Felix Miata wrote:
>> Doesn't Firefox default to the same UI solution (popup menu button) these
>> days? You probably have a very old Firefox profile. Please compare
>> default settings.
>
> Absolutely not. Those are missing features in the others. I have lots of
> profiles. It's already a lot of working fixing the brokenness of too
> frequent UI paradigm changes.
How is it fair to compare a Firefox tuned to your liking for "over a decade"
(as you wrote in another paragraph) to a QupZilla with default settings that
you made almost no attempt at customizing?
>> QupZilla has a preference to enable the traditional menu bar. If there is
>
> I looked for that right away, and couldn't find any such.
Either:
a) right-click on a button or an empty space of the main toolbar, "Menu Bar"
or:
b) click on the menu popup button, View, Toolbars, Menu Bar
will do it.
>> consensus that this should be the way it should look, I can enable it by
>
> Like I said already, how it works trumps how it looks.
I mean the way how it should look and feel.
>> default in our package. (I also prefer the traditional menu bar, and it
>> is consistent with most other applications, though the popup button
>> disease is slowly spreading.) It is just a boolean option to flip.
>
> Where?
See above. Or if we want to flip the default, it would be a boolean in the
C++ code, but that's no longer your problem then.
> None of the UI fonts in that screenshot are bold. At 120 DPI, 10pt fonts
> calculate to 16.667px, which means 17px glyphs are used, and the stem
> weight on the Droid fonts used by FF and Chromium have apparently made the
> transition from 1px that smaller screen fonts are cursed with to 2px
> nominal that happens around 17px-18px.
So this is really about different hinting settings between different
toolkits? I think that what you are seeing *is* the same font family (it has
been confirmed that QupZilla picks up the Plasma font settings just fine),
it is just being rendered differently.
If you uploaded your screenshot as a lossless PNG rather than a very low-
quality JPG, I would also be able to analyze the rendering differences in a
better way. (Right now, I cannot see what, if any, anti-aliasing is being
done in either case, because the JPEG artefacts eat it all up.)
> Much as I prefer QT to other toolkits, Apple's control over it makes me
> wish it wasn't the only serious alternative to GTK, and wonder how much
> how much of Plasma shortcomings that depend on QT aren't insidious
> intentions of Apple.
Huh??? The only part of Qt that Apple had any control over was the now
deprecated and community-maintained QtWebKit (where Apple was upstream).
Apple controls "QT" as in QuickTime, which has absolutely nothing to do with
Qt. (Apple QuickTime is proprietary software and as such not even included
in Fedora.)
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
kde mailing list
kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
