PDA

View Full Version : Why is Firefox better than Konqueror?



wowbuntu
May 23rd, 2005, 12:10 PM
Dear Ubuntu people

Why is Firefox better than Konqueror?

Post your reasons.

Regards
Wowbuntu

mikl
May 23rd, 2005, 12:15 PM
Dear Ubuntu people

Why is Firefox better than Konqueror?

Post your reasons.

Regards
Wowbuntu
It's not "better", just different :)

XDevHald
May 23rd, 2005, 12:18 PM
It's not "better", just different :)
Security, Extensions, and yes, it's different.

SparkyDawg
May 23rd, 2005, 12:35 PM
Firefox = more security

I still like using Konquerer to move about my computer.

somuchfortheafter
May 23rd, 2005, 12:37 PM
yea i use firefox for web stuff and nautilus --browser for all my pc browsing...

SGC
May 23rd, 2005, 01:08 PM
Konqueror is underrated browser; it has many unique features that other browsers dosn't have.

But extensions like greasemonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/) and adblock (http://adblock.mozdev.org/) are what makes firefox a great browser.

elsewhere
May 23rd, 2005, 03:30 PM
Konqueror is underrated browser; it has many unique features that other browsers dosn't have.

But extensions like greasemonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/) and adblock (http://adblock.mozdev.org/) are what makes firefox a great browser.

My feelings too. I haven't timed it but I find KHTML to be just as fast, if not sometimes faster than Firefox. It ultimately loses out to Firefox in terms of extensibility (which I could live with) and granular configurability (which I can't live without). But it's a pretty impressive browser, particularly considering it was designed by a relatively small team of part-timers.

Cheers,
KV

Juippisi
May 23rd, 2005, 03:39 PM
Hmm, aren't they developing adblock to konqueror? I have heard something like that.

But why Firefox is better? Well, Konqueror uses Qt and some KDE stuff (kdelibs etc.). I don't personally like KDE at all ;).

jdodson
May 23rd, 2005, 05:01 PM
better? well not sure if its better, but i dont use konqueror because i dont like qt widgets. that doesnt make firefox better perse, its just a personal choice.

firefox is more supported, ie it has a bigger community and a bigger backing from corporations as far as i can tell.

if people are going to code a website they will test it in IE. then they might test it in firefox. so your compatability chances are higher. then again, people should code for everybrowser. not that they do, because a lot of sites dont.

firefox has gazillions of plugins. konqueror does not.

i would imagine they are both as secure and stable. not that i have numbers to proove it, i have not experienced either to be unstable. firefox might have more security holes because it has a bigger userbase however(ie more people are looking at it from a security standpoint).

bored2k
May 23rd, 2005, 05:15 PM
The extensions. Gotta love them/
"so your compatability chances are higher. " This is the case with GMail and Konqueror (they are not friends).

pdk001
May 23rd, 2005, 05:34 PM
how about netscape?
in korea online banks dont work in firefox browser cuz of having 0.3% linux users
in the other hand, 99% of operating system we have is windows, and 0.4% to mac

Knome_fan
May 23rd, 2005, 05:48 PM
It isn't.
Konqueror is better integrated into KDE, loads much faster and uses less memory.


Regards,
Knome_fan

Ironi
May 23rd, 2005, 06:53 PM
Security

How, specifically, is Firefox more secure than Konqueror?



Konqueror is underrated browser; it has many unique features that other browsers dosn't have.

Agreed. Konqueror is the best option out there for local AND remote file management, IMO. Plus it has a few features that Firefox either lacks or its extensions implement poorly.

Can't beat Firefox when it comes to easy extensibility, though.

poofyhairguy
May 23rd, 2005, 07:27 PM
Old Konqi might use less resources, but man I miss those extensions (and the overall better look IMHO).

Also, the way Konqi is utilized in KDE makes me think of IE integration in Windows (not a good thing).