Markus Slopianka wrote:
Um, is there a reason why QupZilla <http://www.qupzilla.com/>
included or is this just an oversight?
It was brought up on the chan later (and so far didn't get much support).
Mainly, we didn't consider it right away because it's a (mostly) Qt-only
browser (one out of several QtWebKit browsers, actually, e.g., there's also
Arora). Maybe we should reconsider. (Christoph Wickert also says QupZilla is
the best Qt browser, that's why he maintains the Fedora package.)
QupZilla is a Qt-based web browser that currently is better
than Konqueror and Rekonq together. Konqueror's UI is very cluttered,
whereas Rekonq's UI is not conforming to KDE standards, eg. no menu bar
(not even optional), tabs on top (IIRC not configurable), etc.).
I don't personally like Rekonq's UI either, I prefer Konqueror.
QupZilla's look is indeed more customizable, the default looks more like
Konqueror (I just tried it), one of the screenshots on the website shows it
set up to look like Rekonq.
QupZilla OTOH visually fits quite nicely into the rest of KDE
and it has KWallet support.
But it does not support KIO. :-( So, in particular, no man:, info:, gopher:
etc. URLs. (Both Konqueror and Rekonq support that.)
It also does not support KDE web shortcuts, like gg: to search in Google,
bz: for Red Hat Bugzilla with a bug ID, bug: for KDE Bugzilla with a bug ID
etc. :-( (Both Konqueror and Rekonq support that, too.)
Also, Edit / Preferences does not comply to the KDE HIG. (It's a GNOMEism.)
So, unfortunately, it shows that it is Qt-only, KDE integration is only
That said, you have a good point there, in particular one against Firefox:
Firefox does not support KWallet! Another very strong reason not to default
to it. Folks, you can argue all you want that users "don't notice" missing
system integration, but for KWallet, users WILL notice.
It also has good extension support, including support for user
That's a plus (and something neither Konqueror nor Rekonq currently have).
I think in general QupZilla also finds the balance of configurability
ease of use that KDE people expect, whereas Konqueror and Rekonq are on
opposite ends of that spectrum.
My personal opinion is that Konqueror is the right approach. But I'll take
any KDE or even Qt-only browser as our default over Firefox any day. (As for
myself, you can pry my Konqueror from my cold, dead hands. ;-) )
A port to the Chromium-based QtWebEngine of Qt 5 is also already
way. The latest version is packaged in Rawhide. In case you use F19 or F20
and want to easily check it out, I've packaged it under
Is QtWebEngine even good enough for that (i.e. writing a browser around it)
yet? The Rekonq developer does not think it is, and based on what I've read
from Qt upstream, I'd tend to agree.
By the way, getting QtWebEngine into Fedora is going to be a real problem.
We don't even have upstream Chromium in because it bundles so many
libraries, and now that thing bundles Chromium! I get the feeling that we
can only get this in if the reviewer closes both eyes deep shut. :-( But
this is going to affect all Qt/KDE browsers and even non-browser
applications (so we won't be able to chicken out of it just by shipping
Firefox) sooner or later. It's a real problem.
Before I switched to Fedora for hardware compatibility reasons, I
conducting my own research on that matter to propose a Qt-based web
browser to openSUSE.
I think I went in with an open mind.
Thank you for your insights.