On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:43 PM, 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.
> 2) Slower Konq (maybe qtwebkit to blame)
I find QtWebKit's speed to be perfectly fine (and for the long term, we
we can have QtWebEngine after all, we will need a solution for that anyway
because it will also end up used in other applications than just the
Fine is not fast, we have a faster and better alternative.
> 3) KHTML and QtWebEngine not supporting the latest standard (HTML5).
You mean QtWebKit there. QtWebEngine is not in Fedora yet, and it is based
on Chromium (so supports everything Chromium supports). And QtWebKit
supports a lot of HTML 5, the problem is that the standard is a moving
target! In practice, almost all the web works with QtWebKit (and again, for
the long term, see QtWebEngine).
So we wait (at least) another 9 months before Fedora KDE spin users get a
> 4) The video codecs issue (now, Konq doesn't run YouTube out
of the box),
> even if this bug get fixed, no foreseeable YouTube VP9 support (because
> MSE) in Konq, VP9 is about 60% the size of VP8 at the same quality and is
> supported in Firefox and MSE is being worked on.
Who cares? VP8 works (or should work). We just need to make sure VP8
actually gets used. (And again, for the long term, see QtWebEngine.
Bandwidth? Full HD? Most of the the content I see in VP8 on YouTube are
only 360p, maybe this is a policy, I don't know, but in VP9 it is up to 4K.
> And I think this is absolutely the wrong time to switch our browser
> considering that:
> 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
> so we should have a Qt/KDE replacement for Konqueror soon, no need for a
> non-KDE one.
> Then only add it to the live image, it only needs the word
the kickstart file.
> > Then Rex suggested to discuss this in KDE SIG meeting, on Tuesday,
> > 4-8-2015. In the meeting Kevin Kofler voted against the change.
> > Daniel Vrátil "believes we should go for Firefox with Konqueror as a
> > fallback", but voted against the change to avoid a flame war.
> > 5 other KDE SIG members voted for the change.
> > So without a flame war, we have 6 KDE SIG members
want the change, and
> > Kevin Kofler refuses it.
> What I see is that we have one very vocal user (you)
repeatedly beating the
> 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
> you ask for it.
"NEVER"? In the meeting I thought the opposite, only you refused the
proposal because you hate Firefox, the other 6 members preferred another
option to Konqueror, I am not beating a dead horse, I am looking for the
benefit of Fedora KDE users, and only YOU are preventing any effort to
replace Konqueror or add another option.
If you don't want to change the default browser, at least add Firefox.
We already ship 3 file managers (Dolphin, Konqueror, and Krusader), why a
good browser should not be added?
> Kevin Kofler
> kde mailing list
> New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org