PDA

View Full Version : Is Konqueror just too much?



Parkotron
March 23rd, 2006, 10:34 PM
Recently there's been some KDE talk about splitting Konqueror up into a trio of more dedicated apps. A lot of people feel that by trying to do everything, Konqueror has become just too cumbersome and that it'd be better off replaced by a separate web browser, file manager, and document viewer.

I'm just wondering what the average Kubuntu users thinks about this.

Personally, I think it's a good idea. I don't like using the same program to surf the web and manage my files, and I don't like it when Konqueror tries to open embedded viewers. I do realise that these are exactly the reasons that some people love Konqueror, so I can't see Konqueror dying off anytime soon. I just think that separate applications would be more useful to your average user.

I'd appreciate if only those of who use KDE would vote. (I think we all know that Gnome users don't care for huge complex apps.)

tikal26
March 23rd, 2006, 10:44 PM
Well I actually think that they are making an universal documents viewer, but I personnaly like and embedded documnet viewe also. I hate when I try to open a PDF and open another windows and then if I have a presentation and that just adds another window. I don't know about the file manager and the web browser. I kind of like to be able to open my files on another tab or beign able to split windows and put files in one and surf on another. Just my taste. I tihnk that it has its uses sometimes.

qalimas
March 23rd, 2006, 10:52 PM
I love it how it is, I need one Window open for most everything, no PDF viewer open when i view a file, and it has tabs. Each tab can be something completely different, I love that :D Konq is a big reason I switched to KDE from GNOME.

awakatanka
March 23rd, 2006, 11:00 PM
I love it how it is, only thing i don't use is webbrowsing. Find it nice i can readonly documents with it and don't have to open a app. Leave it like it is and let the people that don't like it open other apps :mrgreen:

ssam
March 23rd, 2006, 11:01 PM
file manager and browser in one is one of the things that puts me off kde. but if the kde users like it then they should keep it.

GeneralZod
March 23rd, 2006, 11:07 PM
I like it the way it is - if I don't want .pdf's opened in an embedded viewer, I either use "Open With" on the link on a case-by-case basis, or just configure it so that it never happens.

Having said that, I wouldn't mind the web browser component being factored out into a separate app (although I'd like the ability to still open web-pages in Konqueror, if I want - unlike many people, I have absolutely no objection to something being a file manager and web browser all-in-one) - it's a really lousy browser, and not just because of the rendering engine - the shell itself has made very little progress, and I'm betting that a separate project to make a separate khtml-based browser would spur development as it would be less constrained by the need for compatibility with Konqueror. It would be nice to be able to ditch the very bloated (from a resource-consumption point of view) and not-KDE-integrated Firefox once and for all, but I don't see that happening any time soon :(

tikal26
March 23rd, 2006, 11:15 PM
I was just thinking that many people critizes IE because is embedeed in explorer many people say that is the reason that it is so insecure. Does having the web browser and file manager togheter really makes the system less secure.

PatrickMay16
March 23rd, 2006, 11:28 PM
I personally think Konqueror is great how it is. But maybe it'd be a good idea to give it the ability to split up into smaller seperate parts as requested by the user. That way, everyone's happy.

ComplexNumber
March 23rd, 2006, 11:35 PM
Does having the web browser and file manager togheter really makes the system less secure. yes. an example:
http://news.com.com/KDE+flaws+put+Linux,+Unix+systems+at+risk/2110-1002_3-6029297.html

even though kde is not my fave, i do use it often. i think its a fantastic idea to split konqueror into its logical parts. sooner or later, its going to end up up as much of a mess as emacs (its already well and truly on the way). the developers seem to have forgotten that knoqueror is a file manager, and that is what it should stick to.
on the other hand, its bad because it means kde becoming more like gnome, and that means less choice for users. gnome offers this and kde offers that...and thats they way it should always be.
the only thing that kde and gnome should have in common is interoperability.

stoeptegel
March 23rd, 2006, 11:48 PM
Konqueror isn't a cpu or ram hog for me on my amd64 3200+, but it might be to others with lower system spec. though. In my view that would be the only reason to split it.

When i first used konqeuror, i was astounded how powerfull it was where it was able to let itself configure like no other browser i've ever used. (although firefox with it's extensions...)

For me it does the job, and i like the 3 into one program more than if i would have 3 different tools for it.

Qrk
March 24th, 2006, 12:41 AM
I like it, it does all of its functions well, though I still think it would be better if it were split up. Its the jack of all trades, but the master of none, as the colloquialism goes.

For instance, I like Thunar better for file browsing and Firefox better for web browsing.
But I'd keep the document viewer in with the file browser. Its nice not to have to load another program to view a text/pdf file. Thats one of the features I'd like to see Gnome or Xfce include. (Gnome seems to be going in the oposite direction though, that feature wouldn't be a good thing to have with spatial nautilus, of course)

Breaking off the web browser makes sense to me, as I like having a separation at the user level between the "outside" (web) and "inside" harddisk. Having the web browser included in with the file browser destroys the desktop metaphor ... its like opening up a drawer to look out the window!

Sirin
March 24th, 2006, 12:46 AM
I was just thinking that many people critizes IE because is embedeed in explorer many people say that is the reason that it is so insecure. Does having the web browser and file manager togheter really makes the system less secure.

Absolutely not. The FUD is definitely not true. First of all, Internet Explorer is embedded into the KERNEL. Konqueror isn't. Konqueror is a file manager, FTP Browser, PDF viewer, web browser, and way more. Konqueror is as safe as Firefox, if not more.

arctic
March 24th, 2006, 12:59 AM
Konqueror is very secure and it is not in any part something like IE. Konqu is built on top of the base system, just like all other apps, thus not dug deep into the core of the system.

IMHO, Konq should be left the way it is. Most people who use KDE use it because of the versatility of Konq. Konq is one of the best mulit-purpose tools in Linux, I must admit, although I am a Gnome-guy. :rolleyes:

ComplexNumber
March 24th, 2006, 01:01 AM
Absolutely not. The FUD is definitely not true. First of all, Internet Explorer is embedded into the KERNEL. Konqueror isn't. Konqueror is a file manager, FTP Browser, PDF viewer, web browser, and way more. Konqueror is as safe as Firefox, if not more. not true. the more intergrated a browser is into the desktop or other elements of the desktop, the more insecure its likely to be if all other factors are kept constant. it doesn't have to be embedded into the kernel to make it more insecure.

Gijith
March 24th, 2006, 01:17 AM
I really love konqueror the way it is and am totally confused as to why people object to it.

I love the fact that I can browse a webpage, open a video file, open a pdf and browse locally all wihout having to have numerous programs all over my desktop. You can still use dedicated programs if you want them. Please someone clue me in. What is the problem with this? The idea that it's using too much resources is crap. I ran a 1ghz, 128meg machine for months with kubuntu, and konqueror ran totally smooth on it.

arctic
March 24th, 2006, 01:18 AM
not true. the more intergrated a browser is into the desktop or other elements of the desktop, the more insecure its likely to be if all other factors are kept constant. it doesn't have to be embedded into the kernel to make it more insecure.

Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong in this case. There is a clear barrier between the system kernel and the rest of the apps in Linux. It is a modular and not a monolithic system and KDEs Konqueror is not insecure (just to remind you: Macs Safari is based on Konqueror and Mac is very secure). As long as the browser ain't embedded into the base system, it cannot affect the kernel and thus cannot trash your system.
The tools/features from other apps are integrated into Konq, and not the other way round. Thus, if Konq crashes, it will NOT cause a catasprophe on your system. Only Konq will crash, nothing else. The terminal will still work, the Kontrol-center will still work. And in case that more things suffer from a hickup, you can simply kill the PID of Konq and everything is fine or press ctrl+alt+backspace for restarting your session. The base system will keep on running and cannot be affected as Konq, as already said, is cut off from the core of the system.

banjobacon
March 24th, 2006, 01:47 AM
I really love konqueror the way it is and am totally confused as to why people object to it.

Because when I double click a document, I expect a new window to open to display the document, and I expect my file manager to still be usable. Having the document open in the file manager, though, makes the file manager essentially usless until you go back and open the document in a new window.

Also, I don't want my file manager openning as a new tab in my web browser when the "open external links in a new tab" option is enabled. It just really doesn't make sense to open the two in the same window.

These are two annoyances I remember most clearly. Konqueror is the main reason for me to ditch KDE. I wouldn't mind using it again, though, if Konqueor were removed.

Bandit
March 24th, 2006, 02:00 AM
I would like to see the web browser side removed.
The document viewer and file browser is fine. But the web browser needs to be split from it..

Now I have seen many people complain here about the way Konq acts..
IT can be configured to fit everyones demands in about 5 minutes..
But you do have to take the time to learn the settings and that is what takes the longest.
Which is why I think its just little to cumbersome...

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 02:04 AM
Sorry if I think it's a bad idea. Although Konqueror's "jack of all trades" feature turns some people off, doesn't mean it's all that bad. Some of my reasons for voting "bad idea"

1. Is a splinter really needed to improve Konqueror's web browsing capabilities? I believe that the KHTML KPart is the one handling that, and it is not an exclusive feature of Konqueror (KMail, akregator, and KTorrent use it as well). So if they really wanted to improve KDE's web browsing, they should focus more on KHTML rather than having to split Konqueror. Would splintering Konqueror really improve development, or will it also splinter efforts and manpower?

2. You have profiles, for those people who want to separate functionality. You have the Web Browser profile, the File Management profile, etc. You can setup Konqueror to open documents in external applications rather than as a viewer (which you can't edit, btw). The possible customizations are endless. The point is, it's there. If you don't want it, hide it.

3. There seems to be no criticisms of file managers having thumbnails to preview images/files. Konqueror just takes it a bit further, by letting you preview (again you can't edit) the different files.

4. IMHO Konqueror is actually not doing anything more than it's suppposed to, once you consider that in Unix/Unix-based systems, everything is a file, including a web page. If Nautilus handles the desktop because the desktop is just a folder within the file system, why can't Konqueror handle web pages since they are basically files in the internet?

5. IMHO (again), Konqueror is not integrated into the system/kernel itself. Neither is it really "integrated" into the Desktop Environment. Here's a quote from something I posted over at KubuntuForums.Net:

Anyway, I don't see KDE as too integrated, nor do I see Konqueror as actually integrated into the desktop. I think that the integration in KDE comes not from the apps but from a deeper level. specifically from 3 KDE components: KParts, kioslaves, and dcop, probably KParts most important of all. It allows Konqueror to do almost anything (is this a good thing actually?). It also allows KDE apps to have access to functions of other apps. But I think (again, not from a dev/programmer point of view) that you when Konqueror uses the Kate KPart, it doesn't actually call Kate. So there's actually no integration between Konqueror and Kate, except when Konqueror really calls and opens up Kate. So it seems that KDE integration comes from KParts (and the other 2 components), which is layered above the kernel but below the apps. I doubt that Konqueror can function well as either browser (it uses the KHTML Kpart) or file manager if KParts were removed.
Of course, the Kate KPart is developed together with Kate, but if you have Konqueror with Kate KPart open and another separate Kate window open, crashing one won't crash the other. Actually, the tools/features of other apps are not integrated solely on Konqueror. It's only more prominent in Konqueror. Some examples: You can open up a terminal, search file, folder browser (file manager) in Kate as well, all thanks to KParts.

When I asked about Konqueror being almost similar to Internet Explorer, this is one of the replies I got:

The problem, from a security standpoint, with Internet Explorer's "integration" is its being tied into the operating system itself (not the desktop), so that you have to use Internet Explorer to install updates to the operating system. Having the same application that browses the web also update your operating system isn't a good idea, especially since some random websites make good use of ActiveX, the very tool Microsoft Windows Updates uses to update the system.

Just my $0.02 (make that $0.04 because it's a long one :D)

Gijith
March 24th, 2006, 02:17 AM
By document, I'm guessing you mean a pdf? Settings > Configure > File Associations > Applications > pdf. Set it to show in the separate browser. Pretty much any other file type can be handled in this same way.

I'm not really sure if I understand the second annoyance. You don't want local folders opening as a tab in the same window as internet tabs? Is this right?

htinn
March 24th, 2006, 02:48 AM
In general, I dislike any application that tries to do too much. This accumulation of too many features into Konq is one of the main reasons why I don't use KDE. Dividing Konqueror into three different apps might help me change my mind.

Parkotron
March 24th, 2006, 03:30 AM
Wow! I know this sounds arrogant, but the results have been pretty much what I predicted. The majority of the vote thinks it's a good idea, but the majority of those passionate enough to respond disagree.

Fenyx mentioned the negative side effects of splitting development between multiple projects, but I'm not really sure if that's valid. Almost all the code is in KParts already, most of the work would just involve wrapping some new UIs and configuration dialogues around them. Since this is all hypothetical at the moment, no one knows how it would work exactly, but I picture as Konqueror sitting along side three stripped down versions of Konqueror all sharing a largely common code base. I mean, Konqueror's tree view is great. There's no need to rewrite it for K[insert catchy new name here].

I think this really just comes down to the logical separation of tasks and things like toolbars, context menus, and configuration dialogues. (I think most people can admit that a dialogue with 18 sub pages is a bit overboard.) Look a how much effort Kubuntu put into it's new Konqueror profiles. I'm sure some of you loved them and some of you hate them, but they were basically trying to address the issue that Konqueror can be scary for new users.

I also thought I would post the blog entry (http://blogs.qtdeveloper.net/archives/2005/08/03/some-basic-thoughts-about-kde-4/) that got me thinking to create this poll. It's written by Matthias Ettrich (founder of KDE).

And finally, I just like to say that I am in no way a Konqueror hater. I use and enjoy it very much. Were the these theoretical programs to exist, I'm not even sure I'd switch, but I think a set of simpler default applications would be better for the desktop as a whole. Especially on Kubuntu, where ease of use by "human beings" is such a focus.

ComplexNumber
March 24th, 2006, 03:35 AM
Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong in this case. There is a clear barrier between the system kernel and the rest of the apps in Linux. It is a modular and not a monolithic system and KDEs Konqueror is not insecure (just to remind you: Macs Safari is based on Konqueror and Mac is very secure). As long as the browser ain't embedded into the base system, it cannot affect the kernel and thus cannot trash your system.
The tools/features from other apps are integrated into Konq, and not the other way round. Thus, if Konq crashes, it will NOT cause a catasprophe on your system. Only Konq will crash, nothing else. The terminal will still work, the Kontrol-center will still work. And in case that more things suffer from a hickup, you can simply kill the PID of Konq and everything is fine or press ctrl+alt+backspace for restarting your session. The base system will keep on running and cannot be affected as Konq, as already said, is cut off from the core of the system. i'm sorry, but you're wrong. i never said that konqueror is insecure. i said its less secure than it could be. read what i've said again. just to remind you because you seem to have gone off the beaten track. you're talking about reliablity. i'm talking about security.

bailout
March 24th, 2006, 03:37 AM
Very bad idea. I love konq and think it is the best file manager I have ever used on any platform. Unfortunately the latest fashion in software is making everything as simple and featureless as possible. I call it firefoxification and have seen the same pressures in the Opera forums. People there saw the popularity of firefox and a lot of casual users used to IE liked firefox because it was similarly simple but with tabs.

The problem with this dumbing down is that all programs end up the same. There is already gnome which has very cut down simple programs for people who prefer that style of approach so I don't see why kde and knoq in particular should follow suit trying to chase the same users.

konq can be setup virtually however you want it via options and different profiles so I can't see the need for splitting it up as if that happens it won't be possible for those who like it together to set it up that way.

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 03:57 AM
Fenyx mentioned the negative side effects of splitting development between multiple projects, but I'm not really sure if that's valid. Almost all the code is in KParts already, most of the work would just involve wrapping some new UIs and configuration dialogues around them. Since this is all hypothetical at the moment, no one knows how it would work exactly, but I picture as Konqueror sitting along side three stripped down versions of Konqueror all sharing a largely common code base. I mean, Konqueror's tree view is great. There's no need to rewrite it for K[insert catchy new name here].

I didn't say anything about developing new KParts. If Konqueror were to be split (into to two, I don't understand the need to split into 3), they would only use existing KParts. What I was saying was that if they wanted to improve the web browsing capabilities of Konqueror, they should focus on improving the capabilities of KHTML. (Let's remember that KHTML is the base of Mac OS's Safari). Also, how many devs are involved directly in Konqueror? Then you'd probably have to split that number if you're going to split up Konqueror.

About the dialogs and configurations, I think what KDE needs is a sort of way to turn on/off some parts of the configuration/settings dialog box. For example, if you don't need/want to see settings for A in Konqueror, there should be a way to hide it.

I'd have to read the blog you linked to over again. There are just some points that I have issues with. :D

htinn
March 24th, 2006, 04:16 AM
The problem with this dumbing down is that all programs end up the same. There is already gnome which has very cut down simple programs for people who prefer that style of approach so I don't see why kde and knoq in particular should follow suit trying to chase the same users.

One of the main problems with taking the "all-in-one" approach to an application is that it encourages developers to keeping adding features until the application is too bloated for anyone except die hard users to use.

You end up needing to provide more tutorials, more documentation, more support for all the "n00bs" who are still on the bottom of that learning curve. All that documentation and support time cuts into your Q&A/development time.

New development is difficult because the rules for interaction between the features become more arbitrary and complicated for every revision.

It's just insanity. ](*,)

Just because GNOME does it doesn't mean that KDE can't do it too.

banjobacon
March 24th, 2006, 04:23 AM
Very bad idea. I love konq and think it is the best file manager I have ever used on any platform.

Just because you think it's a great file manager means it should also be a web browser?

Iandefor
March 24th, 2006, 04:26 AM
Sounds like a good idea. Konqueror felt cluttered last time I used it, and breaking it up intro a trio of applications sounds like a good idea- but I know that there are some people who might not like it, so if there's an actually implementable way of having the choice between a triplet and one program, I think it could be a good idea to offer the choice.

Parkotron
March 24th, 2006, 04:28 AM
Sorry Fenyx, I didn't mean to imply that you said anything about new KParts.

I'm sure almost everyone can agree that Konqueror has an excellent backend. It's built on quality code that works extremely well. I'm under the impression that that's where the majority of the development work occurs. If the backend can be shared with the new programs, then amount of developer splitting would be minimal. Who knows, maybe these new, young programs could attract a whole new wave of developers.

A new web browser might also bring a lot of positive attention to KHTML. As it is, a lot of KDE users resort to Firefox or Opera. A new browser, would be certain to pull at least some of those users back.

Oh, and as far as splitting it in two rather than three, work has already begun on oKular (http://developer.kde.org/summerofcode/okular.html), a unified document viewer for KDE.

Gijith
March 24th, 2006, 04:41 AM
One of the main problems with taking the "all-in-one" approach to an application is that it encourages developers to keeping adding features until the application is too bloated for anyone except die hard users to use.

You end up needing to provide more tutorials, more documentation, more support for all the "n00bs" who are still on the bottom of that learning curve. All that documentation and support time cuts into your Q&A/development time.

New development is difficult because the rules for interaction between the features become more arbitrary and complicated for every revision.

It's just insanity. ](*,)

Just because GNOME does it doesn't mean that KDE can't do it too.

Again, I'm a total 'n00b' who, up until very recently, was a running a PC that was considered midrange in 1999. I'm a total dunce when it comes to computers. That said, it took me only a few hours to get very comfortable with Konqueror and KDE in general. It ran fine on my old PC. This whole alleged confusing complexity of Konqueror, and KDE in general, is just a myth. Me, and a few very stupid friends who also started using linux, have gotten on just dandy with it. The options, though plentiful, are intuitive and explained well. Lots of documentation. Very easy.

Really, if people are concerned about scaring off new linux users, I could give you a list of 500 major issues that come before Konqueror's long feature list.

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 04:51 AM
Maybe it's one thing to stop adding some unnecessary/extra features into Konqueror, and another thing to split it all up.

If people have been complaining about KDE being slow/bloated, would splitting Konqueror really solve the problem? It's not like you'll be cutting Konqueror exactly in half. In fact, each split might end up adding to the "bloat" that KDE is infamous for. (Well, KDE4 promises to reduce the bloated feeling, so maybe we should wait).

If we follow the principle of keeping a web browser strictly a web browser, and keeping a file manager strictly a file manager, then firefox and other browsers should not be able to display local files/directories. But they can, and actually they need to, because web sites are basically an online equivalent of the local file structure (directories and files), with the only exception that they are rendered/interpreted differently (html, etc).

Maybe I'm the only one seeing the logic of a file manager being able to act as a web browser because web pages/sites are files/directories. I'm not surprised. I've always been weird.

@banjobacon: and just because someone thinks that Konqueror should be split up doesn't mean it has to be, right? (no offense meant, just had to use your quote as an example).

I don't completely agree with Ettrich's analogy of Konqueror profiles to a swiss knife (see the blog linked by Parkotron). For one, analogies will always be insufficient to explain/define something. For one thing, it's impossible to have multiple instances of the same swiss knife in the same way that you can have multiple instances of the same app. But anyway, Konqueror profiles are not like "buying" another swiss knife preconfigured for a specific job (wouldn't a preconfigured/specific swiss knife be contradiction to the term "swiss army knife"?) Profiles are like different ways that you can view/arrange the swiss knife. Of course, you can't have different views of the swiss knife open all at the same time, which is why I said the analogy is incomplete/insufficient.

An implementable way to choose between triplet and one program? Profiles. I don't see any reason why not. (or at least I haven't heard of one).

Is there really an absolute need to split Konqueror? If clutter or bloat is the problem, why not do something to reduce that instead? I mean they say that KDE4/Qt4 will greatly reduce these problems, so there's one way to address it, without having to split down things. If it's absolutely necessary, I'd say chop off rather than split.

About Konqueror and security issues, is this really something unique to Konqueror alone? Aren't there security issues that hound Firefox as well? I'm not sure about Epiphany (it's the default GNOME browser right?) since I'm mainly staying in Ubuntu, which has Firefox as the default.

Iandefor
March 24th, 2006, 05:48 AM
About Konqueror and security issues, is this really something unique to Konqueror alone? Aren't there security issues that hound Firefox as well? I'm not sure about Epiphany (it's the default GNOME browser right?) since I'm mainly staying in Ubuntu, which has Firefox as the default. Firefox has it's share of security problems, although (from what I hear) a lot of them stem from Javascript, so disabling Javascript might help with that. But yeah, you're correct.

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 05:53 AM
In fact, the news.com article that ComplexNumber linked to specifically mentioned the Javascript interpreter as the cause of that vulnerability. And AFAIK, such security flaws in javascript are also shared by other browsers. It just so happened that KDE got the limelight that time.

Btw, if you updated to KDE 3.5.1, the latest KDE release, that problem has been fixed (I think).

htinn
March 24th, 2006, 06:26 AM
Maybe part of this is whether you are used to Windows or Mac. Certainly, Konqueror is far simpler to use than Explorer, but it seems bloated and complicated compared to Finder in Mac.

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 06:41 AM
Or whether you are coming from GNOME or from Windows :D
Parkotron: the blog entry you gave is almost a year old. Do you have any more recent links that have this "discussion"? Is there still discussion about this going on?

fuscia
March 24th, 2006, 08:43 AM
i like it the way it is. it let's me do a number of things, with one program, in nearly twice the time i could do them with seperate apps.

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 09:01 AM
It think the real issue here is not whether Konqueror, in itself, is too much, but whether the default Konqueror/Konqueror profile is too much "for the newbie". In my own experience, it isn't. But from the experience of many new KDE users, it is. If this is the case, then splitting Konqueror is like barking at the wrong tree. Instead, why not make settings that would cater to beginner, intermediate, and advanced users? For example, 3D Studio Max (a 3D modeling/animation software) has these 3 settings, and depending on which setting you choose, the UI changes accordingly, hiding/showing options. That way, you don't lose any of your users. New users will be content to use the beginner mode, while power users will be able to switch to full/expert mode. Konqueror profiles are a start, but there are still some things that are lacking in that.

But if the problem is whether Konqueror tries to do everything, sure splitting it may solve that. But then you'd be opening up another set of problems. How about duplicated code (you're basically using KHTML also), more resource usage (opening one window with multiple tabs vs. opening multiple windows), etc.

But then again, we may need to change the way we view/think about desktops. Is the desktop analogy on computers still valid? Is the concept of folders and files still useful? Maybe we need a paradigm shift on a more fundamental level, rather than just on a UI level. I think KDE4 is starting to think about that. That's what's making me excited to see any (if there is any right now) development in KDE4 besides the actual coding/porting to Qt4.

vayu
March 24th, 2006, 09:12 AM
I love Konqueror. I wish the web browser was a little better, It's not bad though. Once in a while it won't render a page correctly. Personally I don't understand how people think it's bloated. I've got Ubuntu and Kubuntu on 4 computers and Nautilus is slower and clunkier on every one of them, and it doesn't do as much.

darkmatter
March 24th, 2006, 09:14 AM
Back in the day when I was a KDE user/hacker, the one thing I could never stand about Konqueror as not the fact that it was an all in one app... never had an issue with that. The problem was that it had a nightmarishly cluttered UI. (prefs and the works). If splitting it up means simplifing that (which seems to be the general aim of KDE 4... a cleaner ui).. then go for it

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 09:24 AM
Just found this blog (http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1310) entry from another KDE dev, just to show another side of the Konqueror split opinion. :D

If there's one thing that needs developing in Konqueror the most, it's the KHTML KPart. It's just so sad that it has been successfully used by Safari and it is still lagging behind others, except perhaps in the Acid2 Test.

Will splitting up Konqueror result in cleaner UI? Maybe, or maybe not. There's a saying that goes "nature hates a vaccuum", meaning that if there's an empty space, most probably it will be filled up with something else. But is splitting really the answer for a cleaner UI? read the blog entry I linked to. There are some ideas there about how to have a cleaner, less cluttered UI without splitting konqueror. Take note that these two blogs have been basically released on the same month/year (August 2005). I've failed to read any update on that issue that's dated later than Nov. 2005. I wonder what happened then. I wish we had an answer from some of the devs... :(

EDIT: Btw, Kubuntu is my first distro in Linux, and KDE my first DE. It wasn't that hard to get used to KDE, but maybe because I wasn't a complete newb. I did quite some research of Linux and KDE/GNOME before I made the switch.

njf
March 24th, 2006, 10:31 AM
I strongly against splitting Konqueror. I really really love the seamless experience provided by Konqueror.

Those who don't want to use all its functionality, you can always configure it to do only a particular task.
It is the aim of Konqueror to be versatile. If you really dislike it, there are also good apps like Krusader, Firefox, Opera etc.

As for the UI, Kubuntu team has done a great job simplifying it. The default layout is very Firefox like. They will simplify (already done?) it even further in Dapper. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KubuntuSimplifyKDE

awakatanka
March 24th, 2006, 11:28 AM
I strongly against splitting Konqueror. I really really love the seamless experience provided by Konqueror.

Those who don't want to use all its functionality, you can always configure it to do only a particular task.
It is the aim of Konqueror to be versatile. If you really dislike it, there are also good apps like Krusader, Firefox, Opera etc.

As for the UI, Kubuntu team has done a great job simplifying it. The default layout is very Firefox like. They will simplify (already done?) it even further in Dapper. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KubuntuSimplifyKDE


Simplify is good aslong as a power user can undo all changes, i want to keep the things i like and configure the others to my needs.

The most votes are for changes but it looks like it that are almost all gnome users. I also started on kde (suse and mandrake) and never had troubles, only a learning curve.

I dislike restriction that can't be undone.

arctic
March 24th, 2006, 11:31 AM
i'm sorry, but you're wrong. i never said that konqueror is insecure. Aha? Better read what YOU posted. ;)
not true. the more intergrated a browser is into the desktop or other elements of the desktop, the more insecure its likely to be ... it doesn't have to be embedded into the kernel to make it more insecure. I get the impression that you acutally don't know anything about Linux systems, sorry. :rolleyes:
you're talking about reliablity. i'm talking about security.Aha? Just to mind you, I wasn't talking about reliability but about reliability AND security. If you fail to realize that, I am sorry.

njf
March 24th, 2006, 12:01 PM
Simplify is good aslong as a power user can undo all changes, i want to keep the things i like and configure the others to my needs.

The most votes are for changes but it looks like it that are almost all gnome users. I also started on kde (suse and mandrake) and never had troubles, only a learning curve.

I dislike restriction that can't be undone.

I don't recall any functionality being removed, just that some features are less discoverable. I'm probably wrong since I haven't spent much time with vanila Konqueror. :-k
Anyway, you can always get back the default KDE profile. http://www.kubuntu.org/faq.php#konqueror

Add:
Almost all of the default settings of Kubuntu are done without code change (but customized with config files), so it is fairly easy to reset them. If you only want vanila KDE, simply uninstall kubuntu-default-settings (and probably delete the KDE profiles).

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 12:23 PM
But mind you, even some KDE people want this split. Goes to show that you can't please everybody and you're bound to displease someone even from within your own community.

A hidden functionality, of course, isn't actually removed. Unless it was hidden is such a way that it would be almost impossible to access them without digging through some stuff (KDE does have some of these "hidden" settings). However, for a newcomer, any hidden functionality basically doesn't exist for him, because he doesn't know it exists, because it's hidden. (I'm going in circles :D).

But anyway, splitting Konqueror into a file manager and browser will remove some functionality. Actually, relocate is a better term. The file manager will not (or should not) be able to use the KHTML KPart, nor would the browser be able to have write access to files (only browse them, like Firefox). So you are essentially creating two separate programs, with two separate resource needs, etc.

awakatanka
March 24th, 2006, 12:45 PM
I don't recall any functionality being removed, just that some features are less discoverable. I'm probably wrong since I haven't spent much time with vanila Konqueror. :-k
Anyway, you can always get back the default KDE profile. http://www.kubuntu.org/faq.php#konqueror

Add:
Almost all of the default settings of Kubuntu are done without code change (but customized with config files), so it is fairly easy to reset them. If you only want vanila KDE, simply uninstall kubuntu-default-settings (and probably delete the KDE profiles).
I like the changes kubuntu has done atm, but if i get more exprience i can choose to do so,that is a good thing that i like and know ;).

But simplify things like the gnome developers did without giving a option for the experts, i simply dislike, but my exp is to little to give a real judgement if its true, all this is based on reading i have done.



Split something up if it isn't polished to full potention yet is stupid. If everything is polished as it should be the user can decide how it response and looks like.

I find it very easy to read quick a document without starting a app. Also the browser has a spelling control very handy to for postings like this hehe ( still i use firefox because windows habits )

http://www.linux-magazine.com/issue/56/Konqueror_3.4_Tricks.pdf what it can do all.

ComplexNumber
March 24th, 2006, 01:12 PM
not true. the more intergrated a browser is into the desktop or other elements of the desktop, the more insecure its likely to be ... it doesn't have to be embedded into the kernel to make it more insecure.I get the impression that you acutally don't know anything about Linux systems, sorry. you're entitled to think what you want. just because you don't know anything doesn't mean that you should project that onto others. you can believe the earth is flat if you like. but the truth still remains



Aha? Just to mind you, I wasn't talking about reliability but about reliability AND security. If you fail to realize that, I am sorry. if you don't know what you are talking about, then just shut up.

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 01:13 PM
Off-topic: Is that PDF in another language? KPDF doesn't seem to render it right :(

Sheinar
March 24th, 2006, 01:21 PM
Off-topic: Is that PDF in another language? KPDF doesn't seem to render it right :(
Works fine for me in KPDF.

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 01:35 PM
Oh crap. something's wrong with KPDF. Just discovered KGhostView renders it fine... :(

awakatanka
March 24th, 2006, 01:59 PM
Oh crap. something's wrong with KPDF. Just discovered KGhostView renders it fine... :(
maybe this forf people without pdf support a alternate link http://pdf2html.pootwerdie.com/pdf2html.php?url=http://www.linux-magazine.com/issue/56/Konqueror_3.4_Tricks.pdf

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 02:04 PM
Well, actually, only that file renders incorrectly in KPDF. All other pdf's I have are fine. And KGhostView displays it correctly. Tried uninstalling/reinstalling KPDF, but didn't work. Strange... this is the first time I encountered this problem... :(

I'll read it in KGhostView anyway. :D

EDIT: I just realized I haven't thanked you yet for providing that link. How rude of me. Thank you!! \\:D/

spooky-mac
March 24th, 2006, 02:16 PM
Complexnumber, do you need to get that rude? Is this really necessary???

if you don't know what you are talking about, then just shut up.
/me shakes his head.

arctic
March 24th, 2006, 02:26 PM
ComplexNumber, I won't discuss this any further with you as it will lead us nowhere. I can tell you what I want and you won't believe me (I am a long-time Linux-distro developer btw). And one final note: imho, you behave like an immature kid.

End of story.

ComplexNumber
March 24th, 2006, 03:02 PM
spooky-mac
i wasn't being rude. i was just telling him the truth for his own good.

arctic
you mention that you have been a long time linux developer, which i must admit comes as a surprise given what you've previously said. you must think you are the only one. some people have been since 1997, and have been a developer on windows and thebbc micro since long before that.

Jucato
March 24th, 2006, 03:10 PM
Oh, great! not again! please, let's stop any flaming. arctic has shown an example by saying that he will stop fanning the flame. Please, let's all try to be civil and keep within the boundaries of this thread.

matthew
March 24th, 2006, 04:36 PM
you're entitled to think what you want. just because you don't know anything doesn't mean that you should project that onto others. you can believe the earth is flat if you like. but the truth still remains

if you don't know what you are talking about, then just shut up.
spooky-mac
i wasn't being rude. i was just telling him the truth for his own good.

arctic
you mention that you have been a long time linux developer, which i must admit comes as a surprise given what you've previously said. you must think you are the only one. some people have been since 1997, and have been a developer on windows and thebbc micro since long before that.
@ComplexNumber
(Re: comment to spooky-mac) Actually you are being rude. Please stop.

You can discuss your ideas without insulting others (as you did in quote #1) or telling them to "shut up."

Play nice or you will find yourself in trouble.

ComplexNumber
March 24th, 2006, 04:53 PM
matthew
ok. sorry. i guess i must have come across as being more harsh than was intended.

matthew
March 24th, 2006, 05:28 PM
matthew
ok. sorry. i guess i must have come across as being more harsh than was intended.Thank you. Your response is very appreciated and noted.

I understand how communication mistakes can happen--sometimes text, even with a generous helping of smilies, doesn't accurately convey emotion. I try to err on the side of being extra nice.

Randomskk
March 24th, 2006, 07:32 PM
Hm. I, personally, really like having it all as one application - I can browse files, ctrl+tab to another tab and be browsing the web.. I can open a text document and view it in the same window, or right click to open it in Kate. I can view pictures, cycle through them, or change view mode to picture thumbnails or the picture viewer.
Personally, I also like most of the tools - and for me at least, it's far from too bloated. The compatibility with the rest of KDE, and having all the apps together, is something I like as well - for example, mouse gestures in Konqueror apply to both file browsing and web browsing.

Parkotron
March 25th, 2006, 07:52 AM
Fenyx, thank you very much for the link, it presented some good points. I think it's interesting that both postings implied that some features got added to Konqueror, not because they were needed or even wanted, but because they could be added. The biggest problem with this is that once you add a feature, ridiculous or not, you'll always have enraged users when you try to take it away.

I agree with Neundorf that the situation could be greatly improved if the profile implementation were cleaner. Average users shouldn't have to deal with profiles, they should just work. But then again part of me thinks that if you're going so far as defining different home URLs for each profile, restricting the KIOslaves the profiles can access, changing toolbars and menus, and making it impossible to switch between profiles on the fly, aren't you really just creating two separate applications? At least from the users point of view, if the menus, toolbars, and behaviour are different and if they're launched with separate icons, they would certainly seem like two distinct applications. Is it really worth the effort of maintaining these profiles within Konqueror? Why not just cut the umbilical cord and separate them from Konqueror?

After thinking over why I don't really care for the profiles solution, I think the main reason is that if you use profiles all three "applications" share the name Konqueror. I think this is terribly unintuitive. Even though they share a lot of common code Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer at least have distinguishable names; a user is rarely confused as to which of the two they're currently using. (I hate it when people compare Linux to Windows to make a point, but in this case I think it's valid.)

If profiles do turn out to be the best solution, I think all the code should be thrown into some behind the scenes program (like kfmclient). Each profile should then be given its own name, icon, and "executable", even if that executable is nothing more than "kfmclient --profile=konqueror". Be default in Kubuntu, clicking the Konqueror icon launches it neither as a web browser of as a file manager, but in limbo waiting for you to choose. I think users expect (and rightly so) to at least have separate icons for web browsing and file managent

Wow, that's a pretty wordy post. It's amazing how worked up we can get over something as hypothetical as this. I mean, as far as I know, none of the posters in this thread have been major KDE developers, so it's unlikely this will have a major effect on what will happen, but will still feel the need to push our points.

In response to your earlier question, I'm sure I had another link discussing this issue, but I can't for the life of me find it. Maybe I just dreamed it up?

njf
March 25th, 2006, 10:42 AM
I found a related one:
https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-quality/2006-February/001906.html

The whole thread is an interesting read.

Jucato
March 25th, 2006, 10:51 AM
work. But then again part of me thinks that if you're going so far as defining different home URLs for each profile, restricting the KIOslaves the profiles can access, changing toolbars and menus, and making it impossible to switch between profiles on the fly, aren't you really just creating two separate applications?
No. What you are basically changing in profiles is the configuration/appearance of the application, in KDE's case, through editing/modifying the XMLGUI files. Separate applications would require different codes (even if they share a few similar codes), different headers, calls, etc. I'm not updated in my programming concepts so I couldn't explain it very well.


At least from the users point of view, if the menus, toolbars, and behaviour are different and if they're launched with separate icons, they would certainly seem like two distinct applications. Is it really worth the effort of maintaining these profiles within Konqueror? Why not just cut the umbilical cord and separate them from Konqueror?
The point is, if the user is completely new, he wouldn't know anything with Konqueror profiles. For the new user, it's as if the other profiles don't exist, so there's no confusion. Once he learns about those profiles and learns how to use them, then he crosses the threshold from being a beginner to an intermediate user. By then, he would have known (or will know) that Konqueror profiles are just different ways to view the same app, not two distinct applications.


After thinking over why I don't really care for the profiles solution, I think the main reason is that if you use profiles all three "applications" share the name Konqueror. I think this is terribly unintuitive. Even though they share a lot of common code Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer at least have distinguishable names; a user is rarely confused as to which of the two they're currently using. (I hate it when people compare Linux to Windows to make a point, but in this case I think it's valid.)
Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer have different/distinguishable names. But the difference ends there. To understand what I mean, launch Internet Explorer, go to Views > Explorer Bar > Folders and tell me what you see isn't Windows Explorer. Now, launch Windows Explorer and remove the Folders sidebar and tell me that it isn't Internet Explorer.
This is IMHO the real crime here. Windows has made users believe that Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are different apps. It doesn't make things easier. What it does is that you are confining users to believe in something that isn't true. Sure it's not confusing for beginners. But limiting the potential of exploring new possibilities, severly limiting users' potential to grow. Do we really want to do that? Even GNOME has its own way of configurability, and it is definitely waaay better than how Windows does it.


Each profile should then be given its own name, icon, and "executable", even if that executable is nothing more than "kfmclient --profile=konqueror". Be default in Kubuntu, clicking the Konqueror icon launches it neither as a web browser of as a file manager, but in limbo waiting for you to choose. I think users expect (and rightly so) to at least have separate icons for web browsing and file managent.
Putting different icons would only add to the confusion, plus it would be lying to the users, making them think that the Web Browsing profile is a different application from the File Manager profile, which is not true (at least presently, we don't know what will happen in KDE4). See my above comments about this.
There are separate "executables" or launchers for the different profiles although they are not easily seen. When the default Konqueror is launched, it is launched with the Web Browser profile (kfmclient openProfile webbrowsing) because Kubuntu has set it up that the default Konqueror profile is the Web Browser profile. (I'm not in front of my Kubuntu box, so I can't point you to the exact rc file for this). You can change this if you want, but that's something that new users/beginners don't need to know, but something power users want.

By the way, I think some of the things mentioned in Neundorf's post have been implemented I think in KDE 3.4 (or 3.5.x). Things like having different menus/toolbars per Konqueror profile, different service menus depending on what is displayed (like Trash:/ i think), etc. But I do wish we could get some more recent dev insights on that issue, whether it has died or was considered by the other devs. Aside from that blog entries directly from 2 devs, and some scattered "user" opinions from different forums, groups, etc, there is relatively few references from Google. :D

magnusbb
March 25th, 2006, 12:53 PM
I generally like Konqueror, but sometimes, when using it in Kubuntu (the 3.5.1) it suddenly crashes, just vanishes. For example when doing a many tasks in the same window - ie. PDF viewing, web browsing, file management.

If Konqueror can't handle its tasks without crashing so severely, something needs to be done to it.

njf
March 25th, 2006, 01:06 PM
I generally like Konqueror, but sometimes, when using it in Kubuntu (the 3.5.1) it suddenly crashes, just vanishes. For example when doing a many tasks in the same window - ie. PDF viewing, web browsing, file management.

If Konqueror can't handle its tasks without crashing so severely, something needs to be done to it.

That's odd, I did those regularly, and it works really well. Can you reproduce the crash and file a bug report with the backtrace??

Sheinar
March 25th, 2006, 01:25 PM
but sometimes, when using it in Kubuntu (the 3.5.1) it suddenly crashes, just vanishes.
I had that problem at times when I was using Kubuntu. I'm assuming it's a Kubuntu problem though, not a Konqueror one, because it hasn't happened to me on other distros.

SeanTater
March 25th, 2006, 03:26 PM
I do not like this idea at all -- I am thrilled about how konqueror is one app.I am addicted to being able to do everything in one place.. I vote "It's a bad idea"

magnusbb
March 25th, 2006, 03:57 PM
That's odd, I did those regularly, and it works really well. Can you reproduce the crash and file a bug report with the backtrace??

I wish I could, but now I have been sitting here for at least 5 minutes forever trying to get it crash, and it doesn't. 8)

Hopefully that's a good sign. But I'll report it at once, if I find it.

When talking Konqueror: Has anyone got their thumb-buttons working with Konqueror through imwheel? Mine works great with both Nautilus and Firefox, but Konqueror doesn't manage it.

Stormy Eyes
March 25th, 2006, 04:24 PM
I'd appreciate if only those of who use KDE would vote. (I think we all know that Gnome users don't care for huge complex apps.)

Since I use Xfce I'll be a good kitty and abstain from voting. However, I do think it'd be a good idea to break up Konqueror, if only to make it easier to debug the components.

Hygelac
March 25th, 2006, 07:51 PM
"It's a bad idea;" I like Konqueror the way it is (it's tabs, speed, combination of components, etc...).

oblio
March 26th, 2006, 12:00 AM
Very bad idea to split up Konqueror. It's the swiss army knife of KDE....

Konqueror crashing...? Must be something (K)ubuntu, because I never experienced a crash problem with Konqueror - in any of the debian-based distros that I tried in the last couple of years. And not in Kubuntu Dapper Flight 4 and 5 either (but I haven't used these for more than a couple of weeks...).

Regards,

roachk71
March 26th, 2006, 03:36 AM
Oh No!!!!

I like the "Konqueror Does (just about) Everything" concept. And for some users, splitting this incredible browser into separate components might be confusing. :cool:

Many Internet users prefer a central locus for most of what they do, both online and off; Konqueror suits 'em well.

ShanghaiTeej
March 26th, 2006, 05:30 AM
I like the idea of splitting Konqueror or focusing more on file managing rather than web usage. Firefox has become quite the standard, but then again, people do like Konqueror. Well, I guess the compromise would just be to make it a choice between the two. If you are going to use Firefox as your webbrowser, you can choose to install certain parts of Konqueror, or something to that effect.

qalimas
March 26th, 2006, 06:14 AM
I love Konq the way it is now, but maybe making it modular with enable/disable options in settings for those who don't like it like this? Or, they could go to GNOME, seeing as most KDE apps try to do the same as Konq, and GNOME apps tend to have less features (not offending, but they do have less features, which is what breaking Konq down would do to it, give it less features). There is a desktop for everyone, KDE and Konq have their userbase, I'd hate to see them risk loosing it over getting a new base.

GeneralZod
March 26th, 2006, 10:37 AM
However, I do think it'd be a good idea to break up Konqueror, if only to make it easier to debug the components.

To be quite honest, this is pretty much the way it is now - Konqueror (and KDE in general) is pretty heavily componentised.

I get the impression that some people think that Konqueror is some huge, monolithic application that really does contain everything but the kitchen sink: in reality, this is actually not the case - it is basically a small(-ish!) shell with Up, Down, Back, Forward etc buttons that can wrap components - in much the same way that Firefox does not contain a Flash implementation or a media player. For example, let's take PDF embedding - you can choose, in Konqueror's File Associations place, whether to open PDF's in an external application, or embed them. The external PDF viewer of choice in KDE is called (perhaps unsurprisingly! :p) KPDF.

Now, KPDF is a completely stand-alone application that has no dependence on Konqueror, but the way KDE is architected means that the KPDF developers can fairly easily factor out part of the KPDF into a KPart, which is rather like a Flash plug-in. A KPart can then be easily embedded into other KDE apps, most commonly the Konqueror document shell (although other apps besides Konqueror embed KParts - "kate", for example, may have a Konsole KPart embedded in it) which I find to be a very elegant solution - Konqueror itself can be kept reasonably small and light, and any functionality it may need can be separately developed as a standalone app, then prepared for embedding into Konqueror or any other KDE app.



I love Konq the way it is now, but maybe making it modular with enable/disable options in settings for those who don't like it like this?

This is pretty much exactly the case now - don't like Konqueror as a web browser? Associate Firefox/ Dillo/ Epiphany with html pages. Don't like it as a PDF reader? Associate KPDF/ xpdf/ Evince with .PDF's. KParts are a very neat solution precisely because they encourage heavy modularity, but a modularity that allows the modules to easily be linked into huge wholes, if you want it. Don't want a terminal app inside your text editor? Take it out!

I for one really hope that KDE does not cut down on functonality - it's one of the cornerstones of KDE. The best solution in my eyes is for them to simply hide many advanced options (as Kubuntu seems to be doing) and re-arrange some of the options more logically (the location of the toggle for whether single or double-click should open apps and files it a perfect example of this - can you guess where it is?) while keeping everything intact for the power-users like me. I suspect that, if they started outright cutting features mercilessly, they would lose more followers than they would gain - starting with me ;)

ComplexNumber
March 26th, 2006, 01:42 PM
and GNOME apps tend to have less features (not offending, but they do have less features, which is what breaking Konq down would do to it, give it less features). this is a common misconception that many people make. it is not true that gnome apps have less features than kde aps. in many cases gnome apps have the equal or more features than their equivelent kde app. gnome simplification is in the desktop apps (all the apps that influence how the desktop looks or behaves, or apps that allow a user to interact with the desktop). apps such as inkscape, k3-d etc don't fall into this catagory and are full featured, but the interface tends to be cleaner on gnome apps.