Rekonq default

todd rme toddrme2178 at
Sun Feb 21 03:44:10 GMT 2010

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Eike Hein <hein at> wrote:
> On 2/20/2010 7:46 PM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> 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-
> ticipated.

As I stated before, I simply disagree on this.  I still think dolphin
lacks a lot of important advanced functionality present in konqueror.
I don't see any indication it will get this functionality in the
future, nor do I think it necessarily should.  I don't see a problem
having a file browser that is limited to just common file-browsing
tasks and another that has a lot of more advanced capabilities.

> 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.

As a member of the userbase, consider me one vote against this idea
unless Dolphin is able do all file browsing tasks konqueror can
currently do (which it can't presently).


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list