On 7 August 2015 at 14:43, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Mustafa Muhammad wrote:
> Some of my points were:
> 1) Almost dead upstream for Konq, vs thriving upstream for Firefox, Konq
> may have undiscovered security vulnerabilities, but the limited number of
> users is hiding them.
The limited number of users also means nobody will be targeting Konqueror
with attacks. IMHO, this is actually an advantage.
That is literally security through obscurity. I know people have
tossed that label around inappropriately in the recent past, but
relying on an implementation's obscurity to defend it is the actual
And I think this is absolutely the wrong time to switch our browser
1. we are already in F23 Alpha freeze (so it is IMHO too late for F23) and
2. the QtWebEngine situation appears to be improving (see my proposal mail),
so we should have a Qt/KDE replacement for Konqueror soon, no need for a
Firefox is already in the distribution and being tested for alpha. The
QtWebEngine replacement for Konqueror will not be for the same reason.
What I see is that we have one very vocal user (you) repeatedly
same dead horse. You were already in the thread months ago and you brought
it up AGAIN.
A non-KDE browser will NEVER be an option for a KDE spin no matter how often
you ask for it.
To be perfectly honest, I use KDE, but not the KDE spin, so I don't
care what's chosen as the default there. But I don't think Konqueror
gives new users the best experience.