Sometimes it is good to have got a very simple browser without popup blocking and such things, even konqueror can be used for that. Some routers only work with popup windows which are blocked by default by firefox/chrome so it could be useful to have got a simple way to check it. But basically thats the only usecase where i use another browser. It does not really matter how much a browser is integrated into a desktop envronment. It has to work and should be fast. In most cases i only use chrome.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
KDE's Rekonq Browser Nears 1.0 w/ New Features
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Kano View PostIt does not really matter how much a browser is integrated into a desktop envronment. It has to work and should be fast.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kano View PostIt has to work and should be fast.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teho View PostQtWebKit browsers like QupZilla and rekonq are quite fast and they will only get faster with the release of Qt 5 as it will be based on V8 javascript engine (also used by Chrome) and WebKit 2 (used by Safari).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teho View PostSure but that's already planned at least for rekonq.
Qt5 will have WebKit1 as well and until I see a port to WebKit2, I do not believe in it.
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by Awesomeness View PostSupport 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
-
Originally posted by Teho View PostHave you though that maybe implemented Chrome extensions isn't exactly trivial (like that there's a reason why no one has done that)?
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 PostWhy in the hell would browser use depracated API when newer is available essentially loosing all new features and improvements by doing so?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Awesomeness View PostSame 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.
Originally posted by Awesomeness View PostMost work has already been done (by someone else, btw).
Comment
Comment