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

Re: firefox vs epiphany

On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 23:37 +0100, Lubomir Kundrak wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 23:28 +0100, nodata wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, den 02.12.2007, 22:40 +0100 schrieb Lubomir Kundrak:
> > > On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 14:55 -0500, Louis E Garcia II wrote:
> > > > What is the reasoning for making firefox the default instead of epiphany
> > > > for the gnome desktop? Does epiphany lack certain features?
> > > 
> > > It does.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team)
> > 
> > Care to enlighten us?
> No.
> There is enough documentation available.

Replying to my own message -- numerous people told me that they consider
my reply unprofessional and rude. I definitely didn't mean to be rude or
offensive towards anyone, and I apologize if I was.

I'd like to give a better answer, but I think that in the first place I
shouldn't have replied at all. I assumed that if you compare Firefox and
Epiphany, the feature differencies must be obvioust at the first glance.
Probably it is not true for users that don't use both browsers. So
examples of features I would lack in Epiphany is the bookmarks sidebar,
Firefox plugins (well, maybe these can be enabled somehow, still not as
comfortably as in Ferefox).

Good point I agree with was given in one of replies to this thread --
number of features is not the only fact that decides about a tool being
more suitable as a default one. I did not mean to say that Epiphany
should not be the default browser -- it makes some sense to me, still I
would not use it, so I don't really care.

Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team)

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