

          Originally posted by Teho View Post
          Why in the hell would browser use depracated API when newer is available essentially loosing all new features and improvements by doing so?
          Same reason you gave for not supporting Chrome extensions: It's easier. Rekonq uses WebKit1 now and when moving to Qt5, using the WebKit1 API instead of the WebKit2 one is pretty trivial.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
            Same reason you gave for not supporting Chrome extensions: It's easier. Rekonq uses WebKit1 now and when moving to Qt5, using the WebKit1 API instead of the WebKit2 one is pretty trivial.
            QtWebKit is there only to ease up the transition. WebKit is the most important part of browser and obviouly having up to date version is top priority. Extensions are optional altough very important.

            Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
            Most work has already been done (by someone else, btw).
            Only thing I can find is source code from year 2010. Altough I remember hearing that somebody might work on it there isn't any such code in rekonq repository.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
              While Sync support in browsers is currently the thing to do, I've never met anyone who actually used it. OTOH it's quite hard to find a Firefox/Chrome user who's not using at least one extension these days.
              I use Sync in Firefox all the time to keep my bookmarks synchronized between machines. I've got a laptop and desktop. My desktop is dual boot Windows7/Mint13, and my laptop triple boots Windows 7, Ubuntu 12.04, and Mac OS X 10.7. Because of Sync in Firefox, all of my bookmarks are the same on all of my OS installs, and I no longer have to remember which Firefox profile has the bookmark that I currently need to find.

              Technically I use Firefox extensions because I do web development at work, and I have the Web Developer and Firebug extensions installed there. I don't currently use extensions on any of my personal systems.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                While Sync support in browsers is currently the thing to do, I've never met anyone who actually used it. OTOH it's quite hard to find a Firefox/Chrome user who's not using at least one extension these days.
                Yes, but I suspect a lot of people are using them for things that are built into rekonq. For example adblock, batch downloaderers, "speed dial", advanced web inspector, on-demand flash, and user agent switcher are all built into rekonq while firefox requires extensions.

                I guess a better question is, what features does rekonq lack that you would want extensions for?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                  I guess a better question is, what features does rekonq lack that you would want extensions for?
                  There are many. For example I have transmission web interface extension that makes it easy to manage the remote torrent client. If I press torrent links it automaticly starts the download. Then I have extensions for Google Mail, Calendar and Reader making it easy to monitor the updates without going to the sites themselves. Then there are various little tweaks like removing scroll bars on all web pages, SSL enforcer, privacy extensions, (disconnected, ghostery...) and web site tweaks that are easier to manage than user scripts like StyleBot, Minimalist for Everything (Google products) and Reddit Enchancement suite. Chrome extension support would be totally awesome but I highly doubt that implementing it is trivial.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Teho View Post
                    Only thing I can find is source code from year 2010. Altough I remember hearing that somebody might work on it there isn't any such code in rekonq repository.
                    Try here: https://projects.kde.org/projects/ex...onq/repository

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by steveriley View Post
                      I did but there's isn't any Chrome extension support code if I'm not somehow missing it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Teho View Post
                        QtWebKit is there only to ease up the transition. WebKit is the most important part of browser and obviouly having up to date version is top priority.
                        The Qt project is open to include new WebKit snapshots for the WebKit1 API (WebKit1 and WebKit2 are just API versions which say nothing about the WebKit source code itself).
                        The rekonq authors might think that the state of the WebKit1 module is good enough until further 5 sync services are supported.

                        To make myself clear: I'm not bashing the code author. He can obviously do with his time whatever he wants. I merely state that I fail to understand Blue Systems’ decision to seemingly pay him to do whatever he wants instead of what I perceive to be a feature potential Blue Systems customers would prefer to see. (Maybe I'm wrong but that is my perception for now.)

                        Originally posted by Teho View Post
                        Only thing I can find is source code from year 2010. Altough I remember hearing that somebody might work on it there isn't any such code in rekonq repository.
                        Obviously not. Rekonq is in a git repository. As usual for DVCSs, unfinished features are in another branch and not merged until ready. In this case the branch seems to not even be public (he writes “in a local branch”): https://adjamblog.wordpress.com/2012...d-other-jokes/

                        Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                        Yes, but I suspect a lot of people are using them for things that are built into rekonq. For example adblock, batch downloaderers, "speed dial", advanced web inspector, on-demand flash, and user agent switcher are all built into rekonq while firefox requires extensions.

                        I guess a better question is, what features does rekonq lack that you would want extensions for?
                        Well, considering that rekonq does not even support user scripts (the easiest kind of extensions to support), let's begin with Greasemonkey (yes, I know: wrong API but you asked about extensions in general, not only Chrome API extensions).
                        Flash under Linux is absolutely unbearable IMO and I won't use any browser that does not allow me to use https://userscripts.org/scripts/show/87011

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X