[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Rekonq default
From:       Marco Martin <notmart () gmail ! com>
Date:       2010-02-21 19:14:45
Message-ID: 57b05eda1002211114u589f8a2crc6382abcf16ab939 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen <kde@carewolf.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 21 February 2010, Marco Martin wrote:
>> this is actually one of the reasons i'm really unconfortable with
>> konqueror. this makes the very same application behave in n different
>> ways, not really good for predictability and coherence.
>> it is actually a great feature that makes is an advanced tool, but for
>> a more broad, more marketed application we need exactly something tht
>> does -not- have a feature like that, something that does one thing,
>> does it well and does it in a single, predictable way
>>
> Think of it as not one application, but multiple. It is a basic KDE

nope, it still is a single application, it just attempts to be
multiple, but, will never be what it is not.

> technology, it is component in nature and be recombined to fit the users
> needs.
>
> This is why I think Konqueror is extremely important to KDE, because it is at
> the heart of many KDE technologies(kio,kparts,etc). It is the centerpiece that
> ties them together to serve the user. If we can't make that useful and
> intuitive to the user, then our KDE technologies have failed, and the user
> might as well use dedicated applications such as Firefox and OpenOffice.

the problem is not whether is better a dedicated application or one
that tries to do all.
the problem is that we need many more applications using said
technology. if the only valid use case of them is one single app that
woud really suggest a failure, but i absolutely don't think is the
case.

Cheers,
Marco Martin
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]