You are not logged in.

k0nt3

Beginner

  • "k0nt3" started this thread

Posts: 6

Location: Italy

Occupation: student

  • Send private message

1

Wednesday, February 21st 2007, 12:49pm

filemanager -> dophin but browser -> ???

hi everyone (and sorry if my english isn't perfect :P )!
I've noticed that dolphin appeals to many people (including me), and at the same time konqueror should became a power user app (that I will continue to use for sure). I totally agree with this idea but for internet browsing there is only konqueror, that is a power user app... so what about a simpler and polished browser as default?
since I'm graduating and I've very much time (\me laughs ironically) this morning I've thought how the perfect browser should be, and I come up with the 5 points below:

* support for extensions just like firefox does (this is the reason why FF is so popular)
* being lightweight and well integrated (this is the reason why FF really sucks :) )
* being minimal by default
* don't reinvent the wheel
* need of a wide community that develop extensions

my idea is the following.. imagine a browser where each component is a plasma widget! this can give an architecture similar to firefox (using plasma instead of XUL and JS), at the same time we don't reinvent the wheel and we have a wide community that develop plasma widgets.
the advantages of a similar approach are the modularity and the integration with the desktop. you should be able to drag&drop a plasma widget (AKA extension if the widget is integrated in the browser) into the toolbar of the browser (the navbar or whatever you want) just like you can drag&drop it into the desktop or into the successor of kicker (if I understood well how plasma works). Of course it should be possibile to install new extensions by khotnewstuff that places it automatically in a default location.
Also extensions should be able to access some methods exposed by the browser itself, so an extension could manage the HTML code before the browser render it, so you can write an ad-block extension or simply read the content of the page to do something on it (for instance you can implement a youtube video downloader extension).
I think that the important thing is that by default there are only essentials features.
If you have an other idea for a simpler and cool default browser let me know (maybe your idea is better than mine). in the near future I'd like to code something like this, even only for educational purpose.
that's all folks :)

2

Wednesday, February 21st 2007, 7:04pm

* support for extensions just like firefox does (this is the reason why FF is so popular)

AFAIK konqueror already does!!


* being lightweight and well integrated (this is the reason why FF really sucks smile )

Already the case :)

* being minimal by default

should be easier when the tight integration of filemanager/webbrowser is removed from konqueror.

* don't reinvent the wheel

Well, the browser is already there, only thing that is needed imho is get rid of the file manager stuff that is still present when using konqueror as webbrowser (e.g., click on [home] should not go to ~), and it needs a cleaner default userprofile.

* need of a wide community that develop extensions

Yep, i hope the migration to windows and macos can build a larger community around Konqueror!!
Help mee om KDE 3.5.5 in het Nederlands te vertalen

3

Wednesday, February 21st 2007, 9:18pm

RE: filemanager -> dophin but browser -> ???

Only a browser without reinventing the wheel? We already have a filemanager and document viewer (Konqueror) and the KHTML kpart for viewing HTML. A different browser not using KHTML would definitely be the reinventing the wheel. A browser using KHTML needless since we already have Konqueror to view web pages using KHTML.

k0nt3

Beginner

  • "k0nt3" started this thread

Posts: 6

Location: Italy

Occupation: student

  • Send private message

4

Wednesday, February 21st 2007, 9:30pm

thank you for the answer rinse

#AFAIK konqueror already does!!

yes but extensions in konqueror aren't powerfull as extensions in FF, or I missed something?

#Already the case smile

IMHO konqueror is not lightweight. if you take a look at the memory usage you should understand what I mean.
the "well integrated" part of course was referred to firefox, konqueror is already well integrated :)

#should be easier when the tight integration of filemanager/webbrowser is removed from konqueror.

are you saying that KDE developers are planning to separate better filemanager's features from browser's features? if so it's very good :)
anyway konqueror is not minimal! it include by default many features that many people never use

#Well, the browser is already there, only thing that is needed imho is get rid of the file manager stuff that is still present when using konqueror as webbrowser (e.g., click on [home] should not go to ~), and it needs a cleaner default userprofile.

yes I agree with you.. but isn't cool to have plasma widgets integrated into the browser? however the rendering engine is the same (KHTML)

#Yep, i hope the migration to windows and macos can build a larger community around Konqueror!!

yeah! I have to point out that konqueror is one of my favourite apps, but I think that konqueror is a power user application and we need also a more simple browser (or even better: "simply a browser")

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "k0nt3" (Feb 21st 2007, 9:42pm)


k0nt3

Beginner

  • "k0nt3" started this thread

Posts: 6

Location: Italy

Occupation: student

  • Send private message

5

Wednesday, February 21st 2007, 9:40pm

RE: filemanager -> dophin but browser -> ???

Quoted

Originally posted by gd
Only a browser without reinventing the wheel? We already have a filemanager and document viewer (Konqueror) and the KHTML kpart for viewing HTML.

yes but now we have dolphin as filemanager and konqueror as browser/filemanager.. I think this isn't very clean. if we have a separate filemanager we need a separate browser.

Quoted

Originally posted by gd
A different browser not using KHTML would definitely be the reinventing the wheel.

obviously the engine should be KHTML (I said without reinventing the wheel ;) )

Quoted

Originally posted by gd
A browser using KHTML needless since we already have Konqueror to view web pages using KHTML.

konqueror is a browser/filemanager with advanced features.. I was thinking about something very different. a simpler browser with nice features, you still think that konqueror is the same thing? so why many people use firefox in kde?

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "k0nt3" (Feb 21st 2007, 9:41pm)


6

Wednesday, February 21st 2007, 10:53pm

>>yes but extensions in konqueror aren't powerfull as extensions in FF, or I missed something?

dunno if konqueror has the same powerfull plugin architecture.
at least there are not as many (which is an understatement :) plugins for konqueror available.
But you can extend konqueror with plugins, and a lot of stuff you notice in konqueror is actually provided by plugins.

>>IMHO konqueror is not lightweight. if you take a look at the memory usage you should understand what I mean.

It's hard to figure out how many memory konqueror really uses.

But could you point out a lighter webbrowser with the same capacity as konqueror/firefox?


>>are you saying that KDE developers are planning to separate better filemanager's features from browser's features? if so it's very good :)

Well, they are at least discussing it.
The integration is too tight at the moment, and that is bugging developers for quite some time now.
kde4 gives an exccelent opportunity to take care of that.
That's probably also the reason why dolphin went into kdebase.


>>anyway konqueror is not minimal! it include by default many features that many people never use

a lot of them are plugins, AFAIK.
I guess konqueror also needs a way to enable/disable certain plugins/functinality


>>yes I agree with you.. but isn't cool to have plasma widgets integrated into the browser? however the rendering engine is the same (KHTML)

I'm affraid that it would make Konqueror a beast like Firefox.
Firefox renders its whole interface on Gecko and Xul, making it more heavy then it should.
There have been ports of Xul and Firefox to Qt, wich were more lightweight then the current firefox.
That was because the xul layer for Qt called the Qt widgets directly in stead of rendering them via Gecko/Xul.


>>yeah! I have to point out that konqueror is one of my favourite apps, but I think that konqueror is a power user application and we need also a more simple browser
(or even better: "simply a browser")

Yep, and i hope that the next few weeks will tell us more about the direction of konqueror/dolphin!
Help mee om KDE 3.5.5 in het Nederlands te vertalen

7

Wednesday, February 21st 2007, 10:59pm

RE: filemanager -> dophin but browser -> ???

Quoted

Originally posted by k0nt3
so why many people use firefox in kde?

probably because firefox is a large browser, and a lot of webdevelopers make sure their website works in firefox.
For konqueror that is often not the case, so sites either don't work properly or webserver offer a simplified interface if they notice that you don't use IE or Mozilla/Firefox.

Lots of users avoid this by using firefox in stead..
Help mee om KDE 3.5.5 in het Nederlands te vertalen

k0nt3

Beginner

  • "k0nt3" started this thread

Posts: 6

Location: Italy

Occupation: student

  • Send private message

8

Thursday, February 22nd 2007, 9:52am

RE: filemanager -> dophin but browser -> ???

mmm I have some ideas.. but I don't know if it's possible to implement what I mean. maybe I'll study the feasibility within the next month, when I have some free time :)
If you wont hear more about this.. it means that I realized it's not possible to implement and konqueror will rocks forever

ps. I've heard that the konqueror team and apple are cooperating to make khtml completely compatible with safari (and so compatible with many many sites :) )

9

Thursday, February 22nd 2007, 9:58am

RE: filemanager -> dophin but browser -> ???

Quoted

Originally posted by k0nt3
ps. I've heard that the konqueror team and apple are cooperating to make khtml completely compatible with safari (and so compatible with many many sites :) )

Safari uses a fork of khtml for html rendering.

at the start of that fork, thing were a bit rough: improvements in khtml were hard to implement in webkit (afaik that's the name of the apple fork) and vice versa.
To improve that situation they agreed to cooperate more and last mile stone in that cooperation is the birth of 'unity' . Unity could be the successor for khtml in kde4 and webkit in safari.
Help mee om KDE 3.5.5 in het Nederlands te vertalen

10

Thursday, February 22nd 2007, 10:02am

# yes but extensions in konqueror aren't powerfull as extensions in FF, or I missed something?

Then we should make the konqueror extension system better and simplier instead of creating a new browser with plugins.

11

Thursday, February 22nd 2007, 10:19am

RE: filemanager -> dophin but browser -> ???

Quoted

yes but now we have dolphin as filemanager and konqueror as browser/filemanager.. I think this isn't very clean. if we have a separate filemanager we need a separate browser.


In my view, there are two almost unrelated things: how we access the content (it is in the local filesystem, or accessible via http, ftp, sftp etc.) and how we display the content (files in a directory, or some kparts module, e. g. KHTML). AFAIK Konqueror uses kioslaves to access the content and kparts to display files, so it can display any type of files accessible via any protocol. If we have a different filemanager and browser, we can display the contents of local directories in nice formats, and we can view HTML files accessible via HTTP or in the local filesystem with the browser. But we can't display directories accessible via FTP, SFTP etc. nicely, and we always have to use external programs display non-HTML files.

I think KDE should be KDE (a highly integrated system) for everybody and not KDE for geeks and some gnomeish "system" of unrelated apps for everybody else.

12

Thursday, February 22nd 2007, 10:39am

AFAIK dolphin wil not become part of kde4, it is temporarly placed in kdebase.
I don't think using two applications for filemanagement/webbrowsing would make sense in kde4.

I think the best way to go is to make the integration of filemanager/webbrowser less thight, so it would be easier to make the GUI completely different in eacht situation (e.g. using it's own home button, bookmarks, history, etc).

then, both viewing types could get a more simplified and consistent profile.
That way we don't need a seperate filemanager like dolphin
Help mee om KDE 3.5.5 in het Nederlands te vertalen

Andrzej

Beginner

Posts: 1

Location: Poland

Occupation: teacher of English

  • Send private message

13

Saturday, March 31st 2007, 6:24pm

You're absolutely right about that "home" button but when you deal with ftp or nfs content Konqueror should still act as a file manager, not a web browser, I think

14

Saturday, March 31st 2007, 8:28pm

Quoted

You're absolutely right about that "home" button

I don't even think that. Why do you need home button for a website? You can use bookmarks - and you can set the default page in the profile.

15

Sunday, April 1st 2007, 1:01pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Rinse
AFAIK dolphin wil not become part of kde4, it is temporarly placed in kdebase.

Hmmm, nolonger the case, dolphin will be part of kde 4 :)
Help mee om KDE 3.5.5 in het Nederlands te vertalen