Kevin Kofler composed on 2016-08-07 23:37 (UTC+0200):
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,
Qt rather than Aura or GTK+.
> * supports most chrome addons/extensions
That's the only thing that could make users prefer Chromium. I
should not be the killer argument. The point of a web browser is still to
browse the web, not to host extensions. :-)
A high proportion of extension functionality here serves the purpose of
restoring functionality (compared to Netscape/Mozilla Suite/SeaMonkey) lost
or rearranged or adding requested-via-BMO but never acquired.
> Disadvantages include:
> * pretty new to fedora (only a few weeks)
By that very same argument, the stable QupZilla 2.0.0 and QtWebEngine
releases were rejected as a default for Fedora 24.
> * packaging/buildsystem is... messy and fragile (not unique
> 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
> * not 100% native (like qupzilla)
Right, and as I mentioned above, this directly affects 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.
I'd never opened QupZilla before now. Opened in F24 without making any
attempt to locate or install any option, plugins, extensions, etc., I don't
see anything but disadvantages compared to FF, and very little to recommend
it over Chromium:
1-Like other non-Gecko, non-KHTML browsers, both cannot be made to obey DPI
(meaning accurate physical sizes in their viewports are impossible unless the
displays' physical DPI is exactly 96).
2-Abundant space wasted wasted making tabs easy to close by accident in both.
3-Main menubar is undiscoverable in both.
4-Search bar is too narrow in both.
5-UI text is not black (as is FF in obeying Plasma desktop settings) in QZ.
6-UI text font family is not as specified in Plasma's desktop settings (seems
to be Oxygen rather than Droid) in QZ.
7-QZ Sticks new "hidden" directories in $HOME at top by capitalizing first
8-Scrollbar is too narrow in both.
9-Same minimalist inadequately emboldened stick-figure icons as displeases me
about Plasma 5 generally, though arguably better than the barely big enough
to target FF native icons.
10-QZ (only) misreports window width.
11-Chrom's urlbar text is too small.
12-Text size buttons missing in both.
If the best user experience is really the goal, FF with a theme custom made
for Plasma and Fedora is probably the best target to shoot for.
In any event, under this roof, usability trumps appearance always. #1 alone
is enough to shoot down anything running on WebKit or Blink engines. The only
times I've ever opened Chrom* is to compare behavior to other browsers. Too
much functionality is missing to use either it for normal browsing. QZ
doesn't look much better.
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/