From kde-core-devel  Sun Feb 21 19:16:56 2010
From: Allan Sandfeld Jensen <kde () carewolf ! com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:16:56 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: Rekonq default
Message-Id: <201002212016.56834.kde () carewolf ! com>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=126677987816432

On Sunday 21 February 2010, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> 
> in the case of kparts/kio, they serve many applications outside of
> konqueror very, very well and are presented via these applications to the
> user in useful and intuitive ways.
> 
> i do think that konqueror can be improved and made even better and more
> streamlined than it is now. i'm not overly sure the profiles system will be
> able to make konqueror something that people who crave a rekonq experience
> will jump for. i actually did some small work there in kde3 days, but
> perhaps i do underestimate what could be possible with them and i look
> forward to seeing what you come up with.
> 
> i don't, however, think that the success of KDE software hinges on
> konqueror being the default web browser or file manager. it certainly
> helps if konqueror is as good and complete as it can be, though, and i
> really do hope more people work on it.

I agree. It is more of statement against defaulting to a webbrowser that 
doesn't use kparts. We could easily make a better webbrowser, but one truely 
based on KDE justing doesn't exist as far as I know. This means making a new 
one, if that is improving the guts of rekonq, or refreshing konqueror, I don't 
really care. I just want it to be a true KDE application.

It just seems that with Dolphin taking care of the file-managing, I would 
prefer simplifying Konqueror, perhaps by proving a simpler interface, over 
introducing another application. Perhaps with more work on rekonq, the 
integration will come by itself, like when dolphin switched to kparts, and 
thus gave konqueror access to the new improved views.

`Allan