On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:13:48 +0200
stakanov
On 2017-04-14 21:42, stakanov wrote:
In data venerdì 14 aprile 2017 21:26:15, Michal Suchánek ha scritto:
Such as konqueror? It's a kind of zombie of a web browser that nobody can take seriously for years already but it's still *the* KDE web browser .. because k*
I like Konqueror. It has gotten too little attention. But still it is, IMO, better the then google chromium crap. Does not crack on my privacy. And sometimes, when all fails, well, it happens that konqueror still works.
Firefox does not crack on your privacy any more that Konquerer AFAIK. Yes, Chrome is bad with always asking Google if it can fart. Either of these are browsers that work for most of the web which is something Konqueror cannot claim.
Question is: why does it bother you. Uninstall it. There are AFAIK no dependencies that forces you to use it.
I do not even install it for years already. The thing is: user installs *the* KDE web browser. It fails to render their favorite web page. That's a bad KDE experience because it is the KDE web browser. Compared to that GNOME used to have GNOME branded Gecko based Galeon. They figured they cannot keep up maintaining it so they just dropped it and nobody heard of it for years - see the difference there?
Thanks
Michal Well, one could then opt to not install it from default but put a
In data venerdì 14 aprile 2017 21:54:52, Michal Suchánek ha scritto: pattern. Still, who knows Konqueror appreciate it. Just because a webside doesn't render I have a bad KDE experience? Well, IF a browser is so important for the identification of a DE, then this calls for immediate brush up and polish of of Konqueror, the most important piece of software in KDE? See, IMO, everything, in a harmonic and integrated way, is part of a DE. Thus, it is not by criticizing the surplus and the richness that you are going to tackle the problem. FF with me is so crippled and defended by noscript, selfdestructing cookies, https everywhere, ublock etc that sometimes invasive websites I can simply not open.
You don't have to use noscript, ublock, https everywhere, and whatnot in firefox. IIRC it is not even the default so you had to opt in for all or most of these features that cripple FF experience for you. The problem I see with konqueror is not the software or its availability but the presentation of its quality. The description of Konqueror says "File and Web Browser". Nowhere does it give a hint that it is somewhat simplistic/experimental/alternative compared to the "full featured" web browsers like Firefox or Chromium. In my experience it fails to render many pages I commonly use that Firefox and Chromium render .. usable. I do not do pixel-perfection tests. I just want web pages that work OK and konqueror does not deliver that for me. So the package description does not match the content which is probably the problem that causes the perceived low quality of KDE software. KDE fails to mark some features as experimental/outdated/abandoned and people only find out after trying to use them. Thanks Michal -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org