Rekonq default

Eike Hein hein at
Sun Feb 21 00:44:56 GMT 2010

On 2/20/2010 7:46 PM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> if we were to do this, i think we'd have to be _extremley_ careful in doing so
> and be very, very sure that konqueror as a file manager is not needed, not
> least because we said quite openly that we would NOT do this. it would likely
> be seen as us being sneaky: tell people not to worry, we won't do that thing
> and then we do it. :/ not very cool.

I guess my view of the situation is that the people
who asked us to keep Konqueror around did so out of
the concern that Dolphin would be a dumbed-down file
manager without advanced functionality. I think Dol-
phin's development the past few releases has proven
those fears unfounded. If the promise was to keep
offering advanced file management functionality in
the KDE SC, then I feel that Dolphin makes good on
that promise to a degree that it frees us up to con-
sider changing Konqueror in ways not previously an-

But yes, I agree we can't do so unless we're very
sure the userbase actually feels that way. We don't
want to break our promises of course.

Still, there's a lot of value in the web browser
parts of Konqueror, and IMHO it'd be a shame if we
could no longer tap that value going forward be-
cause Konqueror's present design is immutable and
not what we want our default browser to be. That's
a shitty situation to be in. I also think it would
be a shame to give up on the Konqueror brand -
which most people associate with "web browser" ra-
ther than "file manager" (is my experience/feeling,
i.e. it's as made-up as Karli's 80% statistic ;).

Best regards,
Eike Hein

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list