Axel Beckert <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 02:27:00PM -0800, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: >> > Hi, I'm a very happy user of Conkeror for some 6 months or so, having got >> > fed up of reverting from w3m to Firefox for sites that use Javascript. I >> > hope no one takes it the wrong way if I ask what the feelings are on this >> > list about its future? How many developers are there and how quickly are >> > new features added? What is the best guess for how many users there >> > are?
> There are statistics for at least the Debian package of conkeror and > the numbers are rising there in the average: > http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=conkeror >> I can provide some assurance that Conkeror isn't going to stagnate >> completely anytime soon, > Ohloh sees the development quite positive: > * Increasing year-over-year development activity > * Large, active development team > * Established codebase > (From https://www.ohloh.net/p/5294) >> as I (and I believe the other developers as well) depend on it for >> our web browsing needs and don't see there being any comparable >> alternative browser coming out. > There is the vimperator plugin for FF which is comparable with the old > conkeror while it was just a FF plugin. It's though of course using vi > keybindings instead of emacs keybindings and therefore the keybindings > are not "comparable". ;-) Heh, yes of course. Somehow I forgot about Vimperator. >> (If Google Chromium is finally released for Linux and proves to be >> amenable for implementing a Conkeror-like browser on top of it, then >> I (and perhaps some other developers) might indeed be tempted to try >> to rewrite Conkeror for it, > I would be really happy if this _won't_ happen. I don't want to put > any effort in a browser which invades privacy so much. I can understand your desire to not leak personal information to Google, and I agree with your sentiment. I haven't actually looked at Chromimum much, as it doesn't support Linux currently, but I imagine that any privacy leaking issues are related to not-very-important features that could easily be removed. Chromium is free software, after all. >> Development of Conkeror is somewhat slower now than it has been at >> various points in the past, though there are a good number of >> reasonably active developers (about 4-5), and the slowdown is in, >> part, I think, because many important features have already been >> implemented. > IMHO it's stable and usable, but the lack of some not so important but > though everywhere else available features like e.g. a bookmark and > cookies manager surely hinders its spreading. >> It is hard to estimate the number of users, since we only really know >> about those that speak up on the mailing list or on the IRC channel. > See above for the Debian popularity contest stats. > BTW, I think it would be helpful to send a user agent string which > includes the name "Conkeror" somewhere instead of only "Mozilla/5.0 > (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008122010" so that > Conkeror gets noticed in site access statistics. > Looked into the code, but not sure where to do this. Probably in > modules/utils.js around line 580. > zzo38 suggested on IRC something like > session_pref("general.useragent.extra.conkeror", > "Conkeror/"+conkeror_version); session_pref should not be used in Conkeror's own code normally, as it is intended for user customization use only. It could be placed in defaults/preferences/, though. There is the issue, though, that many people use Conkeror through git directly and that does not make it easy to add such version numbers (which would presumably be just a date or git commit hash). -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard _______________________________________________ Conkeror mailing list [email protected] https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror
