Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Firefox Might Finally Be Moving Closer To Better KDE Integration

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

  • Firefox Might Finally Be Moving Closer To Better KDE Integration

    Phoronix: Firefox Might Finally Be Moving Closer To Better KDE Integration

    For KDE desktop users unhappy with the level of integration with Mozilla's Firefox web browser, the situation might finally be changing...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTczODk

  • #2
    Does this mean we might see a Qt port of FF in the future or is it just about the Dolphin File manager.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
      Does this mean we might see a Qt port of FF in the future or is it just about the Dolphin File manager.
      As I understands it this is mostly up to the community. Even the gtk integration is mostly done by the community as I understands it. I think it always has been like that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Developer time is probably better spent on making Qupzilla better. I can't wait to use lxqt + qupzilla in my qt environment.

        I, for one, welcome our new qt overlords.

        Comment


        • #5
          Or Rekonq. I love Rekonq. Just wish someone would fix the KTextEdit submission bug where if you type too fast in the address bar and hit enter, you don't get the complete text you typed.

          I tried, but getting into the internals of the frameworks gave me a migraine.

          Other than that, it has all the key parts - auto searching, syncing (via ftp atm, hopefully eventually via something else) adblock, and there is active development on supporting Chrome extensions.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thunderbird needs it even more

            While Firefox can be reasonably integrated with some tweaking (more like making GTK+ play well with KDE in general), Thunderbird is in the worse position. For example on Windows it has good indicators for new mail (in the system tray). Good luck having the same level of comfort with notifications in KDE...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
              Does this mean we might see a Qt port of FF in the future or is it just about the Dolphin File manager.
              Probably to my reading of the threads, it's something along the lines of the openSUSE FF integration, which seems to me to work pretty well in openSUSE releases including Tumbleweed rolling release, issues with dialogs, icons and copy/paste annoyances which make FF clumsy in KDE environment. My reading of the original thread, was it's other distros who have trouble porting it consistently without the original developer.

              A Qt based FF would be nice, I'm just not sure where/what is going to motivate the effort. On Desktop RAM has grown faster than FireFox memory consumption, just tried visiting same pages/tabs with Reqonq for a comparison and it did save 200MB overal, with more shared; but that's freshly started without all the Add Ons, syncing and vast bookmark collection that the frontline browser accumulates.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shmerl View Post
                While Firefox can be reasonably integrated with some tweaking (more like making GTK+ play well with KDE in general), Thunderbird is in the worse position. For example on Windows it has good indicators for new mail (in the system tray). Good luck having the same level of comfort with notifications in KDE...
                There's a chicken and egg situation there. KDE has it's own capable integrated Mail client, so there's likely few KDE users who use Thunderbird, or developers who care about it.

                KDE's own browser tech suffered comparatively in feature race so FF was main browser (even under KDE) in the large distros (eventually selected as the best available starting point by Apple for Safari).

                Comment


                • #9
                  FINALLY... This (and oo.org integration... and most of all, the poor flash for Linux) have been anoying me a lot for years and years !

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by torturedutopian View Post
                    FINALLY... This (and oo.org integration... and most of all, the poor flash for Linux) have been anoying me a lot for years and years !
                    Shameful software such as flash don't deserve a better support for linux, they just deserve to die... modern browser supports everything flash is capable, even protected content like netflix will soon be supported

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I guess it's a chance for Firefox to pick up the ball that Google Chrome dropped. Chrome simply raised a giant middle finger to Linux users when they switched away from Gtk. They now use their own GUI toolkit (I forgot its name) that does not integrate AT ALL with Linux. It looks as alien as running a Windows application in Wine.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                        I guess it's a chance for Firefox to pick up the ball that Google Chrome dropped. Chrome simply raised a giant middle finger to Linux users when they switched away from Gtk. They now use their own GUI toolkit (I forgot its name) that does not integrate AT ALL with Linux. It looks as alien as running a Windows application in Wine.
                        Neither mozilla gives much of a fuck about Linux but thats another story. In an ideal world we would have ports for all the toolkits (since XUL is supposed to be able to do that) wayland support and thunderbird wouldn't look like it came from 2005.

                        BUt i understand. We are just a minority.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rob11311 View Post
                          A Qt based FF would be nice, I'm just not sure where/what is going to motivate the effort. On Desktop RAM has grown faster than FireFox memory consumption, just tried visiting same pages/tabs with Reqonq for a comparison and it did save 200MB overal, with more shared; but that's freshly started without all the Add Ons, syncing and vast bookmark collection that the frontline browser accumulates.
                          I don't understand your point. Qt uses more RAM than Gtk, therefore a Qt-based FF would be even heavier than the gtk-based one?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                            Does this mean we might see a Qt port of FF in the future
                            To my knowledge, there have been at least two attempts to port FF to Qt, and both failed. Don't bet on any results this decade.


                            Originally posted by curaga View Post
                            I don't understand your point. Qt uses more RAM than Gtk, therefore a Qt-based FF would be even heavier than the gtk-based one?
                            Qt is indeed a bit heavyweight if all you need is a XUL backend. But on a Qt based desktop, most of Qt is already in shared memory, so a Qt based browser can improve memory usage and browser startup time.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                              I guess it's a chance for Firefox to pick up the ball that Google Chrome dropped. Chrome simply raised a giant middle finger to Linux users when they switched away from Gtk. They now use their own GUI toolkit (I forgot its name) that does not integrate AT ALL with Linux. It looks as alien as running a Windows application in Wine.
                              Mind you, in Win8 Chrome almost self-hosts its own operating system inside Windows.
                              http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/53...e-os-interface

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X