Rex Dieter wrote:
> Advantages and features include:
> * based on same rendering engine as qtwebengine (that qupzilla uses)
So why not use the native adaptation (QupZilla) instead?
> * has active, well-supported upstream
So do QtWebEngine and QupZilla.
> * some kde integration: kde file dialogs, kwallet for secrets
QupZilla has those too, and in addition, a more native look&feel, by using
Qt rather than Aura or GTK+.
> * supports most chrome addons/extensions
That's the only thing that could make users prefer Chromium. I think that
should not be the killer argument. The point of a web browser is still to
browse the web, not to host extensions. :-)
> Disadvantages include:
> * pretty new to fedora (only a few weeks)
By that very same argument, the stable QupZilla 2.0.0 and QtWebEngine 5.6.0
releases were rejected as a default for Fedora 24.
> * packaging/buildsystem is... messy and fragile (not unique here,
> qtwebengine suffers similarly but less so)
"but less so" indeed: QtWebEngine builds less of the bundled junk than
Chromium, and a lot of the gyp PITA is hidden behind a more usable qmake
project.
> * not 100% native (like qupzilla)
Right, and as I mentioned above, this directly affects the look&feel the
user will see. Chromium does not look native at all, and probably also feels
different from a Qt application to most users. Just look at the title bar,
the icons, the widget style, etc.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
kde mailing list
kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
