Bug ID: 383430
Summary: Open discussion on replacing Konqueror by Qupzilla.
Why I think it may be a wrong move.
Target Milestone: ---
This comes from some discussion in reddit
tl;dr There is no real need to replace one code by another by using the same
name. That is not useful for any of the parts (Konqueror and QupZilla), neither
for current final Konqueror users who will be put to extinction (it's not the
same to install Konqueror and all its dependencies via a package manager than
to clone a repo, find out the proper commit, and finally compile it satisfying
all its dependencies and proper cmake configurations).
Unfortunately, I am not in the position to be the Konqueror mantainer, but the
opinion of current Konqueror users, I think, should matter too.
I think we can easily agree on (explicit information is added for third
readers; if you don't agree with any of this or sth is not correct, please say
- QupZilla being part of KDE is great news. I guess QupZilla will interact
better with the rest of the KDE software (protocols, plasma and applications),
and it will bring a browser to KDE, now that Konqueror and Rekonq are not
mainstream for KDE users anymore.
- Konqueror development is basically stalled (although it revived recently
because of its port to KF5).
- Konqueror mantainer, David Faure, is actually Dolphin's main developer and
mantainer, and I infer that for him Konqueror is extra load that he is not
super happy to be charged with. Nevertheless, he has done very good work all
these years maintaining and porting it to kf5 (very much appreciated by some of
us, at least).
Perhaps we may not completely agree on (or you may not have fully considered)
that replacing Konqueror by QupZilla is bad for the two parts.
- Qupzilla's (and Konqueror's) git history will be messed up. Also KDE bugs
referring to Konqueror will be messed up (which ones apply to which code?).
Also QupZilla will start receiving new KDE bugs about implementing Konqueror
features, bringing more noise to all this.
- Current people using Konqueror, and willing to continue using it, will have
to go back in git history to locate its actual code, then compile it manually
(including dependencies and proper cmake configurations). I would say this is
not how >90% of final KDE users get access to their applications.
So, I think it's much easier and clean to keep these two applications
separated, by using a different name, whichever it is.
Also, if maintaining Konqueror is troublesome and unwanted, which I can
understand, I would propose to just keep it in legacy mode (i.e. unmaintained),
removing it from Dolphin's mailing list and KDE bugs category, and instead
associate it with another category that can be from now on not watched by any
maintainer (perhaps at some point a new maintainer will appear, although this
may not be very likely). This way David Faure does not have to be concerned
about Konqueror anymore, while Konqueror users will still have an easy way to
continue using it, if they wish so (at least until KF6 appears and a new
porting is required).
I will open a bug in KDE with these arguments. It may be a good way to listen
to other KDE devs and Konqueror users, if they want to say anything about this.
In the end, I will respect any decisions KDE devs make (as it cannot be
otherwise), but I think, as a regular user, that keeping QupZilla and Konqueror
separated is simpler and better.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.