On 7 August 2015 at 14:43, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mustafa Muhammad wrote: >> Some of my points were: >> >> 1) Almost dead upstream for Konq, vs thriving upstream for Firefox, Konq >> may have undiscovered security vulnerabilities, but the limited number of >> users is hiding them. > > The limited number of users also means nobody will be targeting Konqueror > with attacks. IMHO, this is actually an advantage. > That is literally security through obscurity. I know people have tossed that label around inappropriately in the recent past, but relying on an implementation's obscurity to defend it is the actual meaning. > And I think this is absolutely the wrong time to switch our browser > considering that: > 1. we are already in F23 Alpha freeze (so it is IMHO too late for F23) and > 2. the QtWebEngine situation appears to be improving (see my proposal mail), > so we should have a Qt/KDE replacement for Konqueror soon, no need for a > non-KDE one. Firefox is already in the distribution and being tested for alpha. The QtWebEngine replacement for Konqueror will not be for the same reason. > What I see is that we have one very vocal user (you) repeatedly beating the > same dead horse. You were already in the thread months ago and you brought > it up AGAIN. > > A non-KDE browser will NEVER be an option for a KDE spin no matter how often > you ask for it. > To be perfectly honest, I use KDE, but not the KDE spin, so I don't care what's chosen as the default there. But I don't think Konqueror gives new users the best experience. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk _______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
