[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Default browser of FC3?



On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:03:30 -0600, Stephen J. Smoogen <smooge gmail com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:09:42 +0200, Kyrre Ness Sjobak
> <kyrre solution-forge net> wrote:
> > lør, 09.10.2004 kl. 15.28 skrev Panu Matilainen:
> > > Is FC3 really going to ship with Epiphany as the default browser? I mean
> \> For those who believe that it should be gnome/kde neutral: No, it must
> > not. Of cource, ideally, kde should be able to have its own default
> > browser. But when you *choose* to go for KDE instead of GNOME, it can be
> > safely assumed that you are competent enough to find yourself another
> > browser.
> 
> And with welcoming attitudes like that.. a different distribution.
> 
> --
> Stephen J Smoogen.
> Professional System Administrator
You know... I just decided to give Epiphany a spin in FC3 T3, not all
bad. *But* (dealbreaker(tm) for me,,,
I noticed that Mozilla (waytoomany MB for my laptop) was showing up in
my yum update post install. Funny, since I had in no way shape or form
chosen moz from the graphical internet options when I installed T3... 
So I did the following:
[root swlt01 ~]# rpm -e mozilla
and got:
error: Failed dependencies:
        mozilla = 37:1.7.3 is needed by (installed) epiphany-1.4.0-0.3.6
(rant on)
This is beyond rude. The slick integrated lightweight Epihphany
browser deps on the alltoobloated moz browser? I'm done w/ that. I
liked Epihany enough to play with it but *really* would rather just go
w/ firefox & lose the moz dep/provide altogether as far as I can
tell... yrrgh... ugly
(rant off)
Actually a neat browser <but> one of the reasons I prefer Firefix is
its modular nature, If I wanted to install Mozilla well then I'd
install the whole monolithic shebang wouldn't I?

Ymmv :)

Jon


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]