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

Re: firefox vs epiphany



David Nielsen <david <at> lovesunix.net> writes:
> I use Epiphany, it does what I need without looking out of place, it
> integrates nicely and it launches much faster. It lacks a few things but
> it also leverages a lot of nice features (seemless integration with
> GNOME, adopts theme, icons. Has more consistent translations which don't
> break with version upgrades) and it has a powerful plugin system so we
> can expand it in interesting ways.

I use Konqueror, for much of the same reasons, except s/GNOME/KDE/. :-)

About plugins, Konqueror is more extensible than most people think (there's 
mechanisms available like KParts for file formats (as well as support for most 
Mozilla plugins), servicemenus to easily extend the UI (no C++ needed, they can 
launch commands in any scripting language which can talk back to Konqueror 
through DCOP, or D-Bus in KDE 4), KParts can also provide UI extensions 
(Konqueror's search bar is implemented that way), and the sidebar is also 
extensible with plugins), but unfortunately, those features aren't used much 
(except for the file format KParts). :-( But Konqueror has most features you 
may need built-in already, unlike Firefox which relies a lot on plugins.

        Kevin Kofler


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