Rekonq default

Chani chanika at
Mon Feb 22 09:26:29 GMT 2010

On February 22, 2010 01:05:32 Lubos Lunak wrote:
> Dne Ne 21. Ășnora 2010 13:27:35 Eike Hein napsal(a):
> > On 02/21/2010 12:23 PM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > I fully agree with Aaron on this. I don't want a set of chef's knifes
> > > (each for its special purpose). I need a swiss army knife because of my
> > > way of working.
> > 
> > That's nice and all, but that Swiss army knife hasn't really
> > attracted a lot of developer attention lately. If Konqueror
> > is the advanced file manager in the SC, why isn't it a true
> > superset of Dolphin? It lacks things like Places integration
> > or Nepomuk integration. Meanwhile Dolphin has caught up on
> > features that used to be unique to Konqueror at first, like
> > support for tabs.
> > 
> > What if keeping Konqueror unchanged is causing it to bitrot
> > and die slowly? What if troops could be rallyed - and the
> > value that is there retained, and the brand retained - by
> > announcing a shift in focus to make it a web browser first
> > and foremost?
>  What if most people are much more comfortable reinventing their own wheel
> again instead of making the effort of understanding an existing codebase?
> It is so much more fun to start something of your own from scratch, write
> it exactly the way you want and solve all the problems you're bound to run
> into yourself instead of figuring out how somebody has already done all of
> that for you. The history is full of cases like this and you don't even
> need to leave the browsers area for examples. If Rekonq lives long enough
> to reach that point, one day people will rather start something from
> scratch again instead of helping Rekonq.
>  Nobody is stopping anybody else from making Konqueror a better browser,
> except for people who couldn't be bothered to actually make that happen.
> Trying to throw away half of Konqueror to make it Rekonq #2 is not going to
> help anything.
>  Lubos, who's really happy he didn't yield to all the suggestions to
> replace KWin with this flashy immature Compiz failure, coming mostly from
> people who never have or will contribute to either of these anyway.

while that's a valid point in *general*, I think in rekonq's case it doesn't 
apply: konq and rekonq are aimed at different audiences, different use cases. so 
it's not purely wheel-reinventing. 
this also means that making konq a better browser is still a perfectly valid 
goal and nobody should be discouraged from doing that either. :)

Chani, who is trying rekonq but hasn't used it long enough to know whether 
she'll end up on rekonq or konq or a bit of both.
This message brought to you by eevil bananas and the number 3.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list