8 Jan
2011
8 Jan
'11
5:37 a.m.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Robert Xu <robxu9(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 21:58, Kristopher Gamrat
<pikidalto(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
the
Kinda makes me wander, why is Konqueror so hated? I'll agree, it doesn't
make a good browser (or at least, KHTML doesn't make a great renderer), but
I've had no problems at all with any of it's file manager functions (except
the fish:// protocol that I was using at some point as a means to transfer
files over SSH, I eventually switched to SFTP which works great).
I haven't personally used rekonq, so I can't comment on it, but Dolphin
(D3lphin for KDE3) is too simplified for my liking. I did mention that it
may be great for new users (and, I'll add here, long time users who like
things simple), but for someone like me who does a lot (sometime too much)
at once and who tries to do as much as possible in as little open windows
(and effort) possible, Konqueror just "does it" for me in file manager mode
-- and I'm sort of attached to the interface. (for those who want to know
what I do with Konqueror, I usually (almost always) have several directories
open, maybe a flash storage device, sometimes a CD, and (in case I need to
upload/download something via ssh) SFTP -- all of which work perfect for me)
Of course I can understand personal preference and I understand even
advanced users may prefer Dolphin, but something I've always encouraged
others on (and follow through with myself) is to not attack something unless
you can provide reason. If you want to say it's not a good browser for such
and such a reason (and I'd likely agree), fine. But I've yet to see why it's
not a good file manager. Perhaps regular FTP if we can get the error, but
file manager has always worked quite well in Konqueror. (warning: random
soap box moment) I'm not trying to criticize the personal opinions of others
here, it just helps when reason is provided and helps people to at least
understand the criticism (which can help people get along, which I've had
trouble with as far as vague or (almost) non-existent reasons are
concerned), even if they don't agree. Also, I've seen flame wars where both
sides criticize each other with little or no reason provided, and both sides
fuming or getting banned or looking like complete idiots (not saying we'll
end up flaming here, nor trying to insult).
--
Kris
"Piki"
Ark Linux Webmaster
Trinity KDE Packager
2011/1/7 Ilya Chernykh <neptunia(a)mail.ru>
>
> 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.
>
>
> No doubt. Dolphin is completely unusable. There are just some errors in
> profile handling scripts which should be fixed. Also I noticed that many
> errors were introduced in KDE3 in final versions such as 3.5.10 while
were
absent
previously. Seems like a marketing move to justify scrapping it.
What errors are these errors? I haven't used Dolphin extensively, but in
few times I did use it I did not notice any
problems.
Sorry, I'm going to give in to the KDE 4.6 RC.
Dolphin seems to be working much better. (I actually got impressed,
which is... amazing.)
Konqueror, on the other hand, is still a piece of crap. (why don't
they just make rekonq the default and kill konqueror...)
Truthfully, I'm using Dolphin for KDE3 (D3olphin, I think it's called)
because Konqueror is making me pull hair.
but I'm wondering if maybe there could be a ReKonq for kde3? lol.
Either that, or we'll wait for tQT to mature for Qt4.
--
later, Robert Xu