On Thursday 27 March 2014 01:16:11 Kevin Kofler wrote: > But it does not support KIO. :-( So, in particular, no man:, info:, gopher: > etc. URLs. (Both Konqueror and Rekonq support that.) Right, but I found it an acceptable trade off (YMMV) for a browser that is very actively maintained. Scrolling through commit logs, there is already a bunch of QupZilla contributors visible on the first page of GitHub, whereas Rekonq is pretty much a one-man show of Andrea Diamantini. Konqueror is practically dead with most files not been touched for YEARS! https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/applications/kde-baseapps/repository/revisions/master/show/konqueror When I looked at various browsers, my agenda was to find the best Qt-based web browser available. Not the best manpage browser, not the best Gopher browser. > It also does not support KDE web shortcuts, like gg: to search in Google, > bz: for Red Hat Bugzilla with a bug ID, bug: for KDE Bugzilla with a bug ID > etc. :-( (Both Konqueror and Rekonq support that, too.) I'm not too familiar with QupZilla’s extension infrastructure but I guess these could be added -- if one actually thinks that these shortcuts are a must-have feature (I don't). > Also, Edit / Preferences does not comply to the KDE HIG. (It's a GNOMEism.) In the limited time I had contact with QupZilla's maintainer(s), I found them easy to interact with and open for ideas. I'm sure this is something they would not refuse to implement, esp. if becoming default in Fedora KDE is a prospect. > My personal opinion is that Konqueror is the right approach. But I'll take > any KDE or even Qt-only browser as our default over Firefox any day. (As for > myself, you can pry my Konqueror from my cold, dead hands. ;-) ) As you wrote yourself, this is not about removing options from the repos. ;-) Personally, I use Firefox. While I considered QupZilla of all Qt-based browsers the best candidate for a default in a KDE environment, I would not keep it for me either (so from my own POV it actually does not matter what you'll choose). I think of myself to have a good eye what most regular KDE users want: They are more advanced than the regular Ubuntu user but at the same time not so eager to tweak absolutely everything as Awesome WM users. ;-) So please don't read my mail as one by a fanboy who wants "his" browser to become default. :-) > Is QtWebEngine even good enough for that (i.e. writing a browser around it) > yet? The Rekonq developer does not think it is, and based on what I've read > from Qt upstream, I'd tend to agree. I have no insights into QtWebEngine. All I know about it is from blogs (Digia's and QupZilla's). I'm not sure if QupZilla 2.0 will simply support both QtWebKit and QtWebEngine or rely on QtWebEngine exclusively. http://blog.qupzilla.com/2014/01/qupzilla-161-released.html does not got into detail on that topic. http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/09/12/introducing-the-qt-webengine/ clearly says that Digia "no longer will do any feature development in Qt WebKit". I am not aware of any plans by KDE upstream for their KDEWebKit wrapper to migrate. _______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
