Is it possible to write a browser or KPart for KDE3 in Gambas? The Gambas distribution already includes a simple browser based on WebKit and Qt3. Can anybody inprove it by adding more features so to make it really usable?
Konqueror is badly outdated but still opens many sites. Why are you mentioning starting a new browser?
Tiago
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru wrote:
Is it possible to write a browser or KPart for KDE3 in Gambas? The Gambas distribution already includes a simple browser based on WebKit and Qt3. Can anybody inprove it by adding more features so to make it really usable?
I agree. I think its better to work on getting konq to render better. Its far superior as a web browser even with its outdated-ness (is that a word?). 90% of the time I find pages render and function better than in Firefox. I can control my browsing experience better as well by shutting off tons of stuff whilst still maintaining a usable page. There are so many advantages to konq as a file manager, ftp, sftp, and WB that its worth the extra steps.
I hope its considered,
Thank you to all, and cheers Tiago!
On 1/7/11, Tiago Marques tiagomnm@gmail.com wrote:
Konqueror is badly outdated but still opens many sites. Why are you mentioning starting a new browser?
Tiago
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru wrote:
Is it possible to write a browser or KPart for KDE3 in Gambas? The Gambas distribution already includes a simple browser based on WebKit and Qt3. Can anybody inprove it by adding more features so to make it really usable?
While I still use it from time to time, the fact is I currently mostly use Chrome, because it is rather pointless to me not to. The browser is fast, somewhat lean, renders everything ok and with a gtk-engine-qt package it integrates mostly without looking out of place. AFAIK, it is not exactly dependence heavy, so that's another plus for integrating a piece of software from another party in a distro that shipped with Trinity.
I would even go as far as saying that in Trinity, given some necessity to keep things lean development wise, dropping KHTML from Konqueror would not be a bad idea. After all, while I love Trinity as a base for my OSs, one must reckon that it is likely that the whole software distribution will slim down as we as users do the long transition from local apps to web apps, further enabling the need for a stable, compatible and fast browser. But this is just my point of view, taken from my usage pattern and from people close to me.
Konqueror, as a file manager works great. Not as much when dealing with FTP, I've found that sometimes I had to use Kasablanca, but it mostly works fine. I also use it extensively for SMB, where it is also very practical.
Still, it probably isn't that hard to keep KHTML in konqueror in an up 2 date state, to have it render everything ok.
When you mean "controlling browser experience", you are referring to what? I actually never use konqueror extensively due to lack of plugins, session management, adobe flash block... I still think it may provide a better browser experience than the current version of Firefox but Chrome is too good to pass, IMO.
Best regards, Tiago
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Katheryne Draven borgqueen4@gmail.comwrote:
I agree. I think its better to work on getting konq to render better. Its far superior as a web browser even with its outdated-ness (is that a word?). 90% of the time I find pages render and function better than in Firefox. I can control my browsing experience better as well by shutting off tons of stuff whilst still maintaining a usable page. There are so many advantages to konq as a file manager, ftp, sftp, and WB that its worth the extra steps.
I hope its considered,
Thank you to all, and cheers Tiago!
On 1/7/11, Tiago Marques tiagomnm@gmail.com wrote:
Konqueror is badly outdated but still opens many sites. Why are you mentioning starting a new browser?
Tiago
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru wrote:
Is it possible to write a browser or KPart for KDE3 in Gambas? The
Gambas
distribution already includes a simple browser based on WebKit and Qt3. Can anybody inprove it by adding more features so to make it really usable?
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Tiago Marques tiagomnm@gmail.com wrote:
While I still use it from time to time, the fact is I currently mostly use Chrome, because it is rather pointless to me not to. The browser is fast, somewhat lean, renders everything ok and with a gtk-engine-qt package it integrates mostly without looking out of place. AFAIK, it is not exactly dependence heavy, so that's another plus for integrating a piece of software from another party in a distro that shipped with Trinity.
I would even go as far as saying that in Trinity, given some necessity to keep things lean development wise, dropping KHTML from Konqueror would not be a bad idea. After all, while I love Trinity as a base for my OSs, one must reckon that it is likely that the whole software distribution will slim down as we as users do the long transition from local apps to web apps, further enabling the need for a stable, compatible and fast browser. But this is just my point of view, taken from my usage pattern and from people close to me.
Konqueror, as a file manager works great. Not as much when dealing with FTP, I've found that sometimes I had to use Kasablanca, but it mostly works fine. I also use it extensively for SMB, where it is also very practical.
Still, it probably isn't that hard to keep KHTML in konqueror in an up 2 date state, to have it render everything ok.
When you mean "controlling browser experience", you are referring to what? I actually never use konqueror extensively due to lack of plugins, session management, adobe flash block... I still think it may provide a better browser experience than the current version of Firefox but Chrome is too good to pass, IMO.
Best regards, Tiago
Time for a long email (didn't make it long on purpose, just had too much to say):
Believe it or not, there are people that try to avoid GTK, and last I checked Chrome uses GTK. I personally prefer Qt. The only reason I use Firefox over Konqueror is for site compatibility (I could never get Gmail and some other sites to display right in Konqueror). Older versions of Flash (up to version 9) do work in Konqueror, but this causes problems for videos using newer versions of Flash. I have noticed, though, that Youtube works fine on my Wii's Opera-based browser using Flash 7 (it is provided by the Wii Shop Channel and the Wii doesn't allow me to browse the filesystem, so I can't upgrade Flash). Outside of Youtube, I don't visit sites using Flash, and the ones that use Flash get them blocked by one of my plugins. The only other GTK app I use is Pidgin, and only because it has better support for file transfer. I like Kopete much better, and Konqueror fits in with my KDE theme much better than Firefox, so if it could render sites better, I'd use that instead.
When she referred to customizing Konqueror, I think she was referring to the options that are built-in (go to KDE Control Center and select Internet & Networking, or open Konqueror and go to the Settings menu then choose Configure Konqueror). It has more built-in features without the use of plugins than any other browser I've used. The reason Knoqueror is lacking in the plugins is because browsers like Firefox and Internet Exploiter (Exploder?) caught people's attention first, so sites are developed mainly for these browsers.
Konqueror has worke well for me as FTP. Of course, I don't do much FTP, and it's rarely to upload stuff (I use SFTP (FTP through SSH) on a webserver). Perhaps if you file a bug report for Trinity about what Konqueror isn't doing right with FTP, it could get fixed at some point.
I've heard good things about WebKit, and I believe there is a Qt version of WebKit. I haven't used it before, but it is based on KHTML and is what Safari uses, so perhaps we could find a way to use it to replace KHTML (I've heard rumors that's possible)?
As for Chrome, I keep seeing references to it being Proprietary Software. For those of us who are Free Software Purists (I've been working toward ridding myself of Proprietary stuff), Chrome isn't a rea option. While it is a good browser for users of Proprietary Software who want a lean interface, it is a good browser. But for those of us who are purists, Chrome won't cut it.
I will be learning how to program in Qt/C++, and I'll be starting within the next couple days. It will be on my own time (and there isn't much of it, so it could take awhile), though provided I can use another browsing engine like WebKit or Mozilla's Gecko, I'd be willing to write a Free Software browser based on Chrome (not exactly a clone of Chrome, just something with a lean, configurable interface). Provided that tqtinterface is working by the time I eventually get it to a usable state, we should be able to use it in Trinity. Personally, though, I don't like overly-lean or overly-simple. I need a menu bar, toolbar (back, forward, refresh, stop, home, and URL bar, and a search bar is a plus). tab bar, and status bar, and Chrome was missing the menu bar and toolbar, and I seem to remember the Chrome status bar disappearing whenever it was idle (something that I found annoying). There is probably a way to change this, I never bothered to look though.
Time for a long email (didn't make it long on purpose, just had too much to say):
Believe it or not, there are people that try to avoid GTK, and last I checked Chrome uses GTK.
I do too but sometimes it is not worth the effort. Plus, there is too much browser fragmentation already, although WebKit has managed to bring everyone closer together, IMO.
I personally prefer Qt. The only reason I use Firefox over Konqueror is for site compatibility (I could never get Gmail and some other sites to display right in Konqueror). Older versions of Flash (up to version 9) do work in Konqueror, but this causes problems for videos using newer versions of Flash. I have noticed, though, that Youtube works fine on my Wii's Opera-based browser using Flash 7 (it is provided by the Wii Shop Channel and the Wii doesn't allow me to browse the filesystem, so I can't upgrade Flash). Outside of Youtube, I don't visit sites using Flash, and the ones that use Flash get them blocked by one of my plugins. The only other GTK app I use is Pidgin, and only because it has better support for file transfer. I like Kopete much better, and Konqueror fits in with my KDE theme much better than Firefox, so if it could render sites better, I'd use that instead.
The gtk-engines-qt isn't actually bad in making it fit but the version that works with KDE3/Qt3 has some problems that need fixing, especially regarding tickboxes.
When she referred to customizing Konqueror, I think she was referring to the options that are built-in (go to KDE Control Center and select Internet & Networking, or open Konqueror and go to the Settings menu then choose Configure Konqueror). It has more built-in features without the use of plugins than any other browser I've used. The reason Knoqueror is lacking in the plugins is because browsers like Firefox and Internet Exploiter (Exploder?) caught people's attention first, so sites are developed mainly for these browsers.
Fair enough.
Konqueror has worke well for me as FTP. Of course, I don't do much FTP, and it's rarely to upload stuff (I use SFTP (FTP through SSH) on a webserver). Perhaps if you file a bug report for Trinity about what Konqueror isn't doing right with FTP, it could get fixed at some point.
Will do when I see it again, I've had the fortune of not having to deal with those FTPs for some time now that I don't even remember exactly which ones they were.
I've heard good things about WebKit, and I believe there is a Qt version of WebKit. I haven't used it before, but it is based on KHTML and is what Safari uses, so perhaps we could find a way to use it to replace KHTML (I've heard rumors that's possible)?
I think it's Qt4 only based.
As for Chrome, I keep seeing references to it being Proprietary Software. For those of us who are Free Software Purists (I've been working toward ridding myself of Proprietary stuff), Chrome isn't a rea option. While it is a good browser for users of Proprietary Software who want a lean interface, it is a good browser. But for those of us who are purists, Chrome won't cut it.
Chrome is similar to Firefox AFAIK, but Chromium is the same thing and is free software, which is the one I use.
I will be learning how to program in Qt/C++, and I'll be starting within the next couple days. It will be on my own time (and there isn't much of it, so it could take awhile), though provided I can use another browsing engine like WebKit or Mozilla's Gecko, I'd be willing to write a Free Software browser based on Chrome (not exactly a clone of Chrome, just something with a lean, configurable interface). Provided that tqtinterface is working by the time I eventually get it to a usable state, we should be able to use it in Trinity. Personally, though, I don't like overly-lean or overly-simple. I need a menu bar,
It's hidden but there.
toolbar (back, forward, refresh, stop, home, and URL bar, and a search bar is a plus).
The search bar is embedded in the URL Bar. As for the rest, only the home button is missing. Plus, it gives you more vertical space in smaller devices.
tab bar, and status bar, and Chrome was missing the menu bar and toolbar, and I seem to remember the Chrome status bar disappearing whenever it was idle (something that I found annoying). There is probably a way to change this, I never bothered to look though.
The status is a good point, even though I don't particularly miss that. I'm all for the "more vertical space approach", especially in this era of wide screens.
Best regards, Tiago
-- Kris "Piki" Ark Linux Webmaster Trinity KDE Packager
On Saturday 08 January 2011 00:05:06 Tiago Marques wrote:
I will be learning how to program in Qt/C++, and I'll be starting within the next couple days. It will be on my own time (and there isn't much of it, so it could take awhile), though provided I can use another browsing engine like WebKit or Mozilla's Gecko, I'd be willing to write a Free Software browser based on Chrome (not exactly a clone of Chrome, just something with a lean, configurable interface). Provided that tqtinterface is working by the time I eventually get it to a usable state, we should be able to use it in Trinity. Personally, though, I don't like overly-lean or overly-simple. I need a menu bar,
It's hidden but there.
That's why I posted the initial post here. Gambas has Webkit control, and creates perfect Qt3 applications. A simple working browser already provided with Gambas as an example. It can open any page and print it. Both Java and Javascript works well and it uses KWallet from KDE3 to store passwords so I could login OpenSUSE build service with it (unlike Konqueror). What one needs is just add some navigation buttons, history log, saving files (and opening them in external applications), some other settings such as choosing font size.
On Friday 07 January 2011 15:16:58 Tiago Marques wrote:
While I still use it from time to time, the fact is I currently mostly use Chrome, because it is rather pointless to me not to.
gtk-qt-engine is buggy and unusable with most styles.
Also when using qtcurve in Gnome, this setting supercedes any KCM_GTK settings and you just see brocken QtCurve in KDE3, with jumping buttons which become smaller and bigger depending on focus etc.
Also GTK-based browser shows Gnome desktop in dialogs, as I use different desktop folders in Gnome and KDE, this is annoying. It also uses GTK icons
Aslo it opens files in GTK applications, not in KDE players etc.
The browser is fast, somewhat lean, renders everything ok and with a gtk-engine-qt package it integrates mostly without looking out of place. AFAIK, it is not exactly dependence heavy, so that's another plus for integrating a piece of software from another party in a distro that shipped with Trinity.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru wrote:
On Friday 07 January 2011 15:16:58 Tiago Marques wrote:
While I still use it from time to time, the fact is I currently mostly
use
Chrome, because it is rather pointless to me not to.
gtk-qt-engine is buggy and unusable with most styles.
I haven't tested much, only found bugs on the checkboxes.
Also when using qtcurve in Gnome, this setting supercedes any KCM_GTK settings and you just see brocken QtCurve in KDE3, with jumping buttons which become smaller and bigger depending on focus etc.
Also GTK-based browser shows Gnome desktop in dialogs, as I use different desktop folders in Gnome and KDE, this is annoying. It also uses GTK icons
True.
Aslo it opens files in GTK applications, not in KDE players etc.
Not true. It actually is miles ahead of FF right now, as it calls xdg-open which uses the system wide defined applications - at least in my Gentoo boxes.
Best regards, Tiago
The browser is fast,
somewhat lean, renders everything ok and with a gtk-engine-qt package it integrates mostly without looking out of place. AFAIK, it is not exactly dependence heavy, so that's another plus for integrating a piece of software from another party in a distro that shipped with Trinity.
On Friday 07 January 2011 14:13:44 Katheryne Draven wrote:
I agree. I think its better to work on getting konq to render better. Its far superior as a web browser even with its outdated-ness (is that a word?). 90% of the time I find pages render and function better than in Firefox. I can control my browsing experience better as well by shutting off tons of stuff whilst still maintaining a usable page. There are so many advantages to konq as a file manager, ftp, sftp, and WB that its worth the extra steps.
In Konqueror JavaScript is brocken. Also using Konq as a browser interferes with the filemanagement function: for file management I disable the toolbars but for browser I need them. If to enable toolbars in Konq, they appear in all other profiles, and there is no way to disable them other than editing config files. Very annoying bug.
Also Webkit is just newer than KHTML in KDE3 and receives security updates.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru wrote:
On Friday 07 January 2011 14:13:44 Katheryne Draven wrote:
I agree. I think its better to work on getting konq to render better. Its far superior as a web browser even with its outdated-ness (is that a word?). 90% of the time I find pages render and function better than in Firefox. I can control my browsing experience better as well by shutting off tons of stuff whilst still maintaining a usable page. There are so many advantages to konq as a file manager, ftp, sftp, and WB that its worth the extra steps.
In Konqueror JavaScript is brocken.
Indeed.
Also using Konq as a browser interferes with the filemanagement function: for file management I disable the toolbars but for browser I need them. If to enable toolbars in Konq, they appear in all other profiles, and there is no way to disable them other than editing config files. Very annoying bug.
Also true. Still, I find it that the whole departure to Dolphin in KDE4 was far from ideal still. Profile handling well would be better.
Also Webkit is just newer than KHTML in KDE3 and receives security updates.
Having extra space in my toolbars isn't a big issue, my screen is large enough (1200x800), though I try to keep from clutter. There are plenty of browsers already out there, the browser I'm thinking of is mainly just as a long term way for me to practice (and also to help fulfill a desire to move away from GTK). I might share it with some people just to get some feedback and perhaps to have something to "fit in" with the KDE3 interface. For me, it isn't really enough to apply whatever Qt theme I'm using to GTK, I've found (generally speaking, not true in every case) that Qt is more stable than GTK and takes up less space. Also, adding in both sets of libs increases storages needs (both hard disk and ISOs).
On 1/7/11, Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru wrote:
On Friday 07 January 2011 14:13:44 Katheryne Draven wrote:
I agree. I think its better to work on getting konq to render better. Its far superior as a web browser even with its outdated-ness (is that a word?). 90% of the time I find pages render and function better than in Firefox. I can control my browsing experience better as well by shutting off tons of stuff whilst still maintaining a usable page. There are so many advantages to konq as a file manager, ftp, sftp, and WB that its worth the extra steps.
In Konqueror JavaScript is brocken. Also using Konq as a browser interferes with the filemanagement function: for file management I disable the toolbars but for browser I need them. If to enable toolbars in Konq, they appear in all other profiles, and there is no way to disable them other than editing config files. Very annoying bug.
Also Webkit is just newer than KHTML in KDE3 and receives security updates.
I'm looking to learn to program, not just design a browser interface with Gambas. As for konqueror the file manager, I do like it better than Dolphin, but only because of it's flexibility (see Katheryne's earlier message) and because I've grown accustomed to the UI. Dolphin has a much simpler/easier interface from the perspective of most newbies. We (Ark Linux) will leave it as the default file manager in our KDE4 ISO because of that, though I'm not sure about our Trinity ISO.
On 1/7/11, Kristopher Gamrat pikidalto@gmail.com wrote:
Having extra space in my toolbars isn't a big issue, my screen is large enough (1200x800), though I try to keep from clutter. There are plenty of browsers already out there, the browser I'm thinking of is mainly just as a long term way for me to practice (and also to help fulfill a desire to move away from GTK). I might share it with some people just to get some feedback and perhaps to have something to "fit in" with the KDE3 interface. For me, it isn't really enough to apply whatever Qt theme I'm using to GTK, I've found (generally speaking, not true in every case) that Qt is more stable than GTK and takes up less space. Also, adding in both sets of libs increases storages needs (both hard disk and ISOs).
On 1/7/11, Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru wrote:
On Friday 07 January 2011 14:13:44 Katheryne Draven wrote:
I agree. I think its better to work on getting konq to render better. Its far superior as a web browser even with its outdated-ness (is that a word?). 90% of the time I find pages render and function better than in Firefox. I can control my browsing experience better as well by shutting off tons of stuff whilst still maintaining a usable page. There are so many advantages to konq as a file manager, ftp, sftp, and WB that its worth the extra steps.
In Konqueror JavaScript is brocken. Also using Konq as a browser interferes with the filemanagement function: for file management I disable the toolbars but for browser I need them. If to enable toolbars in Konq, they appear in all other profiles, and there is no way to disable them other than editing config files. Very annoying bug.
Also Webkit is just newer than KHTML in KDE3 and receives security updates.
-- Kris "Piki" Ark Linux Webmaster Trinity KDE Packager
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Kristopher Gamrat pikidalto@gmail.comwrote:
Having extra space in my toolbars isn't a big issue, my screen is large enough (1200x800), though I try to keep from clutter. There are plenty of browsers already out there, the browser I'm thinking of is mainly just as a long term way for me to practice (and also to help fulfill a desire to move away from GTK). I might share it with some people just to get some feedback and perhaps to have something to "fit in" with the KDE3 interface. For me, it isn't really enough to apply whatever Qt theme I'm using to GTK, I've found (generally speaking, not true in every case) that Qt is more stable than GTK and takes up less space. Also, adding in both sets of libs increases storages needs (both hard disk and ISOs).
I know it does, it just is not worthwhile to have duplicate applications for each toolkit. In my perfect world we would but I also can't say that it is bad from a performance and memory usage point. From what I've noticed - and I tend to look at those things in some detail - it is mostly problematic when you have to load things that depend too much on foreign desktop environments like Gnome, as the toolkit is mostly a slim lib to load IMHO.
Best regards, Tiago
On 1/7/11, Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru wrote:
On Friday 07 January 2011 14:13:44 Katheryne Draven wrote:
I agree. I think its better to work on getting konq to render better. Its far superior as a web browser even with its outdated-ness (is that a word?). 90% of the time I find pages render and function better than in Firefox. I can control my browsing experience better as well by shutting off tons of stuff whilst still maintaining a usable page. There are so many advantages to konq as a file manager, ftp, sftp, and WB that its worth the extra steps.
In Konqueror JavaScript is brocken. Also using Konq as a browser
interferes
with the filemanagement function: for file management I disable the
toolbars
but for browser I need them. If to enable toolbars in Konq, they appear
in
all other profiles, and there is no way to disable them other than
editing
config files. Very annoying bug.
Also Webkit is just newer than KHTML in KDE3 and receives security
updates.
-- Kris "Piki" Ark Linux Webmaster Trinity KDE Packager
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Tiago Marques tiagomnm@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Kristopher Gamrat pikidalto@gmail.comwrote:
Having extra space in my toolbars isn't a big issue, my screen is large enough (1200x800), though I try to keep from clutter. There are plenty of browsers already out there, the browser I'm thinking of is mainly just as a long term way for me to practice (and also to help fulfill a desire to move away from GTK). I might share it with some people just to get some feedback and perhaps to have something to "fit in" with the KDE3 interface. For me, it isn't really enough to apply whatever Qt theme I'm using to GTK, I've found (generally speaking, not true in every case) that Qt is more stable than GTK and takes up less space. Also, adding in both sets of libs increases storages needs (both hard disk and ISOs).
I know it does, it just is not worthwhile to have duplicate applications for each toolkit. In my perfect world we would but I also can't say that it is bad from a performance and memory usage point. From what I've noticed - and I tend to look at those things in some detail - it is mostly problematic when you have to load things that depend too much on foreign desktop environments like Gnome, as the toolkit is mostly a slim lib to load IMHO.
Best regards, Tiago
Depends on how you look at things. Just like people will argue Free vs Proprietary, this text editor vs that text editor, this desktop vs that desktop, etc., people will argue Qt vs GTK. The head developer for Ark Linux only uses Qt, while one of the other team prefers programming in Qt but uses an app or two written with GTK.
I mentioned before that I only use Pidgin and Firefox because they do things that Kopete and Konqueror struggle with, and that otherwise I wouldn't care for them. Perhaps I'd want to keep Firefox as my default browser if I prefered GTK (it is a good browser), but I'd much prefer to stay with Konqueror as it has proven itself time and again with it's stability (Firefox doesn't crash very often, but I've had it crash more often than Konqueror, and the generic Linux package from Mozilla's site has had a bit of trouble on my various systems) and swiss army knife capabilities in file management. I'd much rather just fix Kopete and Konqueror and use them. Fewer apps, less disk space taken that I could otherwise use to package software and learn to program, more consistent theme on my desktop...
I do realize having both Qt and GTK don't really use too much in the way of resources, but for distros offering a 700MB ISO as the primary install image, every little bit helps. Ark Linux doesn't offer DVD or BluRay images, only 700MB CD images. We may decide to expand it somewhere down the road, but one of the main points here is to not over crowd new users (how do i choose from these 50 editors just to edit this one file? there are just too many here to compare features!) -- we try to keep things simple and easy and provide just the stuff that new users need to settle in (one editor, one browser, some games, an office suite, etc.).
-
Ilya Chernykh -
Katheryne Draven -
Kristopher Gamrat -
Tiago Marques