What do you think about Epiphany being the default browser for Ubuntu?

[Gnobody]

Why not? Firefox doesn't integrate that well into gnome.

[Amaranth]

Why not? Firefox doesn't integrate that well into gnome.
Firefox has mindshare, any distro without it looks bad.

[Burgundavia]

Epiphany is nice, but is lacking features that FF offers.

Corey

[ubuntp]

My vote goes to Epiphany as well.

[mattisking]

This post comes up on here way too often. There's lots of people that love one or the other. Right now, it seems most chose Firefox (as do I). If you don't want it, there's Synaptic to make all your dreams come true. :p

For instance, Synaptic helps me escape Evolution to the comfortable confines of Thunderbird.

[ubuntp]

If you don't want it, there's Synaptic to make all your dreams come true. :p
Actually you have to keep it, because Epiphany depends on Firefox.

[Strangerdave]

how would a n00b like myself get this epiphany to see what it is like. I use FF on a regular basis, but if there is something else out there, I would like to try that.

-SD-

[Ubunted]

You can get it easily by doing a quick search in Synaptic. I just spent a few minutes with it, and I can see why so many would like it. Very slim and functional. I think I'll be sticking with Firefox though - can't live without my Gmail Notifier and AdBlock, among other things.

[Burgundavia]

The menu refresh is currently borked. But it should show up under Internet-->Epiphany Web Browser.

Corey

[Amaranth]

Actually you have to keep it, because Epiphany depends on Firefox.
If we didn't have firefox it would depend on the Mozilla Suite. Consider yourself lucky. ;)

[doclivingston]

The way to do it would be to break out Gecko into a seperate package and have Epihpany, Firefox, Mozilla and everything else depend on that. It would probably be a bit of work to do that, and ensure that it doesn't break anything though.

On matter of Epiphany vs Firefox, I'm a happy Epiphany user - but I know why Firefox is in: they aren't going to have both, and lots of people (especially ex-Windows users) will expect it to be installed.

[Amaranth]

The way to do it would be to break out Gecko into a seperate package and have Epihpany, Firefox, Mozilla and everything else depend on that. It would probably be a bit of work to do that, and ensure that it doesn't break anything though.

On matter of Epiphany vs Firefox, I'm a happy Epiphany user - but I know why Firefox is in: they aren't going to have both, and lots of people (especially ex-Windows users) will expect it to be installed.
We've been waiting on a seperate GRE for a _long_ time now...

[GTvulse]

We've been waiting on a seperate GRE for a _long_ time now...

And what about XUL::Runner? (http://wiki.mozilla.org/XUL:Xul_Runner)

[poptones]

What about the activities on integrating epiphany with nautilus?

http://raphael.slinckx.net/blog/index.php/category/hacks/

Could this be satisfied with a depends on firefox? Nautilus could really use a progress box on the status bar. Even when just opening a folder with a lot of objects it would be nice to see it doing SOMETHING rather than that stupid popup that looks like an error message.

Come to think of it, this perhaps should go to that list...

[Lovechild]

I would also like to point to the argument of better translations, epiphany being on l10n-status gains it entrance to the same translator pool as translates the rest of GNOME - a consistent translation result is important and can in certain areas be the key to use in government and school use.

[Spark*]

Also it makes no sense to have Epiphany as a choice, because it is specifically designed for users who don't give a damn what browser they are using. Those users who prefer Firefox certainly wouldn't have a problem with switching the defaults, while the intended target audience of Epiphany most likely won't care enough (or won't even know about it).

Yes Firefox is popular and well liked, but what sounds better?
"Ubuntu offers you the Firefox browser by default, which you already know anyway" or
"Ubuntu offers you a slick and integrated web browser by default and makes it easy to switch to the popular Firefox browser as an alternative"
Do you think OS X would become more popular if they dropped Safari for Firefox?

There is really nothing to lose from going with Epiphany, but a lot to win.

[ubuntp]

I have never really liked Firefox that much. Even when i was still using Windows i always used IE despite all it's flaws and missing featured. Most prominently the missing popup blocker, which could be provided through the google toolbar though. Firefox always felt a bit clumsy to me, maybe because it didn't integrate as nicely as IE (which is in fact part of explorer). And Epiphany integrates into GNOME very well.
The first Mozilla browser i ever used was Beonex, that was a nice browser although not feature complete and somewhat buggy. Development was eventually stopped when Firefox came along i think (must've been around that time).

[manicka]

Epiphany is a nice fast browser, but until it catches up to ff in the features stakes, I think it will never really be a serious contendor for default browser, despite how nice it is to use.

[Ubunted]

From looking around Epiphany's website, I don't think it ever WILL be as fully-featured as Firefox. It's designed to be a simple, easy to use browser and that's probably what it always will be.

[Tomasz]

Some of you say that Firefox doesn't integrate into GNOME very well, which is true. But no-one is stopping Breezy from coming out of the box with Gnome-Fx-Human Theme. With it, Firefox blends very well with GNOME Desktop. Are there really any philosophical/ethical/idealogical/copyright matters behind not doing such a thing?

Shipping Firefox with the default theme while having an opportunity to "integrate" it with GNOME is, in my opinion, shooting ourselves in the foot (pun intended).

https://addons.mozilla.org/themes/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&category=OS%20Integration&numpg=10&id=360

[doclivingston]

The only feature that I miss from Firefox, is the adblock extension. There was some work on an equivalent for Epiphany (it's in the epiphany-extensions module of cvs), but I don't think it works yet (I haven't checked it out).

[charlieg]

Epiphany is nice, but is lacking features that FF offers.

Epiphany is a nice fast browser, but until it catches up to ff in the features stakes, I think it will never really be a serious contendor for default browser, despite how nice it is to use.
Lots of these kinda comments come, but few are substantiated. Exactly what features are missing from Epiphany that make you use Firefox instead?

We have one mention of the adblock extension, but personally I'm not too bothered about that nor is any computer user I know that is less technically proficient (family spring to mind). So I would, personally, regard this as an unimportant feature which, incidentally, is being developed anyway.

[Amaranth]

Lots of these kinda comments come, but few are substantiated. Exactly what features are missing from Epiphany that make you use Firefox instead?

We have one mention of the adblock extension, but personally I'm not too bothered about that nor is any computer user I know that is less technically proficient (family spring to mind). So I would, personally, regard this as an unimportant feature which, incidentally, is being developed anyway.
As I said at the beginning of the thread: Firefox has mindshare. People know what Firefox is, they have never heard of Epiphany. They want Firefox, they don't want Epiphany. If Firefox isn't the default they won't even look at Ubuntu.

[charlieg]

I'll note that Epiphany has a much better bookmarks manager (especially once you work out how to use sub-folders).

I also prefer the way the quick search options are built into the URL bar rather than needlessly taking up screen space as a different toolbar entry.

It has better HIG adherence.

It is quicker in my experience (less pauses etc).

I like the 'download now' context menu option.

It integrates better into Gnome, even when compared to the Gnome-FX themed Firefox.

Another poster points out the translations, which is important although not to me personally with English being my first language.

[manicka]

Lots of these kinda comments come, but few are substantiated. Exactly what features are missing from Epiphany that make you use Firefox instead?

For me, I like my themes and the beagle extension is still a bit to unstable in epiphany and usually not compiled into beagle by default. I also like the 'webdeveloper', 'customize google' and 'tabbrowser preferences' extensions
The development of Adblock for epiphany sounds like a good initiative.

[doclivingston]

Themes are something that Epiphany will never have, as it's designed to fit into the Gnome desktop it will use whatever GTK theme you have.

I don't really think that "People won't use Ubuntu if it doesn't come with Firefox" is a great argument - it's the same one Windows people use, claiming that no-one will use Linux because it doesn't come with MSN/MS Office/whatever. I think a lot of people will either a) use whatever browser is the default, or b) install their favourite, no matter what the default is, as long as it's easy to do.

[rubinstein]

The only feature that I miss from Firefox, is the adblock extension. There was some work on an equivalent for Epiphany (it's in the epiphany-extensions module of cvs), but I don't think it works yet (I haven't checked it out).
Maybe you want to try out this:
http://floppymoose.com/
The title of this site is "Better Ad Blocking for Firefox, Mozilla, Camino, and Safari", but it also works with Epiphany! I use the flash blocking, and it works great.

rubinstein

[charlieg]

Themes are something that Epiphany will never have, as it's designed to fit into the Gnome desktop it will use whatever GTK theme you have.

I don't really think that "People won't use Ubuntu if it doesn't come with Firefox" is a great argument - it's the same one Windows people use, claiming that no-one will use Linux because it doesn't come with MSN/MS Office/whatever. I think a lot of people will either a) use whatever browser is the default, or b) install their favourite, no matter what the default is, as long as it's easy to do.
I completely agree.

[fjleal]

Lots of these kinda comments come, but few are substantiated. Exactly what features are missing from Epiphany that make you use Firefox instead?

We have one mention of the adblock extension, but personally I'm not too bothered about that nor is any computer user I know that is less technically proficient (family spring to mind). So I would, personally, regard this as an unimportant feature which, incidentally, is being developed anyway.
One small detail: if you want to print background colors in FF, you go to File -> Page Setup and check a box; if you want to do it in Epiphany... you simply don't. ;)

[mcwtlg]

I just installed it.
Wow.
Nice, small, fast (I am running 400 mhz celeron, 512 RAM).

I like it.

[ploum]

Also it makes no sense to have Epiphany as a choice, because it is specifically designed for users who don't give a damn what browser they are using. Those users who prefer Firefox certainly wouldn't have a problem with switching the defaults, while the intended target audience of Epiphany most likely won't care enough (or won't even know about it).

Yes Firefox is popular and well liked, but what sounds better?
"Ubuntu offers you the Firefox browser by default, which you already know anyway" or
"Ubuntu offers you a slick and integrated web browser by default and makes it easy to switch to the popular Firefox browser as an alternative"
Do you think OS X would become more popular if they dropped Safari for Firefox?

There is really nothing to lose from going with Epiphany, but a lot to win.
Well, that's just what I'm thinking :-)

Newbies don't care about the special-extra-firefox-extension. They want something very simple, consistent with their desktop, with same icons.

If a newbie choose the option "don't display text under icons in menu bar", he want that setting applied to his browser too.

[kiddo]

Hey, reading this thread today made me want to try it again (that's ~ the fourth time now haha), and I kinda start to like it. Half the FF ram usage too (at the start). Once I added a few extensions, it's not so bad. AND, you can manage tabs more conveniently than in FF (you can drag and drop them, and you can switch tabs with the wheelmouse). Very interesting indeed. But that might get into FF 1.1 too. Anyways. I really miss adblock, because I'm an advertising paranoid, and anyways those things eat up my screenspace.

Maybe I got a more recent version now than the last time I tried, a few months ago (most likely), because I feel more comfortable with it. For example, there's no google search bar, but the main address bar does very well. It has no lucky search like FF, but I guess I can live with that.

I was astonished by the DNS resolution speed. Am I hallucinating or it really is faster?

And for those who miss the search as you type FF-style, I just found that it's available as an extension. Hassle-free.

//EDIT: OMG. Killer feature. Tab switching that does NOT lag. That's it. I'm sold. I had almost the time to take a nap between some tab switches in FF @_@

[ubuntp]

Kiddo, the newest version has Firefox like search without extensions, you can get a backport here: http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~thpod001/epiphany-browser_1.7.2-0ubuntu1_i386.deb

[kiddo]

Thanks for the tip :) and now hm... I found what I was missing from FF. Made an epiphany version *giggles*
http://img312.imageshack.us/img312/3585/epiphanystartpage9ix.th.png (http://img312.imageshack.us/my.php?image=epiphanystartpage9ix.png)
... XD *goes back hiding in a hole*

[AlexandreP]

Well, that's just what I'm thinking :-)

Newbies don't care about the special-extra-firefox-extension. They want something very simple, consistent with their desktop, with same icons.

If a newbie choose the option "don't display text under icons in menu bar", he want that setting applied to his browser too.
I have to agree with you on that. I have installed Epiphany recently and it is now my default browser. It has better performances on my PC than Fx (1.0 and Deer Park), faster on loading pages, starting the browser, opening new tabs, etc. There are some features I'm missing from Fx, that's why I edited the Epiphany suggestions page (http://live.gnome.org/Epiphany_2fSuggestions).
- Support for "autoscrolling" (middle-click and going up and down the mouse to scroll the page): I really miss that
- Support for other search engine that Google in the search bar. Epiphany 1.6 has a Fx-like search bar (I personally like that better than typing a search in my address bar), but you can't choose to search Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon, or add your own search plugins.
- I'm missing my Gmail Notifier :P

Epiphany is a great browser and it will always integrates better in Gnome (because of Gnome theme support, of translation, of keybords shortcuts constancy, etc.) than any Fx.

[idn]

I have always used epiphany, if you want a gtk2 browser try galeon, that has lots of features, I used it for a while but I now use epiphany instead.

Epiphany is easy and simple to use, and very fast. Plus it integrates with my theme :), an excellent browser!

Plus it adheres to the freedesktop .org bookmarks standards, but I think gnome should have both browsers, its all about choice :)

[charlieg]

One small detail: if you want to print background colors in FF, you go to File -> Page Setup and check a box; if you want to do it in Epiphany... you simply don't. ;)
I agree. That's a really small detail.

[ploum]

(I personally like that better than typing a search in my address bar)[/i], but you can't choose to search Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon, or add your own search plugins.

It's a small trick ;-)
Simply add an URL containing %s in your bookmarks and display it in the bookmark bar.

http://images.google.be/images?q=%s&hl=fr&btnG=Recherche+Google
(for example)

How, magic !


Once used to epiphany, it's really a pain to come back to firefox!

[joeljkp]

I'm going to have to put my vote in for Epiphany as the default browser. It just seems like a very Ubuntu idea to have everything nicely integrated and working together, then allowing people to split off to something else later.

Of course, that reasoning leads to Abiword instead of OOo by default...

[SKLP]

I really like Epiphany and it's my default browser.

Ubuntu should however IMO keep Firefox as default because of a) it's popular, and well-known and therefore makes more users drawn towards ubuntu b) windows switchers can keep their bookmarks as well as a familiar browser (if they used firefox prior to switching which i think many switchers did) c) If you don't like Firefox, It's easy to switch to epiphany :)

[ploum]

I really like Epiphany and it's my default browser.

Ubuntu should however IMO keep Firefox as default because of a) it's popular, and well-known and therefore makes more users drawn towards ubuntu b) windows switchers can keep their bookmarks as well as a familiar browser (if they used firefox prior to switching which i think many switchers did) c) If you don't like Firefox, It's easy to switch to epiphany :)

People that have already switched to firefox in windows can easily install it if epiphany is the default.

I see more like : Epiphany is the default browser. Nobody know his name and most users will use it.
But power users want something more and will install Firefox. People that have switched to firefox under windows are, most of the time, "power users", people that know how to install things under windows.

If you don't install Firefox by default but give an easy way to install it (gnome-app-install), power users will have the feeling : "Ok, I've switched from the default browser to my prefered one. I've installed an application under Ubuntu. It's easy for me, I'm a power user under Windows AND Ubuntu now".

[SKLP]

People that have already switched to firefox in windows can easily install it if epiphany is the default.

I see more like : Epiphany is the default browser. Nobody know his name and most users will use it.
But power users want something more and will install Firefox. People that have switched to firefox under windows are, most of the time, "power users", people that know how to install things under windows.

If you don't install Firefox by default but give an easy way to install it (gnome-app-install), power users will have the feeling : "Ok, I've switched from the default browser to my prefered one. I've installed an application under Ubuntu. It's easy for me, I'm a power user under Windows AND Ubuntu now".I disagree.

All users who switched to Firefox in windows aren't "power users". Many normal users have switched because they heard it's more secure etc.
If they then would consider switching to Ubuntu (mainly because of viruses maybe), i think they become more motivated if they can keep their browser (firefox) that they "know" is secure(and they know how it works in general...).

And secondly, why would "power users" want to switch to Firefox?
Power users probably know that

1) both browsers use the same engine, so they are mostly the same in rendering speed etc (gecko)
2) epiphany's UI is faster since it's real gtk and not some XUL s**t (well gtk isnt exactly fast but...)
3) epiphany is has a very nice bookmarks system (IMHO, at least)
4) epiphany has superior gnome integration (well, some things like opening ftp links in nautilus, saving passwords in keyring are still missing) including:

* Opens files with the gnome-selected application for that kind of file
* Uses gnome's print system
* Uses the gnome theme's icons in the toolbar and follows gnome-wide toolbar settings

(and more...)

so why would power users want to use an in many ways inferior web browser?

Firefox is more likely to be used by non-power computer users that have heard good stuff about firefox and therefore assume it's better 'cause it's more famous.

[basse1989]

I agree, you are so, so right. :)

[idn]

Using epiphany as the default browser does make sence, theres lots of development at the moment to make it integrate with other gnome applications like SKLP mentioned; an exmaple is the feature in gnome 2.12 where a news feeds found on a page can be launched from epiphany into the gnome news reader, and I'm sure there is likely to be further integration wih other gnome apps in the future.

Someone also posted a link to some hacks to nautilus where if a user is downloading a file using epiphany and they browse to the download dir, it shows the progress of the download in nautilus. This is a small example, but the point is epiphany is much more tightly integrated with gnome, so it is the better choice IMHO.

I think both Firefox and Epiphany should be installed but epiphany should be the default, only because of its superior gnome integration.

[fjleal]

I think both Firefox and Epiphany should be installed but epiphany should be the default, only because of its superior gnome integration.
Let's complicate things further: How about Galeon? It's also well integrated in Gnome, has a fast interface (faster than FF) and a lot of features. Why Epiphany and not Galeon?

[basse1989]

Well, yeah. Epiphany should be the default, but either way, only one of them should be shipped with Ubuntu. Two web browsers would just confuse newbies.

[Spark*]

Well, yeah. Epiphany should be the default, but either way, only one of them should be shipped with Ubuntu. Two web browsers would just confuse newbies.
It wouldn't confuse anyone if Firefox would be on the CD and installable from the app-install tool. For the time being, you need Firefox anyway because Epiphany depends on it.

[Brian Puccio]

I use epiphany 99% of the time, but if I'm doing web design, the Web Dev plugin for firefox forces me to use firefox. Aside from that, epiphany is more then fine.

[flange]

I use epiphany 99% of the time, but if I'm doing web design, the Web Dev plugin for firefox forces me to use firefox. Aside from that, epiphany is more then fine.
Figured I might as well throw my 2 cents in as well.

1) I don't understand why many of you care about how "integrated" a browser is. I'm not dismissing your opinions, I'm just saying I don't understand it. A lot of Mac users say the same about Safari vs. FF, and I don't understand it there either. FF looks great on my Ubuntu and on my Mac, IMO.

2) The lack of an adblock feature is a deal breaker for me.

3) I use Ubuntu, OSX, and WinXP all very regularly between home, school, and work. Having the same interface in my browser (and email client) is a nice convenience. Points for FF on cross-compatibility.

4) I've never noticed a problem with speed for any browser on any machine I've run. FF, Safari, Epiphany, IE, and even Konqueror all run more than adequately.

5) Finally, I don't care what browser is default. I'm capable enough with apt-get to get whatever I want.

[doclivingston]

1) I don't understand why many of you care about how "integrated" a browser is. I'm not dismissing your opinions, I'm just saying I don't understand it. A lot of Mac users say the same about Safari vs. FF, and I don't understand it there either. FF looks great on my Ubuntu and on my Mac, IMO.


Epiphany uses the Gnome proxy settings, you have to enter then again in Firefox. Firefox doesn't use the same theme as the rest of the desktop - although some people argue that is a good point (personally I'm not a fan of theme-per-application, but other people are). There are a lot of these small things that make Epiphany seem to fit into Gnome better

MacOS has the Apple Human Interface Guidelines, Gnome has it's HIG and I don't think Windows has one, but there are standard ways of doing things that make applications "fit in" with Windows. What happens if the Apple HIG, Gnome HIG and standard practice on Windows all say different things in a certain situation? Whichever one you pick, you application will have to go against canonical practive on the other platforms. Such is the curse of cross-platform applications.

For the same reason I use Camino on Macs; as Epiphany is a Gnome web browser that uses Gecko, Camino is a Mac web browser that happens to use Gecko. All of these are fairly small things, but once they add it it makes Firefox feel like it doesn't quite fit into the desktop properly, almost but not quite.


2) The lack of an adblock feature is a deal breaker for me.
Althugh it's not as easy as installing an extension, there are ways to get ad blocking in Epiphany (using a content.css file and things). Hopefully this will be dealt with in the future.


3) I use Ubuntu, OSX, and WinXP all very regularly between home, school, and work. Having the same interface in my browser (and email client) is a nice convenience. Points for FF on cross-compatibility.

It's a choice you have to make: you either have the same application which doesn't quite fit in perfectly with the platform you are on, or you have applications that fit the platform but aren't exactly the same.

Some people (such as yourself) prefer to have the same application across all platforms, others (such as me) prefer to have applications that fit more closely into the "feel" of the platform.


4) I've never noticed a problem with speed for any browser on any machine I've run. FF, Safari, Epiphany, IE, and even Konqueror all run more than adequately.

The only issues like that I've seen with Firefox is that it leaks memory when using a lot of tabs - but this is supposed to be fixed in Deep Park (at least, that's what I've heard). I guess if you have an older computer it might be more noticable though.


5) Finally, I don't care what browser is default. I'm capable enough with apt-get to get whatever I want.

I think pretty much all the pro-Epiphany people in the thread would like to see Epiphany as the default, but understand there are reasons why Firefox is the default (the biggest of which is to ease the non-linux migrators).

[AlexandreP]

I think pretty much all the pro-Epiphany people in the thread would like to see Epiphany as the default, but understand there are reasons why Firefox is the default (the biggest of which is to ease the non-linux migrators).
For sure if Fx is Ubuntu's default browser there are some reasons behind this choice. Is there somewhere we can read Canonical's position on this subject (why the choice of Firefox instead of all other browsers) ?

[SickTwist]

I also agree that Epiphany is becoming a very good contender for Firefox. Especially with it's new features that we'll see in Breezy (Totem plug-in, inline find, better integration with Clearlooks theme, etc). Plus, Epiphany's bookmark system rocks! :)

After Breezy is released, it might be a good opportunity for Ubuntu developers to reconsider the browser that ships with Ubuntu, especially if Gecko can be separated from Firefox so that both browsers need not be installed simultaneously.

Another good thing about Epiphany is that is follows the GNOME release schedule. Due to the delayed release of Firefox, we'll now have to wait until Breezy+1 (at least) to have Deer Park officially included. :(

[ploum]

Well, I suggest that at the moment we don't bother developpers with this idea but, after the breezy release, we contact some developpers to mark it as a low priority Breezy+1 goal.

(note : I'm talking about "considering replacing", not "replacing directly")

So I've created a page on the wiki ( https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EpiphanyDefaultBrowser ) where we can put pros/cons for/against Epiphany as the default browser.

[SKLP]

I really agree that Gecko needs to be separated into a "libgecko" package that gecko-based applications depend on.

[idn]

I really agree that Gecko needs to be separated into a "libgecko" package that gecko-based applications depend on.

It makes sence to me, I remember when i installed galeon I have to install a whole load of mozilla programs that I didnt need, maybe this is something that should be considered by the epiphany team.

[macleod199]

I really agree that Gecko needs to be separated into a "libgecko" package that gecko-based applications depend on.

Yeah, remember 3 years ago when one of the big mitigating factors for deintegrating Firefox/Thunderbird was because the GRE (Gecko Runtime Enivornment) was imminent, so there'd be no memory hit? Whoops.

[macleod199]

MacOS has the Apple Human Interface Guidelines, Gnome has it's HIG and I don't think Windows has one, but there are standard ways of doing things that make applications "fit in" with Windows. What happens if the Apple HIG, Gnome HIG and standard practice on Windows all say different things in a certain situation? Whichever one you pick, you application will have to go against canonical practive on the other platforms. Such is the curse of cross-platform applications.


Firefox actually supports the various HIGs as well as it can, moving the Preferences/Options menu item around (confusing me constantly :)), getting the button order right, using the native file choosers, etc.

[doclivingston]

Even just moving things like libgtkembedmoz and the like out to a seperate package, that firefox/mozilla/epiphany/etc can depend on. Of course I'm sure it isn't as easy as that.

[darkmatter]

Even though I still prefer Epiphany (and think it should be default), I will admit that Firefox has it's strengths.

For example, I have one of my desktops (in both E17 and GNOME) set up as an internet kiosk, with Firefox running full screen (thanks to toolbar enhancements, compact menu, all in one sidebar and fusion), and set as a startup application.

I would personally love to see features like that in Epiphany, then Firefox could be ditched.

I may be wrong on this, but that is probably part of the reasoning behind FF being default - even though it is not as well integrated as Epiphany, the great variety of extensions make it more functional.

[SickTwist]

Well, I suggest that at the moment we don't bother developpers with this idea but, after the breezy release, we contact some developpers to mark it as a low priority Breezy+1 goal.

(note : I'm talking about "considering replacing", not "replacing directly")

So I've created a page on the wiki ( https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EpiphanyDefaultBrowser ) where we can put pros/cons for/against Epiphany as the default browser.

I think the wiki is a good idea. I've tried to add the arguments mentioned in this thread for making Epiphany the default browser. Hopefully some others will look this over and see if anything has been left out or misrepresented.

[basse1989]

Go Epiphany

[idn]

Woohoo epiphany!

[joeljkp]

One thing about Epiphany... why must you download all the extensions at once? It doesn't seem very scalable, especially if its popularity goes up. Is it possible to install an Epiphany extension the same way you would in Firefox?

[Buffalo Soldier]

I really agree that Gecko needs to be separated into a "libgecko" package that gecko-based applications depend on.I think it's a great idea, but some party might object to that.

Mozilla Foundation to ban Firefox derivative browsers? (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23427)
Yet, at the same time, the open source nature of MoFo's code made one believe that re-distribution and re-branding was still welcome. That seems not to be the case anymore, if one reads MoFo's Ben Goodger's blog.

I also added a few other links here http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=305949&postcount=11

[doclivingston]

I think it's a great idea, but some party might object to that.

Mozilla Foundation to ban Firefox derivative browsers? (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23427)
I can't really see them doing that for a number of reasons:

a) IANAL, but they can't "ban" derivative browsers, all they can do is stop people using the "Firefox" trademark. The code is licenced MPL/LGPL/GPL after all.

b) If they did try to remove the bits that allow embedding (which other browsers use), I'm fairly sure the collection of developers of Gecko-based browsers would probably fork and create "libgecko" which they could all use. Breaking Gecko off into a seperate component is something that Mozilla has said is has been going to do for years.

c) GtkWebCore (the GTK port of Webcore, which is Apple's port of KHTML) could be developed more, which would mean Epiphany and Konqueror could share a backend.


The Mozilla Foundation has already been pushy about tradmark kind of things. It may have changed recently, but MoFo don't let people use the Firefox icon for anything other than the official builds - which is why Firefox in Ubuntu doesn't have the Firefox icon (Ubuntu rebuild Firefox into .deb form).

[bytter]

For instance, Synaptic helps me escape Evolution to the comfortable confines of Thunderbird.

Actually, how do you do it? It keeps saying me that Evolution is needed by ubuntu-desktop and bla bla bla... I want to get rid of evolution since I only use GMail. (I also wanto to get rid f OpenOffice 1 since the 2 is already installed, but once again, I got the dependency problem).


Cheers,

Hugo Ferreira

[doclivingston]

Actually, how do you do it? It keeps saying me that Evolution is needed by ubuntu-desktop and bla bla bla... I want to get rid of evolution since I only use GMail..

ubuntu-desktop is a "metapackage", all it does is lets you say "apt-get install ubuntu-desktop" and get the entire standard desktop (and automatically get new things when updating). You can remove it safely it.

[ShagzModo]

Why not? Firefox doesn't integrate that well into gnome.
Please please tell me why firefox doesn't fit into gnome....
The extensions i use in firefox make my firefox browser the nicest browser i can possibly think of....

Try connecting with an ssl-vpn connection to any vpn, and you'll see epiphany won't do what you want....

[doclivingston]

Try connecting with an ssl-vpn connection to any vpn, and you'll see epiphany won't do what you want....

It works for me (connecting to my uni's VPN). What exactly doesn't work?

[Daniel]

Try connecting with an ssl-vpn connection to any vpn, and you'll see epiphany won't do what you want....

And it's obvious to everyone that "connecting with an ssl-vpn connection to any vpn" is so much a requirement for every user that you can't be forced to download a non-default browser if you want to do it.

Man people, come on... no one ever mentioned getting rid of Firefox. No one wants to force you to use Epiphany or even keep it installed. But it does give a more unified experience to new users, and that is what the defaults are for.

[ploum]

Well, in fact it seems that there is very few arguments to keep firefox as the default : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EpiphanyDefaultBrowser

Come on firefox fans ;-)

[ShagzModo]

Try online banking with epiphany....

i was involved in getting my own bank to comply and make online banking possible for linux users, these people told me to install m$.... wich i refused , cause i only want to use linux, and not a dual boot system.

Firefox now works, Ephiphany simply does not do the job when certificates are validated

[idn]

yeah, its not a case of one or the other, just about which should be default, and I thnk the default browser for ubuntu should use the default browser for gnome, epiphany.

If people want to use firefox fine, use that, but out the box epiphany should be the default browser.

[lyly]

Does Epiphany include an extention to syncronise bookmarks?

I use differents computers, and I like the FF syncronize bookmark extention as in this way, on every computer I can find the same bookmark layout...

Lynda

[idn]

Epiphany uses the freedesktop.org bookmark standard, so I guess it should be easy for other applications to epiphanys bookmakrs, epiphany doesnt use my fiirefox bookmarks though.

[SKLP]

Even though I still prefer Epiphany (and think it should be default), I will admit that Firefox has it's strengths.

For example, I have one of my desktops (in both E17 and GNOME) set up as an internet kiosk, with Firefox running full screen (thanks to toolbar enhancements, compact menu, all in one sidebar and fusion), and set as a startup application.

I would personally love to see features like that in Epiphany, then Firefox could be ditched.

I may be wrong on this, but that is probably part of the reasoning behind FF being default - even though it is not as well integrated as Epiphany, the great variety of extensions make it more functional.Epiphany has kiosk-functionality in GConf.

[idn]

I think we need to remember that, as pointed out in the FAQ page on the wiki link, Gnome encourages epiphany to be the default browser instead of firefox.

[bkasterm]

My 2 cents:

1) epiphany has session support: big plus for me (this is the important part of integration to me).
2) epiphany's tabs are terrible, opening tabs after the width of the screen has filled up doesn't show any real activity. Some better visual feedback seems very important to me. I can't find any options that might change this.

Conclusion, I use both, and I dislike both. Time to try something else I guess. :-x

Wrong thread for this, but anyone has any suggestions with these two ideas in mind?

Best,
Bart

[blinksilver]

For me its a question of functionality, Firefox Extension system allow me to make my Firefox exactly the way I want to. And I know that Epiphany and Firefox are built on the same gecko core, but as any IE user will tell you A web Browser is more then just a rendering engine. Firefox is more robust, has better features (just wait until you start playing with 1.5, its really something)

I just like adblocker, RSS reader, blog posting, the search bar, the super extensive tab controls, plus i like the fact that i can use it on any platform, when i'm on a mac, firefox, windows, firefox, solaris, firefox, BSD, Firefox, Risc OS, FireFox. its not a big deal to learn a new one, for each platform, but why.

[doclivingston]

2) epiphany's tabs are terrible, opening tabs after the width of the screen has filled up doesn't show any real activity. Some better visual feedback seems very important to me. I can't find any options that might change this.

Do you have any suggestions for what "better visual feedback" could be?


Current behaviour in Epiphany (1.7.4) vs Firefox (1.0.6) with lots of tabs:

* Epiphany - On my screen fits seven tabs, and then adds the "scroll tab bar" widgets. Tabs can always be reached via the Tab menu.

* Firefox - Fits five tabs at their full width, and then starts to shrink them. After about 12 tabs the title on each becomes to short to be useful. Once tabs have reached their minimum width (occurs at 35 tabs for me) the tabs start getting put off the end of the tab bar, and cannot be reached without using Control-Page Up/Down.

[macleod199]

ubuntu-desktop is a "metapackage", all it does is lets you say "apt-get install ubuntu-desktop" and get the entire standard desktop (and automatically get new things when updating). You can remove it safely it.

Not all that recommended to remove on Breezy, though, as you may miss some of the new 'required' tools that get added to it. Although now that we're in feature freeze, that will be less likely.

[bill]

I installed breezy yesterday and it has firefox 1.0.6 as the default browser so i don't know why everyone else has Epiphany as the default browser.
Bill

[doclivingston]

We don't have Epiphany as the default browser. The thread is discussion the pros and cons of having it as the default in Breezy+1.

[bill]

Sorry,i misunderstood .
Bill

[topcop]

Thanks for the tip :) and now hm... I found what I was missing from FF. Made an epiphany version *giggles*
http://img312.imageshack.us/img312/3585/epiphanystartpage9ix.th.png (http://img312.imageshack.us/my.php?image=epiphanystartpage9ix.png)
... XD *goes back hiding in a hole*

Epiphany has native GTK2 themed web forms? that button looks different from what i see in firefox, if yes then im switching.

[darkmatter]

Those are custom widgets, and they are actually very easy to do for both Epiphany and Firefox. There is a thread on these forums as well as at mozillaZine.

[ShagzModo]

Well, in fact it seems that there is very few arguments to keep firefox as the default : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EpiphanyDefaultBrowser

Come on firefox fans ;-)
i will give epiphany a try for a week to see what all of you boys and girls are so hysterical about... ;-)

[ploum]

2) epiphany's tabs are terrible, opening tabs after the width of the screen has filled up doesn't show any real activity. Some better visual feedback seems very important to me. I can't find any options that might change this.


This is the only black point about epiphany for me.

If you have any ideas, please add them here :
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153792

[ploum]

For me its a question of functionality, Firefox Extension system allow me to make my Firefox exactly the way I want to. And I know that Epiphany and Firefox are built on the same gecko core, but as any IE user will tell you A web Browser is more then just a rendering engine. Firefox is more robust, has better features (just wait until you start playing with 1.5, its really something)

I just like adblocker, RSS reader, blog posting, the search bar, the super extensive tab controls, plus i like the fact that i can use it on any platform, when i'm on a mac, firefox, windows, firefox, solaris, firefox, BSD, Firefox, Risc OS, FireFox. its not a big deal to learn a new one, for each platform, but why.

Once more : we are talking about *DEFAULT*, not about what functionnalities you want to see in a browser.

The gnome way of life is : one app for one need ! Most user only expect a "web browser" to act like a... "web browser". Liferea as a RSS reader, etc...

You can continue to use firefox, the discussion is not here !

We don't need to know why YOU can't use epiphany because YOU need the super extra-blinking-popping-feature.

We discuss about what *an average Joe user* will expect from the *default* web browser installed.

Personnaly, I'm using mplayer and beep-media-player as media players. I like them and I can't use rhythmbox. But I think that Totem and Rhythmbox are perfect default !

(sorry if that sounds a bit aggressive. My english is very bad, I just want to insist that we are speaking about default and we don't need to know every feature that exist in Firefox and not in Epiphany)

[AlexandreP]

Please please tell me why firefox doesn't fit into gnome....
The extensions i use in firefox make my firefox browser the nicest browser i can possibly think of....
Epiphany is based on a GTK interface, so it uses the current GTK theme (the Gnome theme). Firefox is based on a XUL interface. That's probably why it is so easy to extend its possibilities. (but that may be a troll, I don't know, I'm not a programmer, only an end user ;))

Epiphany integrates better in Gnome than Firefox, for me it's a good reason to use it.

[poofyhairguy]

Epiphany is faster than Firefox, and uses less RAM. Its nice. But Firefox has the mindshare.

[Lovechild]

Epiphany is faster than Firefox, and uses less RAM. Its nice. But Firefox has the mindshare.

By the logic, Linux is free and grants the users more power and knowledge, but Windows has mindshare - thus we should all use Windows.

Mindshare isn't enough, the decision has to be based on technical merit.

[blinksilver]

Once more : we are talking about *DEFAULT*, not about what functionnalities you want to see in a browser.

The gnome way of life is : one app for one need ! Most user only expect a "web browser" to act like a... "web browser". Liferea as a RSS reader, etc...

You can continue to use firefox, the discussion is not here !

We don't need to know why YOU can't use epiphany because YOU need the super extra-blinking-popping-feature.

We discuss about what *an average Joe user* will expect from the *default* web browser installed.

Personnaly, I'm using mplayer and beep-media-player as media players. I like them and I can't use rhythmbox. But I think that Totem and Rhythmbox are perfect default !

(sorry if that sounds a bit aggressive. My english is very bad, I just want to insist that we are speaking about default and we don't need to know every feature that exist in Firefox and not in Epiphany)

The world is intagreting, every other web big web browere (iE7, Safari, Firefox) has RSS, and the extension system is what makes Firefox better then every other browers, 1.5 will have better password management, a retooled CP, SVG support, and whole host of other thing.

why do we need to dumb down the distro to "an average Joe user" if we give then the the chance to the use the feature, he may learn about it and use, instead what you are saying is that we dumb down what we think the user can use and never let him learn about the stronger feature(Sounds like a Microsoft Idea to me), who are you to say what "joe user" is, he is getting more and more capable(he is running linux isn't he), and I don't see what the point in limiting him is, he does not like a feature, he does not have to use it, its not going to bite him.

On the other hand it is going to **** me off that i have to unistall the meta package "ubuntu-desktop" what if for some reason they need to change a part of the desktop by adding a new app and removing the old one, if i did not read about it I would lose out.

and Put joe User aside for a second, what about me, the CS nerd, i like my firefox, i use it to its full potentional, what make firefox great is not that its a good "joe user app" in windows we call that IE, but because its feature rich, allows for custom setting, and a whole host of other thing,

Plus not to forget that the devlopment cycles of FF are far faster the epiphany, in ff if there is a bug, fixed, security hole, gone, epiphany can't offer that.

[bkasterm]

Do you have any suggestions for what "better visual feedback" could be?


Current behaviour in Epiphany (1.7.4) vs Firefox (1.0.6) with lots of tabs:

* Epiphany - On my screen fits seven tabs, and then adds the "scroll tab bar" widgets. Tabs can always be reached via the Tab menu.

* Firefox - Fits five tabs at their full width, and then starts to shrink them. After about 12 tabs the title on each becomes to short to be useful. Once tabs have reached their minimum width (occurs at 35 tabs for me) the tabs start getting put off the end of the tab bar, and cannot be reached without using Control-Page Up/Down.

I do have suggestions (but have not thought about it long yet), but also I should say that maybe the term "better visual feedback" is a misnomer. Any visual feedback would be an improvement.

First idea was shrinking tabs with a Mac OS X bar type zooming behavior. This is probably nice looking, but maybe "too fancy" to be nice to use. Then after some checking with both epiphany and firefox I noticed epiphany already has the right behavior for zooming:

If you want the full title of a tab, pause on it shortly (works in both epiphany and firefox). Then if you want to see the full title of other tabs, just move over (here epiphany works much better: in epiphany as soon as you have paused shortly to see the full title of one tab, moving over to another immediately shows the full name there. In firefox you have to pause on the other tab again).

Conclusion: implementing shrinking tabs in epiphany would give the best of both worlds.

One more thing: if the tabs are small, it might be nice to have the hover not just show the title of the tab you hover on, but also of its immediate neighbors.



Could it be done better than the best of both worlds? Maybe (see following idea, not very much worked out yet though).

Implement the tab menu item in the tab bar:

What I mean is this, if shrinking is "unacceptable", maybe do the following:

Tabs are of fixed width, but add an "elipsis tab"/"tab container":

In situation (tab bar suggested):

TAB1 TAB2 TAB3 TAB4 TAB5 TAB6
(width of my screen allows six tabs).

If you open a new tab from say TAB1, get

TAB1 TabContainer TAB4 TAB5 TAB6 NewTab

Where TabContainer is a clearly distinguished object which when you hover (or move) over it unfolds to a menu where you can choose (in this case) TAB2 TAB3 and to unfold the whole thing collapsing others.

Clearly there is quite a bit of thought needed to the specifics in which tabs to collapse when, but it can ensure that at least the new tab is shown so that you know your action (opening a new tab) has had its effect.

One thing that comes to mind is make the TabContainer moveable (sp?). If in the second situation above you click and hold on the container and move it right, go to situation:

TAB1 TAB2 TabContainer TAB5 TAB6 NewTab


This grouping happens in a good way in the gnome window list. Much more difficult to think of the right interface when items don't have similar titles/have a clear relation because they are the same program, and you might care more about order (which I don't in the window list, but do in a list of tabs).


As another suggestion there is a large empty part between "Find" and the "foot picture" in my version of epiphany, this space might also be used. Or maybe part of the status line for messages about tabs.


My vote at this point goes to the TabContainer idea if (big if) the details can be thought out to give a good interface. But surely this is not a new idea, and I am very interested in hearing objections.

Also note that Bug 153792 (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153792) (as mentioned in another post) is where this bug has been reported to the gnome people. Apparently quite a while ago (2004-09-26 20:01).

Best,
Bart

[doclivingston]

The world is intagreting, every other web big web browere (iE7, Safari, Firefox) has RSS, and the extension system is what makes Firefox better then every other browers, 1.5 will have better password management, a retooled CP, SVG support, and whole host of other thing.

I've tried using various RSS features in Firefox and found that it doesn't work that well for me. Using a proper feed reader, such as Lifrea or Blam, will have more flexability than trying to shoehorn it into another application.

Liferea puts an icon in my notification tray to tell me that there are new articles I haven't read yet. Firefox's RSS support doesn't indicate which articles I have read before, and there is no way AFAIK to view the summaries that come in RSS feed.


On the other hand it is going to **** me off that i have to unistall the meta package "ubuntu-desktop" what if for some reason they need to change a part of the desktop by adding a new app and removing the old one, if i did not read about it I would lose out.

Installing Firefox if Epiphany was the default is no different to install Epipany if Firefox is the default (ignore that Epiphany current depends on Firefox) or installing Thunderbird instead of Evolution, etc.


and Put joe User aside for a second, what about me, the CS nerd, i like my firefox, i use it to its full potentional, what make firefox great is not that its a good "joe user app" in windows we call that IE, but because its feature rich, allows for custom setting, and a whole host of other thing,

Anyone who is a "CS nerd" is going to be able to install their preffered browser if it's not the default, whether it's Epiphany, Firefox, Galeon, Konqueror or whatever. People who actually care about which one they have can take the few seconds it requires to tell your computer to install it.


Plus not to forget that the devlopment cycles of FF are far faster the epiphany, in ff if there is a bug, fixed, security hole, gone, epiphany can't offer that.

Firefox development cycles are faster? Epiphany follows the Gnome release schedule, which means that it has a stable x.0 version released every 6 months - as well as bug fix releases in the mean time.

To me "development cycle" means Epiphany 1.6->1.8 or Firefox 1.0->1.5, and I'm fairly fure that the Firefox developers isn't going to do one of those any more quickly than 6 months. In terms of point releases, both the Epiphany and Firefox developers release 1.x.y versions whenever they need to, as they are included in the Ubuntu repositories as the Ubuntu developers see fit.

[blinksilver]

I've tried using various RSS features in Firefox and found that it doesn't work that well for me. Using a proper feed reader, such as Lifrea or Blam, will have more flexability than trying to shoehorn it into another application.

Liferea puts an icon in my notification tray to tell me that there are new articles I haven't read yet. Firefox's RSS support doesn't indicate which articles I have read before, and there is no way AFAIK to view the summaries that come in RSS feed.


http://sage.mozdev.org/ best RSS extension for FF, also there is a built in summary reader in 1.5 (well at least the night build Im on does).



Installing Firefox if Epiphany was the default is no different to install Epipany if Firefox is the default (ignore that Epiphany current depends on Firefox) or installing Thunderbird instead of Evolution, etc.


This is where your wrong, epiphany depends on FF, so you do not have to remove the meta-package,, but if Epipany were default, I would have to remove it package (i don't want it) and install FF, even if ubuntu modularized the Gecko engine, if would not to different, and whats worse is that the people at mozilla may not support bug fixes(it being a crazy no standard version of FF), so I would be forced to build from source(which may cause problems compatiblity problems with ubuntu integration). In Any case I would lose the "ubuntu-desktop" meta package if i have to change, and adding in epiphany does not cause that to happen.




Anyone who is a "CS nerd" is going to be able to install their preffered browser if it's not the default, whether it's Epiphany, Firefox, Galeon, Konqueror or whatever. People who actually care about which one they have can take the few seconds it requires to tell your computer to install it.


And anyone who can install an OS, can sure as heck use synaptic to install epiphany, without having to uninstall FF (since epiphany depends on FF). while as i detailed above, its not going to be as easy since it may cause problems.




To me "development cycle" means Epiphany 1.6->1.8 or Firefox 1.0->1.5, and I'm fairly fure that the Firefox developers isn't going to do one of those any more quickly than 6 months. In terms of point releases, both the Epiphany and Firefox developers release 1.x.y versions whenever they need to, as they are included in the Ubuntu repositories as the Ubuntu developers see fit.

1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 1.06. Since the intial release, security and bug fixes, how may were there for Epiphany? I don't know of any(i maybe wrong) but I would bet a fair bit that there were less then for FF(and even if all the fixes were put it, i bet there is a time difference greater then just a day or two). What that does that mean to you, that the people at gnome can make a more secure, bug free, version of a Mozilla broswer, then the people at Mozilla. Surely you must jest.


But as of yet, no one has address the points of
More Customizable
More Feature Rich
The extension engine
Better tab support.
Multi-platform

As I see it, its no contest.

[doclivingston]

Some of what I'm saying below may be a bit confusing, because what is installed by the Firefox package (in fact any installation of Firefox) has two parts - the actual Firefox browser, and the Gecko backend.

The Epiphany package provided in Ubuntu depends on the Firefox package - however the Epiphany application doesn't depend on Firefox per se, it depends on Gecko. Gecko is currently provided by Firefox, although in the past it was provided by Mozilla, and in the future it may be provided by a "libgecko" package (Mozilla has been planning to split this off for quite some time, but it hasn't happened yet).

If Epiphany were to become the default in Ubuntu, the Ubuntu developers would (probably) have to create a libgecko package that Epiphany, Firefox, Mozilla, etc could depend on. This is a packaging issue though, not something core to the Epiphany-Firefox debate.


Also, since this debate is focused around Breezy+1 (April 2006), it will be Firefox 1.5 vs Epiphany 1.10 (which hasn't really started development yet).


This is where your wrong, epiphany depends on FF, so you do not have to remove the meta-package,, but if Epipany were default, I would have to remove it package (i don't want it) and install FF, even if ubuntu modularized the Gecko engine, if would not to different, and whats worse is that the people at mozilla may not support bug fixes(it being a crazy no standard version of FF), so I would be forced to build from source(which may cause problems compatiblity problems with ubuntu integration). In Any case I would lose the "ubuntu-desktop" meta package if i have to change, and adding in epiphany does not cause that to happen.

I don't get how it would be any more "unsupported" then the Firefox package on Ubuntu is. At the simplest level you could take the gecko libraries that are installed as part of the "firefox" package put them in a "libgecko" package, and have Firefox, Epiphany, etc depend on that.

Ubuntu doesn't use the official "blessed" binaries provided by the Firefox developers (it rebuilds from source), so creating two packages instead of one isn't going to make them less supported. When bugs get fixed in Firefox, including in gecko, the Ubuntu developers can build new packages - exactly the same as what happens now.

The issue with "ubuntu-desktop" is no different than for people who use Thunderbird instead of Evolution, or Abiwork and Gnumeric instead of OpenOffice.



And anyone who can install an OS, can sure as heck use synaptic to install epiphany, without having to uninstall FF (since epiphany depends on FF). while as i detailed above, its not going to be as easy since it may cause problems.

By the same argument, they can also uninstall Epiphany and install Firefox - I don't reall think this make much of a difference either way.



1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 1.06. Since the intial release, security and bug fixes, how may were there for Epiphany? I don't know of any(i maybe wrong) but I would bet a fair bit that there were less then for FF(and even if all the fixes were put it, i bet there is a time difference greater then just a day or two). What that does that mean to you, that the people at gnome can make a more secure, bug free, version of a Mozilla broswer, then the people at Mozilla. Surely you must jest.

Most of those bugs are Gecko bugs, not Firefox ones, so they'll be fixed in Epiphany at the same time as for Firefox: when Gecko gets fixed. As a datapoint the latest stable version of Epiphany is 1.6.4.


But as of yet, no one has address the points of
More Customizable
More Feature Rich
The extension engine
Better tab support.
Multi-platform

More Customizable: Aside from extensions, what extra customisability does Firefox have that is useful?

More Feature Rich: I agree here, but whether it's a point for or against is debatable. I think that Firefox has quite a few features that very few people use, and as this is a discussion about the default application, for average users, this is important.

The extension engine: Epiphany has extensions. Sure there aren't anywhere near as many as for Firefox, but that doesn't stop anyone writing a Epiphany extension equivalent to their favourite Firefox one.

Better tab support: A matter of taste, I prefer Epiphany's tab handler over Firefox's (with no extension). I believe this kind of thing should be argued on default behavour, bring extensions and the like into it means that the argument goes around in circles.

Multi-platform: As argued up-thread, some people prefer one app for all their platforms (Firefox), others prefer different apps that fit into the platform (Epiphany, Camino et al).

[ploum]

The world is intagreting, every other web big web browere (iE7, Safari, Firefox) has RSS,

Epiphany has RSS support in 1.7 ;-) And it has IMHO a better behaviour than Firefox : it had the RSS feed to your feeds reader ! (liferea here)
With Firefox, I'm must copy the RSS link and then paste it in a "new feed" liferea window.



and the extension system is what makes Firefox better then every other browers, 1.5 will have better password management, a retooled CP, SVG support, and whole host of other thing.

Epiphany will have password management shared with other gnome apps via gnome-keyring (if not for 1.8, for next release). IMHO it's a lot of bette to integrate this.
I agree that SVG support is very important but I think that, if Firefox support it, Epi will do because SVG support in into Gecko. (I'm maybe wrong here)



why do we need to dumb down the distro to "an average Joe user" if we give then the the chance to the use the feature, he may learn about it and use, instead what you are saying is that we dumb down what we think the user can use and never let him learn about the stronger feature(Sounds like a Microsoft Idea to me), who are you to say what "joe user" is, he is getting more and more capable(he is running linux isn't he), and I don't see what the point in limiting him is, he does not like a feature, he does not have to use it, its not going to bite him.

I'm not considering myself an "average joe user" but I use Epiphany myself. The only missing point is for me the webdev toolbar. But I don't use webdev bar every day ! Only but I'm doing webdevelopment. And this is NOT a default feature ! It's way to complex. So, here, Epiphany is a web browser, Firefox is used as a developer tool.
Talking about usability and Human Interface, Firefox is really terrible :-( Just look at the window when a certificate is not signed by a recognized CA. Or just look at the preferences window ! I know that people are used to such bad things because Windows is worst, but you want to bring more features to the average Joe user, I'm want to bring him a more consistent interface and more simplicity.



On the other hand it is going to **** me off that i have to unistall the meta package "ubuntu-desktop" what if for some reason they need to change a part of the desktop by adding a new app and removing the old one, if i did not read about it I would lose out.

Well, I understand your point, but I don't see any argument here ;-)
Personnaly, I hate EOG and prefer Gthumb. I uninstall EOG and evoluion-exchange on all computer I install. it removes ubuntu-desktop. Is this an argument to say that EOG and evolution-exchange are bad ?



and Put joe User aside for a second, what about me, the CS nerd, i like my firefox, i use it to its full potentional, what make firefox great is not that its a good "joe user app" in windows we call that IE, but because its feature rich, allows for custom setting, and a whole host of other thing.

So you are a CS nerd ? How much second will you take to apt-get install firefox or to install it from synaptic ? You did it in Windows, right ?



Plus not to forget that the devlopment cycles of FF are far faster the epiphany, in ff if there is a bug, fixed, security hole, gone, epiphany can't offer that.

Well, here I'm not agree with you. Epiphany follows a time based release. You will have a new Epiphany release for each new Ubuntu release.
Firefox 1.0 was here in novembre and was not in warty because of that. Now, if Firefox 1.5 is delayed until, for example, late february/march, it will not be in Breezy+1 and you will need to wait until Breezy+2 !

Epiphany is really better every release. Also, it has not security hole due to XUL (like some psiching (?) ) so no need to patch here.
Security holes due to gecko are patched just like firefox : it's the same engine !


I don't agree with you, but I think I understand your points and they are perfectly logical. So, even if I don't agree with you, it can be a valid reason to keep firefox, indeed.
Thkx for the debate ;-)

[blinksilver]

you can customize firefox look(theme) without changing gnome look, the download mangement system, automatic to a location if you want, ask me every time, if you want control, open automatically with program X, autoscrolling, smoothscrolling, auto image resize, the search bar being different from the url bar(or not, your choice), complete control of where the buttons go, custom widgets.

just because you have an extension engine means nothing, so does netscape, how many netscape extension do you know? its having the community support, thats big.

sure you can argue that epiphanys tab(i don't think so, and with sure as heck not with 1.5) default is better, but wait extensions...... they add, thats big, you can improve a browser.

and as for multiplatform, how many people really want to have to re-learn an app for every platform (and heck try to mix lots of apps in a multiplatform enviorment) sure some people may like different apps, but i would make a far bet that most like using one app.

People even pay to move that app to other platforms, can you cross over office, now their is nothing wrong with OOo, but some system are so hardwired to one system that can't change.

What if a company trying to create a multiplatform system with ubuntu and as may common apps as possible. this just makes it more annoying for people trying to deploy a system (it can be change, but that involves work)


back to the bug/ service upgrade, no not all of the fixes were for gecko, some were for FF, and yet no Epiphany fixes. Furthermore, the gnome dev team is not largely centered around epiphany, they use it as part fo the desktop. The Mozilla team does only a few things, almost all are based on the same browser code, they provide a higher level of security and support, they have faster response times with fixes, they do not have to go upstream to gnome, and then have them implement it in the next version of gnome.

Also as far as I know all the security fixes of 1.06 are actually in hoary, just not the name.

Even though we do not use the holly FF bins, we do use the stardard source code, and with that being the case, the bug fixes that come from ubuntu are fine, but when we start dinking around with the code spliting things up, its just gets silly and it may cause problems with the bug fixes(maybe it won't but i cant be sure). Its our job as part of a community to help, not to just ignore helping the mozilla foundation, just because a portion of community want to break away from what almost every linux distro consider to be the best browser.

Plus doing this just puts more work onto the plate of the ubuntu to devels, for what? A simple perference, I think its been developed this way, its not a bad browser, there are no problems, it does everything well. There exists no real reason(sure you may think something else is better, but its not like by adding this we will change the face of the linux world). I perfer the devels spending time on something important like edubuntu, then change the browser and creating (as well as having to maintain) a libgecko like thing, and there is also talk that mozilla will not make a libgecko.

Extra work, plus losing stuff. Yes you gain, but is that gain worth the lose, and the extra work of reimplementing it, no, at least not for me.


Same here about the debating, used to do it in HS, kinda fun,

[poofyhairguy]

By the logic, Linux is free and grants the users more power and knowledge, but Windows has mindshare - thus we should all use Windows.

First of all, there are people that say that (here). Second of all, Windows is not Free (in either way) so its popularity isn't enough.



Mindshare isn't enough, the decision has to be based on technical merit.

Maybe....but its nice to tell people "try Linux, it has the OpenOffice and Firefox you've grown to love on Windows!"

[Spark*]

Maybe....but its nice to tell people "try Linux, it has the OpenOffice and Firefox you've grown to love on Windows!"
And what if they did not grow to love OO.o and Firefox? In case of OO.o, that's even pretty likely... Those who aren't happy with those applications will be glad to hear that Ubuntu offers a more integrated and usable choice by default, while Firefox and OpenOffice are also available.

For me, the question is whether you want to provide a tightly integrated and "complete" desktop operating system (in the style of Mac OS), or if you want to provide a collection of useful software. As I believe that "applications" should ultimately be an invisible implementation detail to the user, you can probably guess which I prefer. The "collection of useful software" can always be shipped on the CDs as optional add-ons, so there is no loss of value either way.

[Lovechild]

First of all, there are people that say that (here). Second of all, Windows is not Free (in either way) so its popularity isn't enough.


To just about 99% of all people, Windows is free - it either comes with their computer or they got a copy from the local geek. The average joe doesn't really understand the libre freedom anyways so gratis freedom is all they care about.

[doclivingston]

Re: crossplatform apps

For single users whether or not they prefer one app cross platform is a matter of preference, some do and some don't. That said quite a lot of people don't use Firefox on Windows/MacOS/etc and they might not install it on their existing system just to have it be the same as in Ubuntu.

For a company that is doing a deployment, whether Epiphany or Firefox is the default won't really matter - they're almost certainly not going to just install off downloadable ISOs, they'll create a custom installation containing exactly what they want.



you can customize firefox look(theme) without changing gnome look, the download mangement system, automatic to a location if you want, ask me every time, if you want control, open automatically with program X, autoscrolling, smoothscrolling, auto image resize, the search bar being different from the url bar(or not, your choice), complete control of where the buttons go, custom widgets.

Sure you can change the firefox theme, but I can't get it to look the same as my other GTK apps - although if I'm *really* lucky someone may have made a Firefox theme that looks basically the same as my GTK theme. The toolbar(s) is(are) customisable, as in Firefox. Extension can add widgets to them, which is what I assume you mean by "cusom widgets".

I'm not sure what autoscrolling is, but Epiphany lets you use the keyboard and mouse wheel to scroll as firefox does. You can add a search box by adding a smart bookmark to the bookmarks bar (you can do this with any smart bookmark) - screenshots at http://www.gnome.org/projects/epiphany/smartbookmarks.html.


Epiphany has a download to folder X, or ask each time option - it's in the preferences. I have an extension gwget as the download manager, they may be extension for other download apps, I haven't looked.



sure you can argue that epiphanys tab(i don't think so, and with sure as heck not with 1.5) default is better, but wait extensions...... they add, thats big, you can improve a browser.

The tab thing, along with quite a few other difference is a matter of personal preference, and quite a lot of people will simply use whichever one is installed by default - we need to determine which is better



re bug fixes and security releases:

I don't quite get what you're saying. If they found a bug in Firefox tomorrow, they could release 1.0.7 - then the Ubuntu devels would package that/backport the fixes (policy changed recently) and release it to the public using Hoary. If they found a bug in Epiphany, they could release 1.6.5 - then the Ubuntu devels would package that/backport the fixes and release it to the public using Hoary. How are these two cases different?


re building geck separately:

For an initial implementation you should be able to split geck out into a seperate package, just be putting the libraries in a different binary package - same as how there is firefox and firefox-dev etc. It wouldn't involve forking the project, or serious changes to the code, just the way it is packaged (hopefully anyway).

Mozilla said that quite a while ago that they wanted to break gecko out into a seperate product, which would massive help others who use gecko. It hasn't happened yet, and I'm not sure if it's likely to happend in the near future.


I know that Epiphany isn't the best browser for everyone, but then no browser is. The question is which one is best for Ubuntu's audience.

[darkmatter]

Mozilla said that quite a while ago that they wanted to break gecko out into a seperate product, which would massive help others who use gecko. It hasn't happened yet, and I'm not sure if it's likely to happend in the near future.

XULRunner (http://wiki.mozilla.org/XUL:Xul_Runner) is being packaged for Debian. (http://web.glandium.org/blog/?p=32)

[ow50]

For me, the question is whether you want to provide a tightly integrated and "complete" desktop operating system (in the style of Mac OS), or if you want to provide a collection of useful software.
I fully agree. The problem with a collection of useful software is that the applications will look different, behave differently and need to be customized separately. All this talk about features (tab widths, autoscrolling, search bar location, etc.) is IMHO pointless. Epiphany and Firefox are both fully capable web-browsers.

[ploum]

I think that there's some points where we don't need to debate anymore :

* Firefox has a lot of extensions
+ : you can customize your browser
- : people that can customize their browser are most of the time able to install a new browser. Most users will stick to the default

* Firefox is multi-platform
+ : people can keep the same program under different system.
- : we want to provide the best experience under Ubuntu et we prefer a well integrated tool.

* Firefox is hype
+ : some people will think : "Ubuntu is cool, it has firefox as the default browser"
- : not enough aristocratic ;-)


So, in order to keep this thread clean and flamewarless, I suggest that if your argument fall in one of those category, you simply not write it at the moment.

[djst]

Well said ploum. Whatever decision is made about this, I will respect it because the arguments on both camps are valid. Personally, I would use Firefox anyway because I share the bookmarks on my dual boot system and because it's Firefox, but I actually enjoy using Epiphany too. I just don't get the name. ;)

[idn]

It would be good if epiphany shared bookmarks from other browers including those on a ******* partition.

[Lovechild]

It would be good if epiphany shared bookmarks from other browers including those on a ******* partition.

I think we would need a fd.o spec for bookmarks, I imagine there are other applications that would benefit from access to bookmarks and speaking a common langauge is always a good idea.

[doclivingston]

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Standards lists "The XML Bookmark Exchange Language" (http://pyxml.sourceforge.net/topics/xbel/) as a draft spec that has pretty good agreement.

From what I've read Epiphany, Galeon (and possibly Konqueror) use XBEL to store their bookmarks, and I think there is a firefox extension that can import/export the format.

[idn]

Your right epiphany does use the freedesktop.org stanrdard, another reason to have epeiphany instaleld as the defult :)

From the OSDir tour of breezy i saw that epiphan was not tehre in the internet menu, will it not be installed by default in breezy?

[blinksilver]

i was thinking, can we put a big ubuntu poll on the main page of this forum, see what everyone thinks, i mean, we can sit here arguing until the cats come home, but the answer would be in the poll.

[doclivingston]

That's right, Epiphany isn't installed by default - which is where this thread started, by discussion the pros/cons of having Epiphany as the default in Breezy+1. You can install it by simply doing a "apt-get install epiphany-browser" or choosing it in Synaptic.

(NOTE: the package is called "epiphany-browser" not just "epiphany", which is a boulder-dash clone.)


I tried using XBEL to transfer bookmarks between multiple browsers and it seems to work reasonably well. The only real issue was that Epiphany's bookmarks aren't quite the same as other browsers - most browsers store BMs in heirarchical folders, whereas BMs in Epiphany can belong to zero or more catagories. That can cause interesting results if the BM is in multiple catagories (Epiphany) or in a second-level folder (other browsers).

[doclivingston]

i was thinking, can we put a big ubuntu poll on the main page of this forum, see what everyone thinks, i mean, we can sit here arguing until the cats come home, but the answer would be in the poll.

That would provide some indication of the preference from the general community - however I also think what is also important is to find out from the Ubuntu devels how hard they think splitting Gecko off into a seperare package would be. After all Epiphany isn't going to be the default if it requires Firefox to be installed, and the devels will be the people that have to do the hard work splitting gecko into it's own package.

[Lovechild]

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Standards lists "The XML Bookmark Exchange Language" (http://pyxml.sourceforge.net/topics/xbel/) as a draft spec that has pretty good agreement.

From what I've read Epiphany, Galeon (and possibly Konqueror) use XBEL to store their bookmarks, and I think there is a firefox extension that can import/export the format.

That sounds like another technical point for epiphany, is there anything we can do to make the firefox people support the XBEL spec I wonder. It would be so nice to get that simple matter sorted out.

[doclivingston]

That sounds like another technical point for epiphany, is there anything we can do to make the firefox people support the XBEL spec I wonder. It would be so nice to get that simple matter sorted out.

I haven't heard of any official plans to use XBEL in Mozilla/Firefox, whether this is due to technical issues or not, I have no idea.

Also the Firefox extension that does XBEL import/export is the Bookmark synchroniser plugin https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=14&vid=946

[idn]

Be hard to get firefox to support XBEL I guess, but it would be worth it, if it only means integration with epiphany from their pint of view it may seem like alot of work to integrate with one browser, although making it freedesktop.org compliant would be a big selling pint for them.

Yeah I agree, maybe if we could get a discussion with some developers going and see if we can get this added to the breezy + 1 wiki. If someone has some contacts for some ubuntu developers it would be great.

[blinksilver]

dude galeon is alive, (i did not know, i thought it had died) http://galeon.sourceforge.net/ thats a fair compromise if ever i heard of one.

[ploum]

I can contact a Ubuntu-gnome developper and ask him what he thinks. But I will do it only after breezy release. They had too much work for now :-)

[idn]

Ok, seeming the feature freeze is in place for breezy I guess theres no chance of changing it now. I guess its something we will have to be puished to be discussed in breezy + 1

I dont think galeon is a good choice as it doesnt integrate with gnome as well as epiphany, which is the whole point of using epiphany over firefox

[blinksilver]

the whole point of galeon it to bring mozilla to the gtk world. I don't even care about this anymore. Its been fun, but a web browers is just to much to be going on about. whatever the devels decide is fine by me.

[idn]

OK, this got thrown around in the last release, and i think there were some really good arguments both for and against, I think we should start this thread up again for the dapper release.

IMO, the default browser should be epiphany, the best arguments I can give:


100% gnome app - meaning integration with theme and other gnome apps
Learnable and intuitive UI
Perfect application for first time Ubuntu-er


The main point for firefox seems to be its an accepted standard, easy for windows and OS x converts, but epiphany is a very intuitive application and all the semantics are the same for both apps, so getting up to speed on epiphany shouldnt be hard. People coming from IE will have to relearn one of the browsers - may as well make it the gnome default.

Also, its not as feature packed - so? If you are an advanced user wanting advanced features install firefox, you can't expect new users to install epiphany, Ubuntu should be set up for ease of use out the box.

Anyway, I really want to include epiphany as the default browser - so why don't I just install it? Because most 'less advanced' users probably cant be bothered or don't know about it.

EPIPHANY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So I was hoping we could have a good discussion on this and hope the developers can get a better understanding of what the community wants - any decision will have to benefit the majority of it after all - its the beauty of Linux :)

[doclivingston]

There is a wiki page (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EpiphanyDefaultBrowser#preview) that contains most of the important points that were brought up last time. Feel free to add to it, if you have something useful to say.

[Muhammad]

The problem with EPIPHANY is that it depends on Firefox, Mozilla or Opera.

[doclivingston]

The problem with EPIPHANY is that it depends on Firefox, Mozilla or Opera.

That's an artifact of how the Gecko based application are built and packaged. In theory there could be a "libgecko" package, which Firefox, Epiphany, Mozilla, Galeon et al could depend on.

[matid]

I'd say Firefox should be default browser in Ubuntu, since it's easier to use for new Ubuntu user. Most of the already had it on Windows, so they're usually familiar with it.

[idn]

I'd say Firefox should be default browser in Ubuntu, since it's easier to use for new Ubuntu user. Most of the already had it on Windows, so they're usually familiar with it.

The majority of users on Windows use IE, so they will have to learn a new browser anyway. I dont see why a non-gnome app if perferred of the default app. Epiphany will be easier to use because it has a better more intuitive UI

[apoclypse]

Yes, but its less alienating for new users to linux. They already have heard/used firefox before. To see something familiar can be reasurring. Epiphany is pretty good but too explorer-ish for me. I 'd stick with firefox.

[Curlydave]

Firefox is slow as balls (well, slower than it should be) in Ubuntu. Epiphany is up to speed, but the interface and toolbars are wayyy too big without some modification, some things like autoscroll are only available via extension, there's no way to control how many lines the wheel scrolls, (it uses the system default which is unchangeable in gnome.:???: ) and the icons rarely show up for bookmarks.

[m87]

Yes, but its less alienating for new users to linux. They already have heard/used firefox before. To see something familiar can be reasurring. Epiphany is pretty good but too explorer-ish for me. I 'd stick with firefox.

bad point of view.

the new user wants to browse the web. that's why "internet explorer" is a GREAT name for a browser. the new user doesn't want firefox. the new user wants a program to surf the web. and if he's quite fussy the browser should have this, this and that.

epiphany has this in terms of INTEGRATION.
firefox on the other hand has that in terms of FEATURES.

the problem is:

1) firefox WON'T integrate with GNOME [not their plan, of course]
2) epiphany STILL needs some extensions.

so... in my opinion, epiphany should be the default browser. but it has to improve, and GNOME itself should reach the "i want to surf the web and read my email" mind, and quit the "i want firefox and evolution" one.

and of course a newbie doesn't even know anything about adblocking or rss feeds [IE has none of them] or most other stuff, he needs just a browser with back, forward and refresh buttons, a location bar, the bookmarks and [maybe] the web pages history.

[Buffalo Soldier]

I'm using Epiphany. But I think they should stick with Firefox as the default browser, at least for a while longer.

[teevee]

Asking to replace Firefox with Epiphany is like asking to replace OpenOffice with Abiword/Gnumeric/... or Evolution with Thunderbird, GAIM with uhh, something else. With all due respect to those applications and their developers, but OpenOffice and Firefox are not replaceable, that's widely known programs, open source "brands". ;-) Removing one of those would be a huge mistake.

And dragging OOo into this thread is fine, its integration with Gnome isn't much better than Firefox's integration with Gnome, right?

[MadMan2k]

bad comparioson - there is no equivalent alternative to OpenOffice, while Epiphany is an alternative. The only thing which keeps me from using it, is the lack of a Adblock plugin, but its system integration and usability is superior.
Displaying the Website favicon instead of the application icon in the window-bar is worth making it default. :razz:

[m87]

i use abiword/gnumeric and stuff, and as i don't like "presentations" ooimpress is not something that i actually miss. i prefer svg's for such kind of stuff.

i haven't got ooo installed, and i won't do that :)

abiword may not have the same features oowriter has, but BY NOW i haven't yelled "dammit! i should need this!", so for an average guy which doesn't need an INTENSIVE use of a word processor abiword is enough.

and on the other hand gnumeric is MORE than enough. it has even functions msexcel hasn't and of course it's fully integrated with gnome.

it's true. openoffice is a bad comparison, there are better replacements, in my opinion.


Asking to replace Firefox with Epiphany is like asking to replace OpenOffice with Abiword/Gnumeric/... or Evolution with Thunderbird, GAIM with uhh, something else. With all due respect to those applications and their developers, but OpenOffice and Firefox are not replaceable, that's widely known programs, open source "brands". Removing one of those would be a huge mistake.

evolution is part of gnome and even if gaim is not it is FULLY integrated with it. 2.0 version will have dbus support and stuff. and the notify icon plugin fully respects the specification.

[John.Michael.Kane]

I dont use openoffice i do how ever use abiword. as for Epiphany i have used it, and it is fast when dealing with page loading ect. now what the dev's could do is offer the user the option of what programs are and are not installed during the setup of ubunt.

[teevee]

bad comparioson - there is no equivalent alternative to OpenOffice, while Epiphany is an alternative.
No. Firefox is a well known open source brand which many people recognize. download.com app of the year, 100 million downloads, ... OpenOffice is also such a recognized application. They are cornerstones of Ubuntu and FOSS in general, can take away a lot of prejudices and fears newcomers might have and should be as irreplaceable as Gnome in Ubuntu.

And how a taskbar icon can weigh more than what Firefox accomplished for FOSS is beyond me. ;-)

Plissken, Epiphany uses the same rendering engine as Firefox (Gecko).

[Lord Illidan]

I believe that Firefox is by far better than Gnome.. However, it would be better if it were faster to load and to use..
I don't use epiphany myself, I prefer Firefox but speeding up firefox is the first thing to do before discussing which should be the default Dapper Drake browser.

[John.Michael.Kane]

Well then maybe the dev's could figure out a way to have Epiphany not need firefox. i think this is one of the issues new user's who maybe coming from some other OS that did not have these problems dont understand. why they need two browsers on their system. granted you can't remove ie from windows with out reg hacking. still some come to linux with the thought of it's openess only to find they need two browser's.

just my thought's...

[idn]

Well then maybe the dev's could figure out a way to have Epiphany not need firefox. i think this is one of the issues new user's who maybe coming from some other OS that did not have these problems dont understand. why they need two browsers on their system. granted you can't remove ie from windows with out reg hacking. still some come to linux with the thought of it's openess only to find they need two browser's.

just my thought's...

This is a good idea, maybe break gecko out into a seperate package, so any browser can use it and epiphany wont be reliant on firefox. Unlikely firefox devs want to do this I should imagine.

With regards to brands, firefox is much bigger, but gnome should be about usability not about names.



I believe that Firefox is by far better than Gnome.. However, it would be better if it were faster to load and to use..
I don't use epiphany myself, I prefer Firefox but speeding up firefox is the first thing to do before discussing which should be the default Dapper Drake browser.
Dont think we should bother wasting resources on firefox, they have a big enough community to maintain it, ubuntu devs should focus on other issues.

[Curlydave]

Get a faster version of FF in Ubuntu, and we'll stop saying switch to Epiphany. TBH, there are some things about Epiphany that irk me alot, but FF is soooo slooooowww in Linux. It's quite fast in Windows, and Epiphany is quite fast in Linux, but FF=slow as hell.

[teevee]

With regards to brands, firefox is much bigger, but gnome should be about usability not about names.
Then there's still not much that speaks against using Firefox. ;-)

As for speed, Firefox starts up in 1-3 seconds (warm/cold start) on my Athlon XP 3000+, GEdit(!) isn't faster either. Thats what I call slow, when a text editor's cold startup takes like 3 seconds. OOo Writer (cold) startup time is 12 seconds. The splash screen appears after 6 seconds! What a useful splash screen. Gnome itself is not known to be snappy either on older hardware. I wouldn't even call it snappy on my 3000+. And Evolution... So all those main applications aren't known to be overly snappy. That's a trade-off. Usability/features vs. snappiness. There's applications that are blazingly fast but offer nothing of the great stuff the others do. Epiphany is already in main, easily available for everyone through the "Add Applications" application, that's fair enough, I think.

And as long as it depends on another browser(!) this discussion is quite pointless anyway. :-)

[Curlydave]

Then there's still not much that speaks against using Firefox. ;-)

As for speed, Firefox starts up in 1-3 seconds (warm/cold start) on my Athlon XP 3000+, GEdit(!) isn't faster either. Thats what I call slow, when a text editor's cold startup takes like 3 seconds. OOo Writer (cold) startup time is 12 seconds. The splash screen appears after 6 seconds! What a useful splash screen. Gnome itself is not known to be snappy either on older hardware. I wouldn't even call it snappy on my 3000+. And Evolution... So all those main applications aren't known to be overly snappy. That's a trade-off. Usability/features vs. snappiness. There's applications that are blazingly fast but offer nothing of the great stuff the others do. Epiphany is already in main, easily available for everyone through the "Add Applications" application, that's fair enough, I think.

And as long as it depends on another browser(!) this discussion is quite pointless anyway. :-)

I don't know about gedit, but any OO program including Writer and Evolution isn't going to beat anything in a speed race-- it's an incredibly slow program suite no matter how you slice it, in Windows and Linux. The fact is that Firefox in Linux is sluggish. I get scroll lag, lag when I click a tab, slow startup times, slower page loading times, and some input lag when clickign buttons. Epiphany doesn't suffer from this, and either does FF in Windows. However, FF in Linux is simply slower than it should be.

[Lovechild]

Get a faster version of FF in Ubuntu, and we'll stop saying switch to Epiphany. TBH, there are some things about Epiphany that irk me alot, but FF is soooo slooooowww in Linux. It's quite fast in Windows, and Epiphany is quite fast in Linux, but FF=slow as hell.

I sure as hell wouldn't, I want a GNOME integrated, well translated, HIG compliant browser, not some XUL pos..

Epiphany as the default browser in Dapper is an absolute must for me.

[doclivingston]

Well then maybe the dev's could figure out a way to have Epiphany not need firefox. i think this is one of the issues new user's who maybe coming from some other OS that did not have these problems dont understand. why they need two browsers on their system. granted you can't remove ie from windows with out reg hacking. still some come to linux with the thought of it's openess only to find they need two browser's.

In theory it's possible to seperate GRE (Gecko Runtime Environment) out into a seperate package that the other browsers depend on. In practice it isn't quite that easy, as I think there are problems trying to build firefox against a serpeated GRE.

Whether the default browser is changed or not, seperating the GRE into it's own package would be good.

[idn]

I sure as hell wouldn't, I want a GNOME integrated, well translated, HIG compliant browser, not some XUL pos..

Epiphany as the default browser in Dapper is an absolute must for me.

Exactly, thats another issue, eiphany will be alot better at translating to other languages.

I think the main point to think about in this thread is not what YOU want but what will be best for someone who has just logged into gnome / linux / ubuntu for the first time and wants to just browse the web.

Epiphany is the best solution for this, so it should be included as the default.

[Lovechild]

it's not that it will be "better" translated, but the translation will be consistent with the GNOME translation - which makes it a whole lot easier to use and the Epiphany interface with a few tweaks is extremely pleasing.

Firefox just isn't suitable for general users, and once we either get a split out gecko to share between all derived browsers, or epiphany and the rest of GNOME moves to webcore. There will be little incentive to even have the firefox frontend installed unless you are a power user, and if you are and you need some of the features that Firefox presents you with - then you are also skilled enough to install it on your own.

I want to get the best possible desktop for me, and every other greatest common benefactor user.

[dolson]

I have tried Epiphany, but I just didn't ever like it. I use Firefox. Epiphany looks like ass, for one thing, and I may be a power user, but when it comes to web browsing, I just want something that works. The big-ass tollbars and stupid crap that I can't easily fix is just a huge annoyance. Plus, Epiphany crashes more than a bunch of blind drunk college kids racing down a bumpy, winding road.

Fix those issues in Epiphany, and I'll cast my vote as a default of Epiphany. But until then, Firefox should stay.

[manicka]

It must have been a while since you last used it. I'm a firefox user to, but epiphany is developing into a very nice browser.
Clean simple and just works... very gnomish.

[| MM |]

I know it aint opensource, but Opera 8.5 is free now!!!

Would it ever be considered as apart of Ubuntu? Cos i personally think it is by far the best browser around!

Should we not embrace stellar standards compliant software that is free?

[xequence]

I do aggree that firefox is an icon, it has a brand.

But I dont use it, it is slow and annoying. In windows its good though. Epiphany wasnt really... Uh, very good for me. It was just very ackward for some odd reason.

I use opera ;)

[| MM |]

Now that Opera is ad free, it should supersede FF in popularity. At least i hope, they deserve it imo, they have done soo much for web broswing, them Opera folk. And akin to Ubuntu they have built up a cool community.

What is the Ubuntu stance on free full-featured high quality software? I hope they would put careful thought into whether they should embrace Opera ...

[Lovechild]

I'll grant him that the default epiphany interface needs tweaking, but it's a stable program as much as firefox - and when it does crash for some reason, I'm offered a way to get back to the browsing state I was in prior to the crash - a much welcomed feature.

[doclivingston]

Epiphany looks like ass, for one thing, and I may be a power user, but when it comes to web browsing, I just want something that works.

What doesn't Just Work? Also anyone who claims to be a "power user" would be able to install their favourite browser anyway - Epiphany if Firefox is the default, Firefox is Epiphany is the default, Opera, Galeon or whatever.


The big-ass tollbars and stupid crap that I can't easily fix is just a huge annoyance.

The Epiphany and Firefox toolbars look the same size to me.


Plus, Epiphany crashes more than a bunch of blind drunk college kids racing down a bumpy, winding road.

In the 18 months I've been using Epiphany, I haven't had a stable version crash on me (occasional crashes are to be expected when you're using a development release). This may be an obvious question, but did you file bugs for the crashes?

[joakim2]

The Epiphany Location bar... (*&$@!! :mad: is pretty much all I have to say about it. Firefox' Location bar isn't great either, but at least if you're a fast typer it doesn't send you off to random pages in your history because the Location bar can't keep up. Sheesh. Both browsers have a lot to be envious of Konqueror when it comes to Location bar completion.

[idn]

I really dont like opera, it just never felt comfortable to use. I dont think it will be included in Ubuntu, not unless they open up their source code. As an unsupported thrid party add-on I dont have any problem with, but included as the default? No

[jonthejester]

What about just having both Epiphany and Firefox be included and letting the default be Epiphany? Maybe it's too much to ask, but I would think that with Epiphany you get the simplicity and it's all together with Gnome and Firefox has the name enough for people to recognize. It could conceivably be win-win if it works out. What does everyone think?

[teevee]

Exactly, thats another issue, eiphany will be alot better at translating to other languages.
How? Firefox is already available in dozens of languages.


... YOU want ...

Epiphany is the best solution for this, so it should be included as the default.
That's what YOU think. ;-) Usage statistics and the momentum behind Firefox tells another story. This makes me believe those people want Firefox.

And Opera? Please, are you kidding? First it's not free which already kills it off. Then, when people already complain about Firefox's feature-set, I suppose they'll get a heart attack when loading Opera and spotting its not overly intuitive user interface. And it isn't GTK, which makes it look even more horrible on an Ubuntu desktop. Rendering-wise, it would be a good choice, but non-free, non-GTK and its interface (which is the exact opposite of Gnome's UI philosophy) makes it a less likely choice than Dillo.

And to repeat myself, "as long as [Epiphany] depends on another browser(!) this discussion is quite pointless anyway." :-) And this separation of GRE is far, far away. And it doesn't look like Ubuntu developers see such a need for Epiphany as default that they are going to push this separation. Are there actually any official statements about this? Spotted EpiphanyDefaultBrowser on the wiki, which says "not endorsed by any Ubuntu developer", "no official plan" and some Epiphany and Firefox pros where the Firefox pros are cluttered with some comments by "Michael10". Well-balanced...! Oh, as for session management (the two top-most Epiphany advantages), that's planned for Firefox 2.0 (2006), and already ages available as extension, which Ubuntu could bundle with Firefox if it was such an important thing. "epiphany-extensions" is also in main. And please, Liferea as Live Bookmarks replacement? Live Bookmarks are brillant, RSS Readers such as Liferea are not. Tieing something like Liferea with Epiphany is making nothing "simpler", it would even scare me away, and I'm not one of those "average users" as mentioned on this wiki page. And yes, average users use live bookmarks. My aunt does, for example. She's as computer unsavvy as it gets, but she loves them. :-)

[Lovechild]

How? Firefox is already available in dozens of languages.


Yes but a lot fo these translated Firefox versions are DEEPLY incompatible with the GNOME translations, I know the danish team strives for the highest possible quality and consistency but applications such as Firefox and OpenOffice.org blantently violate the translation guidelines and refuse to listen to reasoning - what do this mean in the end - neither Firefox nor Openoffice can currently be used in the danish school system as they are not compliant with danish regulation..

Being translated is not enough, it has to be done right.

On top of that you cannot argue that Epiphany isn't better integrated and more consistent with the resty of the GNOME interface.

[teevee]

On top of that you cannot argue that Epiphany isn't better integrated and more consistent with the resty of the GNOME interface.
Yes, can't. But while an application shouldn't be too out of place, some inconsistencies, such as different terms for things or whether text on the toolbar is aligned correctly, won't be noticed by this "average user". Does not matter. Just like OOo's inconsistencies apparently don't matter...

[doclivingston]

And to repeat myself, "as long as [Epiphany] depends on another browser(!) this discussion is quite pointless anyway." :-) And this separation of GRE is far, far away. And it doesn't look like Ubuntu developers see such a need for Epiphany as default that they are going to push this separation.

Epiphany isn't the only thing that would benefit from seperating geck from firefox. The following packages also use gecko, but currently depend on Firefox: yelp, devhelp, gecko-cil, galeon, gnome-app-install and several other things which use gecko, but depend on mozilla-browser (probably because they haven't had their dependencies changed).


Are there actually any official statements about this? Spotted EpiphanyDefaultBrowser on the wiki, which says "not endorsed by any Ubuntu developer", "no official plan" and some Epiphany and Firefox pros where the Firefox pros are cluttered with some comments by "Michael10". Well-balanced...!

There aren't any official statement about this, because no-one has officially asked. The wiki page was several people putting their ideas together, so that at the appropriate time (which is probably right now) they could tell the Ubuntu developers "we think Epiphany should be the default, because of reasons X, Y and Z".


Oh, as for session management (the two top-most Epiphany advantages), that's planned for Firefox 2.0 (2006), and already ages available as extension, which Ubuntu could bundle with Firefox if it was such an important thing. "epiphany-extensions" is also in main.

AFAICT from the roadmap, Firefox 2.0 probably won't be out in time for Dapper. Comparisons of future features should be a Firefox 1.5 vs Epiphany 1.10 or Firefox 2.0 vs Epiphany 2.12 thing.

This may have changed (I haven't look at it for several months) but there used to be problems with system-wide extension installation. Searching the repository for packages with firefox in the name doesn't show any packages extensions, so the issues may not have been fixed (or maybe there just aren't any packaged).


And please, Liferea as Live Bookmarks replacement? Live Bookmarks are brillant, RSS Readers such as Liferea are not. Tieing something like Liferea with Epiphany is making nothing "simpler", it would even scare me away, and I'm not one of those "average users" as mentioned on this wiki page. And yes, average users use live bookmarks. My aunt does, for example. She's as computer unsavvy as it gets, but she loves them. :-)

Live Bookmarks are okay, but they don't have a lot of useful things that RSS reders do. For example they don't (in Firefox 1.0.x anyway) have any indication of which ones I've looked at, they don't display dates/times and there isn't a way to view the in-feed summary.

Also it's not at all obvious how to subscribe to feeds, right clicking on a feed-link doesn't have any "subscribe" options and there isn't anything in the main menu. The only way I've found to subscribe is with the odd sattelite dish icon on the status bar, which only works if the site advertises the feed in the page's HEAD section, and has bad accessability problems.

[aclaunch]

FWIW, I like jonthejester's idea of including both (since firefox/gecko has to be included anyway) but make Epiphany the default. It would seem that separating the gecko engine would be a huge undertaking (this from a non programmer) and is way beyond the scope of Ubuntu developers. Epiphany is clearly better integrated, has some nice features and is keeping with the spirit of simple, functional, clean. If someone needs the additional features of Firefox, let them use it. As for the argument of market share/brand recognition, come on-someone from Windows is going to switch to Linux but not feel comfortable with a different browser. The leap is Win to Linux, not Firefox to Epiphany.

My 2 cents worth
Alan

[Lovechild]

FWIW, I like jonthejester's idea of including both (since firefox/gecko has to be included anyway) but make Epiphany the default. It would seem that separating the gecko engine would be a huge undertaking (this from a non programmer) and is way beyond the scope of Ubuntu developers. Epiphany is clearly better integrated, has some nice features and is keeping with the spirit of simple, functional, clean. If someone needs the additional features of Firefox, let them use it. As for the argument of market share/brand recognition, come on-someone from Windows is going to switch to Linux but not feel comfortable with a different browser. The leap is Win to Linux, not Firefox to Epiphany.

My 2 cents worth
Alan

Finally someone who gets it, if you are going to change your entire desktop, who would really care if the browser you might have used on Windows (remember we still only hold about 1 in 10 users on firefox) is the default. Give us the default best applications, the best integrated and translated ones - that means Epiphany.

As for installing Firefox on the side, I really don't agree with this, but currently it happens anyways - I'd like to hide the icon in the menu though.

[SickTwist]

There are many great points here on both sides. I really think that this discussion and points on the EpiphanyDefaultBrowser (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EpiphanyDefaultBrowser) wiki should be brought up at UbuntuBelowZero (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBelowZero). Even if it is decided that Firefox should remain the default browser, there are many projects (Epiphany (http://www.gnome.org/projects/epiphany/), Galeon (http://galeon.sourceforge.net/), Yelp (http://live.gnome.org/Yelp), Kazehakase (http://kazehakase.sourceforge.jp/), etc) that would benefit if Gecko would be available as an independent library. Perhaps developers of these projects would be interested in cooperating on a libgecko project.

[Turgon]

Epiphany is an exiting prodject, but I realy think its best to stay with firefox because of its popularity. When I moved to linux, I did it because I saw that almost every program I use could be used in Linux too. Using the same applications as before made the move to Ubuntu very smooth. Im not saying that people will have problems using Epiphany, but the lack of the firefox name could scare some people away.

The Epiphany userinterface is also very bad next to firefox. Oversized back and forth buttons. A bad solution for the address bar, etc. If we add the tabs, the user interface itself will cover too much of the screen. I would be very much more positiv to Epiphany if the userinterface was more smilar to the firefox one or even more effective.

[MadMan2k]

you can edit epiphany UI as well as you cane dit the firefox one - so you can easily make the one browser mimic the other...

And again ,we are talking about default here - you will still be able to install firefox manually and use the program you are used to, while new/ more open users will get a better system integration experience...

[LorenzoD]

I'm another one who thinks it's better to go with the Gnome default. I don't think using Epiphany should be difficult for somebody who has used Firefox, or any other browser for that matter.

[idn]

I think the epiphany-extensions will have to be installed by default, especially the RSS subscriber add-in, I find this really useful.

The argument against installing both is that fact you will be creating a bigger install - not that much difference i know - and you may confuse novice users - I want to browse the web - which one shall I use?

My argument is that 90% of mircrosoft users still use IE, so it makes no difference which is the default, because firefox is still the minority.

Native gnome apps should always be preferred over alternatives where they are about that same quality, as in this case.

[Turgon]

I think the epiphany-extensions will have to be installed by default, especially the RSS subscriber add-in, I find this really useful.

The argument against installing both is that fact you will be creating a bigger install - not that much difference i know - and you may confuse novice users - I want to browse the web - which one shall I use?

My argument is that 90% of mircrosoft users still use IE, so it makes no difference which is the default, because firefox is still the minority.

Native gnome apps should always be preferred over alternatives where they are about that same quality, as in this case.

I agree that native gnome apps are preferrable, but in this case things are a little different.The name firefox is free marketing, even for thoose who doesn't use it. Very many knows what firefox is, and have heard that its good.

And lets not forget the fact that the 10 % using firefox are much more likely to switch to linux than the 80 % using IE. Most people using IE will not switch to linux before they can buy a brand new linux computer at their local computershop.

[ember]

Well, personally I would be happy to switch to Epiphany as soon as I have an equivalent to my favourite extensions (All in One Gestures, Adblock, Webdeveloper (quite important), NukeAnything, DownThemAll) - the last thing I new was that Adblock for Epiphany didn't have a GUI, Webdeveloper like thing was still in development and I saw nothing like DownThemAll - so it's really more about the extensions than the base browser for me.

[Turgon]

you can edit epiphany UI as well as you cane dit the firefox one - so you can easily make the one browser mimic the other...

And again ,we are talking about default here - you will still be able to install firefox manually and use the program you are used to, while new/ more open users will get a better system integration experience...

Yes, you can edit. And I can edit, but the unexperienced users can't. So, if the Epiphany browser shall be the default one, the UI needs to be tweeked by default. I would presume that its just a question of doing/not doing, but offen this ends in "not doing".

[RawMustard]

I sure as hell wouldn't, I want a GNOME integrated, well translated, HIG compliant browser, not some XUL pos..

Epiphany as the default browser in Dapper is an absolute must for me.

The reason you can even surf the web now is because of that XUL POS, if it were not for Firefox, epiphany wouldn't even exist and the web would not even be usefull in it!

Lets not forget who brought a lot of the web back into line away from Mongrelsoft so that obscure browsers like Epiphany can even exist!

Epiphany to me is just a lame window to the web, it has no usable features, no control over cookies, no meaningfull way to organise bookmarks, no usefull extensions, cannot remember it's window size or placement, opens its bookmark manager on another screen when using xinerama(Another fork in the eye job), is not customisable in any way, it's toolbars are huge for no good reason, uses gedit to open the source of pages which chokes if they're of any size.

All in all, that thing you call an XUL POS is 10000000000000 times more a usable program than epiphany and if we had to rely on epiphany to help take back the web - well, hell would freeze over long before that ever happened!

[MadMan2k]

The reason you can even surf the web now is because of that XUL POS, if it were not for Firefox, epiphany wouldn't even exist and the web would not even be usefull in it!
[ ] I know that Galeon(which was the base for Epiphany) is older than Firefox

[RawMustard]

[ ] I know that Galeon(which was the base for Epiphany) is older than Firefox

Selective snipping goes a long way to hiding truths huh?

And how much influence has Galeon had in stopping Microsoft from monopolising the web? I'll tell you how much, zilch, zero, none. And how much influence is Galeon or epiphany having now? Again, zilch, zero, none.

I'm sure my bank will just race off and re design their web interface to support Epiphany, because soooo many people use it!

we are fighting a numbers game, Gnome developers should be putting into Firefox and help fix its problems rather than trying to re-invent wheels again, we need more Firefox users to get alternative user numbers up, splitting users up between Epiphany, Galeon, Konqureor is not going to stop the M$ Juggernaut!

And since both Epiphany and Galeon both rely on Firefox anyway, why not just help integrate Firefox into Gnome better - It integrates really well into windows by the way, much better than linux!

But this is just my opinion of course, just offering an alternative point of view :)

[doclivingston]

I'm sure my bank will just race off and re design their web interface to support Epiphany, because soooo many people use it!

Epiphany uses the Gecko backend, which Firefox also uses - so what works in one, will work in the other. As to the number of users, does anyone have any actual statistics? Most of the reports on which browsers are used by how many people, group Epiphany, Galeon and the like in with Firefox because it uses Firefox's gecko backend.



we are fighting a numbers game, Gnome developers should be putting into Firefox and help fix its problems rather than trying to re-invent wheels again, we need more Firefox users to get alternative user numbers up, splitting users up between Epiphany, Galeon, Konqureor is not going to stop the M$ Juggernaut!

By that same argument Firefox shouldn't even exist - because it was "reinventing the wheel" that already existed as the Mozilla suite.

The goal of the Mozilla Foundation is to "encourage diversity in web browsers" and "ensure that no web browser is dominent over others" (paraphrased from the original Mozilla manifesto). Reducing the number of IE users furthurs that goal, but I fail to see how people using other alternate browsers hurts.

[doclivingston]

The reason you can even surf the web now is because of that XUL POS, if it were not for Firefox, epiphany wouldn't even exist and the web would not even be usefull in it!

I think you mean "that if it wasn't for Mozilla, neither Firefox nor Epiphany would be around".



Epiphany to me is just a lame window to the web, it has no usable features, no control over cookies, no meaningfull way to organise bookmarks, no usefull extensions, cannot remember it's window size or placement, opens its bookmark manager on another screen when using xinerama(Another fork in the eye job), is not customisable in any way, it's toolbars are huge for no good reason, uses gedit to open the source of pages which chokes if they're of any size.

Half of those are on my list of why Epiphany is better. Which once again this proves the point that "Epiphany does X, while Firefox does Y" doesn't help that much - because Epiphany fans claim that X is better, which Firefox fans claim that Y is better.


Some people prefer Epiphany (such as myself), and will install it no matter what the default is. Other people will prefer Firefox (such as yourself), and will install it no matter what the default is. The real issue is to determine which is better for the people who don't have a preference one way of the other.

[Burgundavia]

The really hard lifting is done by Gecko, which is purely Mozilla. As for getting behind one browser, that is crack. We only need to NOT get behind IE and the web will start changing.

Epiphany is simpy better integrated into GNOME that FF is (and I suspect ever will be).

An interesting aside. The company I work for, Userful, sells Fedora-based public computers to libraries. Most people don't even realize they are not using Windows, let alone what browser they have.

Corey

[linuxnomad]

I would prefur Epiphany over Firefox as default, if I only had two browsers to choose from. I mostly use Mozilla, but I do like Epiphany. Epiphany is simple and very easy to use. If I want ad blocking and the other extentions talked about I just use Mozilla.
To me Mozilla has a better look and feel than Firefox. The last version of Firefox I tried was 1.0.7 and it just wasn't stable on my system. I like Firefox in Windows but not in Linux, but anything is better than IE.
Someone said something about Firefox being the only browser to take on IE, did we forget the browser Firefox and Mozilla are based on, Netscape was the first and was very successful in competing with IE to a point then Netscape spun off Mozilla and Firefox spun off from Mozilla.

The main reason I use Mozilla over Firefox is that most plugins on my system seem to just work better in Mozilla. Video through Mozilla is 100 times better than through Firefox. Something in Firefox causes the video player to abort and close down the browser, this doesn't happen in Epiphany or Mozilla.

Oh, about Opera it just doesn't render web pages correctly. It has problems with drop down menus both in Windows and Linux and some web pages it just can't render at all, but it is fast.

[nix4me]

The new Firefox Beta is 100% better than 1.07. The Ubuntu Developers somehow screwed up 1.07.

Epiphany is ok, but its not mainstream enough in my opinion to be viable as a default browser.

I think Firefox should remain default.

nix4me

[canadianwriterman]

OK, this got thrown around in the last release, and i think there were some really good arguments both for and against, I think we should start this thread up again for the dapper release.

IMO, the default browser should be epiphany...

Firefox 1.5 is a lot better IMHO. Lots of adapability with extensions.

[Lovechild]

The really hard lifting is done by Gecko, which is purely Mozilla. As for getting behind one browser, that is crack. We only need to NOT get behind IE and the web will start changing.

Epiphany is simpy better integrated into GNOME that FF is (and I suspect ever will be).

An interesting aside. The company I work for, Userful, sells Fedora-based public computers to libraries. Most people don't even realize they are not using Windows, let alone what browser they have.

Corey

Should we take that as a personal endorsement of the s/Firefox/Epiphany/g ?

[imagine]

I would prefur Epiphany over Firefox as default, if I only had two browsers to choose from.Agreed.

Firefox neither looks nor feels as a Gnome application. It doesn't follow the HIG, which in the Gnome world means it is buggy. Therefore it shouldn't be a default application for anything in Gnome.


And since both Epiphany and Galeon both rely on Firefox anyway, why not just help integrate Firefox into Gnome better - It integrates really well into windows by the way, much better than linux!According to some Firefox developers, most of the work goes into the Windows version of Firefox because three out of four Firefox users run Windows.
Yet another reason to use Epiphany as default.

[soonindallas]

... most of the work goes into the Windows version of Firefox because three out of four Firefox users run Windows.
Yet another reason to use Epiphany as default.

is it all not open source ?

[Malphas]

The majority of users on Windows use IE
But the majority of Windows users that would consider switching to Ubuntu are most likely not using IE.

[Anthem]

But the majority of Windows users that would consider switching to Ubuntu are most likely not using IE.

This is exactly right. I've been reading this thread for the first time, and I'm amazed that nobody's talked about this yet.

If people are going to move to Linux/FOSS, they'll try "FOSS-on-Windows" first. Firefox as the default is a no-brainer. People that understand Linux enough to know what "HIG" means can use Epiphany instead with no problem. The brand-new user from Windows, though, shouldn't have to change more things than necessary.

[doclivingston]

If people are going to move to Linux/FOSS, they'll try "FOSS-on-Windows" first. Firefox as the default is a no-brainer. People that understand Linux enough to know what "HIG" means can use Epiphany instead with no problem. The brand-new user from Windows, though, shouldn't have to change more things than necessary.

If the target audience is "current Windows user who decided to try Linux", then having Firefox because they will probably have it for Windows makes some sense.

However the audience is larger then that; it includes current Linux users, Mac users, people who just use whatever is in front of them, Windows user who use Opera etc. Those people aren't using Firefox on Windows, so shouldn't they get the best[0] browser rather than the one that suits Firefox-on-Winddows users?


[0] exactly which is the "best" browser is where this thread started.

[Anthem]

However the audience is larger then that; it includes current Linux users, Mac users, people who just use whatever is in front of them, Windows user who use Opera etc. Those people aren't using Firefox on Windows, so shouldn't they get the best[0] browser rather than the one that suits Firefox-on-Winddows users?

Well, if it's Mac users we're targeting, we need to make Konqueror the default. :D

Ubuntu's currently taking a "best of breed" approach. I support that. Right now, the top open-source browser is FireFox. I think there's a strategic value for having the main apps be cross-platform, especially in terms of switchability.

Epiphany's getting better, no doubt. But it's not better than Firefox, and won't be before the next release. And by the release after that, Firefox will be at 1.1. And Firefox has the capability of getting a lot better... Ubuntu's build is significantly slower than Suse's, for example. It's also quite a bit uglier, for whatever reason (I think it has to do with the default font selection). Those things could be fixed, which would really help.

The fact that most newbies would rather have firefox has to argue strongly in its favor, I think. It's easy enough for an experienced user to switch to Galeon.

[manicka]

This is exactly right. I've been reading this thread for the first time, and I'm amazed that nobody's talked about this yet.

If people are going to move to Linux/FOSS, they'll try "FOSS-on-Windows" first. Firefox as the default is a no-brainer. People that understand Linux enough to know what "HIG" means can use Epiphany instead with no problem. The brand-new user from Windows, though, shouldn't have to change more things than necessary.

You've hit the nail on the head perfectly. The developers have stated many times that Firefox is and will remain the default browser for similar reasons. This whole thread while making some great points isn't going to change that. I use epiphany most of the time myself but I can see why Firefox is the default and don't have a problem with it.

[donar73]

You've hit the nail on the head perfectly. The developers have stated many times that Firefox is and will remain the default browser for similar reasons. This whole thread while making some great points isn't going to change that. I use epiphany most of the time myself but I can see why Firefox is the default and don't have a problem with it.

Totally agree with you, there's no need for a new default browser. And this whole discussion wouldn't exist if the developers could manage it that Firefox would run as fast in Ubuntu as it does in all of the other systems...

[Lovechild]

Totally agree with you, there's no need for a new default browser. And this whole discussion wouldn't exist if the developers could manage it that Firefox would run as fast in Ubuntu as it does in all of the other systems...

Sure it would:

Firefox translation suck.
The interface is inconsistent.
The interface requires keeping a delta with upstream to workaround various things like checking for updates.

[MadMan2k]

Well, if it's Mac users we're targeting, we need to make Konqueror the default. :D
Konqueror != khtml


I think there's a strategic value for having the main apps be cross-platform, especially in terms of switchability.
The problem with cross-plattform apps is that they are designed to fit the plattform with the biggest audience best. This means they are all optimized for Windows and look misplaced even if they use GTK.



Epiphany's getting better, no doubt. But it's not better than Firefox, and won't be before the next release. And by the release after that, Firefox will be at 1.1.
Epiphany is firefox - just with an other UI and a better Gnome integration. If firefox will support SVG and some CSS3 things as of 1.5 Epiphany will do so as well.



The fact that most newbies would rather have firefox has to argue strongly in its favor, I think. It's easy enough for an experienced user to switch to Galeon.
Thats not correct - Epiphany is newbie orientated, since it follows the HIG and integrates perfectly in Gnome. It also tries to make its extensions as easy usable as possible - see the Adblock discussion.
Firefox on the other hand offers lots of customisations for the advanced user such as a theme manager and the JS Console enabled by default - its more than a browser which simply works...

[Anthem]

Konqueror != khtml

Humor > Lack


Epiphany is firefox - just with an other UI and a better Gnome integration.

That doesn't make any sense. Epiphany uses Gecko, sure. But that doesn't make it Firefox. As far as most users go, the app IS the user interface.

I don't want to be nasty, but the devs agree with me and not you.

If you want Epiphany, it's easy enough to add it.

[MadMan2k]

Humor > Lack
Joke > not funny :p



That doesn't make any sense. Epiphany uses Gecko, sure. But that doesn't make it Firefox. As far as most users go, the app IS the user interface.

I don't want to be nasty, but the devs agree with me and not you.

If you want Epiphany, it's easy enough to add it.
It requieres only about 30lines of code to make a browser out of Gecko - so the impression the user gets does not respond to the reality.

And again this is not about my personal Preferences - it is about the default app, which has to statisfy the basic needs of a average user, which only wants to surf the web in the same way he controlls the rest of his system.

Someone suggested to simply put more effort in firefox Gnome integration - if you follow this idea, you will end up with epiphany...

You just have to tell the people that Epiphany is the Gnome Firefox as you do for OSX and Camino.

[jeffreyvergara.NET]

I think firefox 1.5 is much better now in Ubuntu, in my experience I think it's much faster now (the way it supposed to be) So I must say that Firefox will remain as the default browser.

and Firefox has a larger team of developers and larger community than other opensource browser. the more the better..hehehe

[tim1]

Joke >Someone suggested to simply put more effort in firefox Gnome integration - if you follow this idea, you will end up with epiphany...

With one dramatic difference: Support for all 3rd party extensions & themes out there.

The soon to be released 1.5 will improve Gnome HIG compliance, e.g. in the preferences window. Apart from that I believe many problems with firefox could be corrected by extensions, or one big Gnome or Ubuntu extension maybe. That is the right way to go.

greets, tim

[MadMan2k]

With one dramatic difference: Support for all 3rd party extensions & themes out there.
sure you will loose the firefox themes, but on the other hand win all the Gnome themes.
As of the extensions, you've got a point - but arent the extensions users quite avanced and able to install firefox manually to get their desired functionality?

And Gnome Integration is not only the interface, its also about using dbus or nautilus - things which firefox could never do due to its multiplattform nature.
http://live.gnome.org/Epiphany_2fFeatureDesign_2fDownloadIntegration

[tim1]

And Gnome Integration is not only the interface, its also about using dbus or nautilus - things which firefox could never do due to its multiplattform nature.

I don't think so. Firefox already uses different libraries (e.g. libgdi, which is only available on windows) on different platforms. And in any case the version in Ubuntu does not have to be the version mozilla offers, in fact, it even isn't in breezy (e.g. the 2 extra menu entries under help)

greets, tim

[ploum]

I didn't read the whole thread but I just warn you : there's really no hope to see Epiphany instead of Firefox for Dapper. Forget it. (Just talked with Jdub about it)

And I'm one of the biggest Epiphany fan (I think that I started the Wiki page about it), I must admit that it's really useless to talk about it before Dapper is released. (but you can always modify the wiki page)

[idn]

I think it sucks the devs arent wiling to talk to the community about this, there is obviously alot of feeling on both sides about which should be the default. For me it only makes sence to use the gnome default, epiphany, all the bad stuff people post on here are lies damn lies i tell you!

Anyway, it would be cool if the communty could vote on this issue - imagine it, the first ubuntu referendum!

[Anthem]

Double Post.

[Anthem]

I think it sucks the devs arent wiling to talk to the community about this

And of course by "The Community" you mean "myself and a couple other vocal guys on the message board." I'm a part of the community too, and I think the devs are making the right description.

I started using Epiphany this week just to see what all the fuss was about. It wasn't bad, but I won't be switching. And that's not even counting the fact that Firefox 1.5 will come out in this release cycle.

Let it die, man. Move on.

[Lovechild]

Since nobody appeared to have done this, I opened bug #18786 to track this debate in bugzilla.

[rboss]

While Firefox integrates quite nice into the desktop, Epiphany does a much better job.

I like Firefox and it is my primary browser. But Epiphany is simpler and easier. Those who want the Fox and all it's plugins know how to install it.

Firefox, I reckon, is a tinker browser whereas Epiphany is a sane default. And it's all about sane default in Ubuntu, isn't it?

[pecanov]

Users might be more familiar with firefox then epiphany when switching from any platform to ubuntu. This should be a big plus on this issue.

[ploum]

I think it sucks the devs arent wiling to talk to the community about this, there is obviously alot of feeling on both sides about which should be the default. For me it only makes sence to use the gnome default, epiphany, all the bad stuff people post on here are lies damn lies i tell you!

Anyway, it would be cool if the communty could vote on this issue - imagine it, the first ubuntu referendum!

I think Epiphany is easier, nicer and well integrated. Better for newbies.

But I understand that, here, developpers don't want to satisfy existing users. They want something that can attract new users. And Firefox is more hype. Existing users (like you and me) can always install Epiphany and use it (15s of configuration needed).

[MadMan2k]

I didn't read the whole thread but I just warn you : there's really no hope to see Epiphany instead of Firefox for Dapper. Forget it. (Just talked with Jdub about it)
do they dont want to do it or cant they do it? because if the cant get a GRE which will statisfy Epiphany and Firefox, this discussion must me postponed...

[jonny]

I switched to linux about a year ago. I was a reasonably sophisticated Windows user but certainly not a sysadmin type, so my experience might be typical of many.

In short, Firefox under ubuntu Warty confused the heck out of me. I couldn't understand why the 'click here to install missing plugin' didn't work like it did under Windows. I couldn't work out how to get Firefox to open documents with the same program that nautilus used. I couldn't understand why it continued to display text with icons when I'd said I didn't want that in my preference menu. I hated the way that the icons didn't change when I changed my theme. And, trivially but irritatingly, I missed the neat orange fox around the globe that Windows users get. In short, Firefox felt like a Windows program that was trespassing on my clean Gnome desktop.

Epiphany was a like breath of fresh air when I discovered it. I love its bookmarks and, most of all, I love the integration of the search and url entry boxes. I love the clean shortcut menus, too. Its simplicity is perfect for new computer users and for Windows switchers. Anyone sophisticated enough to need the extra features of Firefox (I'm not) will discover how to install it. I suggest that the rest of the world would prefer simplicity.

[paulvandenberg]

Speaking as a KDE user, (Kubuntu has Konqueror as the default browser), I had no problem downloading and installing Firefox. To me, it doesn't matter what the default is, as long as what you want is reasonably easy to get and install. I've used GNOME and Epiphany as well. My feeling is that Epiphany is a better default for GNOME.

Just my 2 cents.

Paul

[MarcDM]

If you have not used Epiphany for longer than 10 minutes please stay out of this until you have.

I agree that there are some features missing from Epiphany that would be nice, but everytime I encounter one of these missing features, it was when I was doing web development. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Thinking about my mother, and a few other non-computer users, I can see where Epiphany would be infinitely easier to understand. We can begin with the context menus and the preferences dialog.

Other than that, based on what I see below, I know we can't argue interface for firefox. They're almost indistinguishable.

http://www.phronein.com/~marcdm/epiphany_vs_firefox/Screenshot-Epiphany_in_firefox.png
http://www.phronein.com/~marcdm/epiphany_vs_firefox/Screenshot-Firefox_in_epiphany.png

[poofyhairguy]

Except for me the widgets in the top one (the Firefox one) look better.

[idn]

Except for me the widgets in the top one (the Firefox one) look better.

But that depends on the theme you are using, when using d3a, I think epiphany looks awesome

[doclivingston]

That's one of the things I like about Epiphany, it uses whatever you GTK theme is - so you don't have to go around trying to find a browser theme that matches yours.

[Sykil]

The majority of users on Windows use IE, so they will have to learn a new browser anyway. I dont see why a non-gnome app if perferred of the default app. Epiphany will be easier to use because it has a better more intuitive UI
Not necessarily---open-source apps are an "entry drug" for new Linux users. Most people find out about Linux through the more popular open-source applications (Fx, GAIM, etc.). Many others and I have used Firefox on Windows before switching to Linux.

[bonega]

Interesting post from Jdub at Epiphany mailing list: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/epiphany-list/2005-October/msg00077.html

I will leave all crazy conspiracy theories to you.

[Excession]

Epiphany should not replace FireFox until it matches FireFox in features and usability.

I just installed Epiphany for the first time and the first two things I noticed were:

1) There is no search box by default - huge issue

2) I can't right click on the toolbar to customize it, neither can I find anything about it in preferences. I don't *want* huge sod-off icons and big bars taking up space.

Just my observations having used it for about five minutes for the first time.

[ondex]

1) There is no search box by default - huge issue There is no need for that because you just need to type word in address bar and hit Enter.


2) I can't right click on the toolbar to customize it, neither can I find anything about it in preferences. I don't *want* huge sod-off icons and big bars taking up space. Edit -> Toolbars (I'm not sure of the label because I use Gnome in French)

Of course, Epiphany is not a copy of Firefox, it's not the goal. Things are differents, adapted to Gnome philosophy...

[Jindro]

Good point from the discussion:

I set up epiphany as my default browser.

no problems yet.

[doclivingston]

1) There is no search box by default - huge issue

Just type in the location bar and either hit enter, or wait until the drop-down of choices shows up. I much prefer this over having a separate box.


2) I can't right click on the toolbar to customize it, neither can I find anything about it in preferences. I don't *want* huge sod-off icons and big bars taking up space.

Edit->Toolbars.

[Suzan]

My Firefox is quick, nice, customisable - I love it. I use it on my windows and mac computer at work and on my linux machine at home. It's so cool, to have the same app on all OS. And the huge number of extensions are so great.

I hope, it will be the default browser in Dapper.

If Epiphany will be the default browser, it's OK, too. But in this case, I hope Firefox will at last stay in "main", so everybody can install it additional if wanted.

[risbac]

If we look at Ubuntu's philosophy, Epiphany is a better choice, it's clearly faster than Firefox, especially on old computer. Firefox 1.5 will maybe change this, but I don't think it will be faster. It's also more simple.

And by using the "add applications", anybody can install Firefox with its plugins. I personnally use Epiphany on my laptop for speed, and Firefox on my main computer coz it's difficult to live without AdBlock and WebDevelopper when you are used to them.

But let's face it: few people use extensions, or install 7 new search engines. They just browse websites and use bookmark. To do this, I think Epiphany is better and clearly fitting with the Ubuntu philosophy.

[stoffe]

Just type in the location bar and either hit enter, or wait until the drop-down of choices shows up. I much prefer this over having a separate box.
Very much agreed. This is also how I always set up my Firefox (about:config->keyword:url something, remove lucky part). There's voices in Epiphany dev that wants to remove this though, sure hope that doesn't happen (it already did but was backed out this time).


Edit->Toolbars.
It should be right-click->Edit too though. I try that all the time, because that is just how it usually works (or so my brain thinks and refuses to learn otherwise). :)

[imagine]

Epiphany should not replace FireFox until it matches FireFox in features and usability.How is Firefox' usability better than Epiphany's? Are you sure you don't say that just because you used Firefox for months/years and Epiphany only for 5 minutes?
This thread is not about what experienced users consider the most powerful browser. Everyone of these users can just do a "sudo apt-get install firefox/epiphany/whatever".
It's about what should be the default browser in Gnome and I think that should be the browser which is integrated best in Gnome. My browser of choice is Opera, but I don't say Opera should be the default even if it was opensource, simple because it doesn't "fit" into Gnome.
When I change the theme in Gnome every default application should change. That's what all the effort about better usability, unified behaviour and the Human Interface Guidelines in Gnome are. Or when I set the proxy settings in Gnome I expect at least all the default applications to adopt those settings. But Firefox doesn't do all that. It just looks and feels as Gnome plus Firefox and not as Firefox would be a part of Gnome.

[poofyhairguy]

Edit->Toolbars.

But that option does not give you the control that Firefox does.

I can't get rid of that ugly Gnome foot in Epiphany to save my soul....

[linuxnomad]

I recently switch to using Epiphany as my main browser. After using Epiphany for a couple of weeks I don't think I will be using any other browsers. Epiphany is fast right from the start without having to tweak a config file unlike you have to do with Mozilla and Firefox. The bookmarks are organized much better at least in my opipnion. Epiphany uses the same themes as gnome and really having the appearance and fonts configured by gnome is much nicer.
When I use Firefox or Mozilla I have to install extensions to speed things up, to tweak something, to make it work better, or using them to get better functionality out of the browser, but with Epiphany I don't feel I need extension. Extension would only detract from the great preforance I get from Epiphany now. I don't really care about adblocking, I care more about being able to block pop-up ads and Epiphany does that well enough.

I think Epiphany should be default because of its integration with gnome. It just makes it easier to set up themes and browse the web. I think new Ubuntu user would have little trouble using Epiphany. Its just a web browser and most browser function similarly. They all have back, forward, refresh, stop and address bar all pretty much in the same place.

[trilo]

I like epiphany and I appreciate the point of view of simple design, however, the lack of an option to selectively refuse cookies means I can't use epiphany as my default browser. I might use it as default if I could choose which sites were able to track my browsing history and which weren't. As it is, if you use epiphany, you're being tracked each time you visit a site.

If anyone knows a patch to 'fix' this (yes, I think it's a flaw) pleeeeease post it 'cause otherwise I like epiphany a lot...

[jasongrieves]

I like firefox as the default and agree with people who share that those from Windows will know this name. Plus Firefox 1.5 is much faster and more stable than 1.0.7 (course I compiled from source...).

Perhaps this could be fixed with the future of a gui installer? I enjoy how Ubuntu doesn't ask me to install which of the 5000000 packages to install, but I think there should be a bit of a choice (advanced install?)

just my .01 cent. (not worth 2 cents heh)

[Anthem]

I like firefox as the default and agree with people who share that those from Windows will know this name. Plus Firefox 1.5 is much faster and more stable than 1.0.7 (course I compiled from source...).

Perhaps this could be fixed with the future of a gui installer? I enjoy how Ubuntu doesn't ask me to install which of the 5000000 packages to install, but I think there should be a bit of a choice (advanced install?)

just my .01 cent. (not worth 2 cents heh)

Well, you have to install firefox ANYWAY, so little would be gained by making the choice. Do you want firefox+epiphany or just firefox?

[MadMan2k]

Well, you have to install firefox ANYWAY, so little would be gained by making the choice. Do you want firefox+epiphany or just firefox?
it wont be forever like this - once xulrunner is ready neither of the browsers will have to depend on the other.

[jasongrieves]

Well, you have to install firefox ANYWAY, so little would be gained by making the choice. Do you want firefox+epiphany or just firefox?
firefox by default, like it is now. The poster after me gave me a good solution for the future...

[Anthem]

it wont be forever like this - once xulrunner is ready neither of the browsers will have to depend on the other.

Then let's close down this thread until xulrunner is ready. We can talk about it later.

I'm honestly not sure what there is to talk about, though. The Ubuntu devs and the vast majority of the Ubuntu userbase wants firefox as the default. There's a few vocal guys in the forums that want to inflict Epiphany on everyone else. It ain't gonna happen.

[idn]

Well, I think one problem with firefox, as with gaim and open office, that the developers won't ever try to integrate them with a perticular desktop environment too much, such as gaim not using the default notifications in gnome, open office not using the default gtk open file dialogs, and gnome not integrating with any other gnome applications, including apt.

This is why I think if there is a change to pick a native gnome app over a cross platform one it should happen.

[doclivingston]

I'm honestly not sure what there is to talk about, though. The Ubuntu devs and the vast majority of the Ubuntu userbase wants firefox as the default. There's a few vocal guys in the forums that want to inflict Epiphany on everyone else. It ain't gonna happen.

I'd guess that the vast majority of people don't actually care, and will use whatever is installed. What makes discussion about this hard, is that anyone who cares enough to debate it isn't going to be affected because they will install their favourite anyway.

I probably wouldn't say that the Ubuntu devs want Firefox as the default, they want the best browser as the default - which right at the moment they think is Firefox.

[Anthem]

I probably wouldn't say that the Ubuntu devs want Firefox as the default, they want the best browser as the default - which right at the moment they think is Firefox.

Fair enough.

It's just annoying that certain posters keep trying to trump "Firefox is better" with "But it doesn't feel like gnome!" The fact is that if it's skinned right, Firefox looks and feels almost exactly like gnome.

The terrible thing is that this entire conversation could just as easily be about Abiword/OpenOffice. The same arguments would apply (moreso, actually). I strongly believe that cross-platform apps like OOo, Firefox, and GAIM are excellent "premiere" apps because they enable Win->Lin transitions and because they'll be the most developed (due to a larger user base).

[fannymites]

Maybe they could do with Firefox what is done with Fedora Core to make it feel more gnomeish. The default Firefox theme matches whatever theme/iconset you are using in gnome. Though it only skins about 5 of the buttons but it's a start.

[Lovechild]

Fair enough.

It's just annoying that certain posters keep trying to trump "Firefox is better" with "But it doesn't feel like gnome!" The fact is that if it's skinned right, Firefox looks and feels almost exactly like gnome.

The terrible thing is that this entire conversation could just as easily be about Abiword/OpenOffice. The same arguments would apply (moreso, actually). I strongly believe that cross-platform apps like OOo, Firefox, and GAIM are excellent "premiere" apps because they enable Win->Lin transitions and because they'll be the most developed (due to a larger user base).

You have a very poor understanding for the "feels like a GNOME application" arrgument, Firefox does not follow the HIG (nor does OpenOffice and Gaim for that matter but those aren't the point of the argument in question).

The fact that you have to have the entire firefox package (or mozilla package) installed stems from the basic maldesign of the mozilla stack, it doesn't seperate it's core from it's GUI. So using that as an argument for keeping Firefox is the same as endorsing badly integrated, badly designed and hard to maintain software (firefox implements a lot of features that should be rightfully handled by your distro - like checking for updates and installing plugins).

Epiphany is faster, better integrated and features all the heart desires in terms of extendability.

If you are going to replace your entire desktop, would you really prefer the presence of an application that you might have used on Windows (remember only 1 in 10 users are on Firefox, how many of these are Linux users already) or would you prefer your desktop to look and feel the same across the board.. my money by far is on the latter, if I'm wrong then we better start pushing the xpde project instead of GNOME/KDE/etc.

[doclivingston]

It's just annoying that certain posters keep trying to trump "Firefox is better" with "But it doesn't feel like gnome!" The fact is that if it's skinned right, Firefox looks and feels almost exactly like gnome.

"X is better" isn't an argument anyway, people need to say what it is better at. As far as I see it "Firefox has more features" and "Epiphany fits in Gnome better" are both true and almost certainly won't change.

Which one of those (and the other points) trumps the others is a matter of personal opinion, and is why this debate even exists - if one was better than the other for everything, we wouldn't be discussing them. I'm certainly not say that Epiphany is better for everyone, I know it's not, however for the "average user" who just wants to visit websites it works well.



The terrible thing is that this entire conversation could just as easily be about Abiword/OpenOffice. The same arguments would apply (moreso, actually). I strongly believe that cross-platform apps like OOo, Firefox, and GAIM are excellent "premiere" apps because they enable Win->Lin transitions and because they'll be the most developed (due to a larger user base).

I think that Abiword is adequate for what most people use a word processor for, writing letters and small reports. However I understand that replacing OpenOffice with Gnome Office (Abiword and Gnumeric) isn't really possible due to the lack of a presentation program.

Most of the fearures that Firefox has that Epiphany doesn't are nicities and extras, which most people won't miss. Abiword and Gnumeric, while nice, don't have all the features that some people would condider "core" features.


Incidently Abiword and Gnumeric are cross-platform, and do work on Windows - although that isn't their primary target.

[Sykil]

It's just annoying that certain posters keep trying to trump "Firefox is better" with "But it doesn't feel like gnome!" The fact is that if it's skinned right, Firefox looks and feels almost exactly like gnome.
It depends on what you value more. Also, integration doesn't stop at how it looks---just take a look at the HIG.

[Foaming Draught]

I was a long-time Firefox user (well, no-one's a long-time Firefox user because it hasn't been around very long, but you know what I mean) when I tried out Epiphany a few months back to get round Firefox' lack of Sun Java (I'm too lazy and command-line-averse to follow wiki instructions on how to get it). Previously, I'd found earlier versions of Epiphany slow and buggy.
But now I'm hooked, and it's Firefox which seems slow and inelegant by comparison. This is probably highly subjective, but Epiphany just seems to open pages and images faster, and I LUUURVE smart bookmarks.
And yes, I use Abiword and Gnumeric in preference to OO, but then I could do everything I need in a WP or spreadsheet on Wordstar or Visicalc on a 64k micro (as could most people if they were honest). Port Mac's wonderful Keynote to Gnome and who needs OO?

[opera118]

i like ubuntu, it's a modern debian. however i must've missed something. this useless gnome-freaky integration.

face it, drop gnome, let users decide, stop being a one desktop environment distro.
go for opera, it doesn't cost anything, and it rocks the oher browsers by far. compare the speed, fresh and easy interface, as well as the features..
yes i know, it's not open source. so? ubuntu would make a lot of people proud if it dropped the "prefer open source apps" when there actually is nothing to compare. opera owns. firefox is slow as h*ll, and the other mentioned browsers are DE-specific and should be ignored as defaults.

this post is useless i know, it will never happen. opera doesn't cost anything and nothing can be compared to it, yet it will never become default. it's a big shame, but i needed writing this for the sake of it.

o

[Anthem]

Just to clarify:

1. I actuall prefer Abiword over OOo, because it's light on resources. That doesn't mean I think is should be part of the default install.
2. I understand that the HIG covers more than looks, but the plain fact of the matter is that if it's skinned the same, almost nobody will be able to tell the difference. The average Windows user sees 5-10 different widget sets in a day of work. Seeing three (Gnome, OOo, and Firefox) won't kill them.

If it's that important to you, help HIGify Firefox. That work is supposedly being done, although I couldn't say by who. But that's your best chance of a fully-integrated browser, because the devs aren't going to move away from a known, cross-platform, best-of-breed browser like Firefox.

This is my last post on the subject. This whole thread is full of sound and fury, and doesn't signify a durned thing. There has to be something more productive we can do with our time.

[majikstreet]

I haven't read this whole thread because I am too lazy to read 12 pages of argument.

I love firefox, while I like epiphany.

Simple answer: Install both!
Firefox can be slow on less than 512mb RAM, which I used to have. Now on 512mb, Firefox is fast.
Epiphany is basic, but not as basic as some of the other browsers. Before I got a ram upgrade, Epiphany took at least 2 minutes to start up!

There's no problem having both.

-m

[Lovechild]

I haven't read this whole thread because I am too lazy to read 12 pages of argument.

I love firefox, while I like epiphany.

Simple answer: Install both!
Firefox can be slow on less than 512mb RAM, which I used to have. Now on 512mb, Firefox is fast.
Epiphany is basic, but not as basic as some of the other browsers. Before I got a ram upgrade, Epiphany took at least 2 minutes to start up!

There's no problem having both.

-m

Very strange I have recently install Epiphany on a machine with only 256 megs of ram and it started up very fast - definately not 2 mins.

Could you maybe get some meassurements on this because it's definately a nasty little situation.

[Turgon]

I see many users experience epiphany to be faster than firefox, but my expirience is in a way quite the opposite. The thing is that the lack off ablock and other blocking (flash, java) extentions in epiphany makes my laptop (with 256 mb ram) slow down drasticly on heavy advertised sites. Im sure there won't be a problem making these extentions in epiphany, but until they are made, epiphany is a no go for me.

Also, firefox uses the toolbar space much more effective than epiphany, and is actulay much more configurable. In firefox I can have my bookmark icons on the file-edit-view-go-bookmarks-tools-help bar, saving me from having an extra toolbar eating space from my screen. This is not passible with epiphany. Also the tabs in epiphany are too big. Actualy the toolbars with window boarder takes up 4 cm off the screen, while only 3 in firefox. On smaller screens that does make quite a diffrence in the overall userexperience.

[bag]

Sorry Turgon,

but i think you can Create (under the Editmenue) your own personal toolbar with epiphany. In my case i have only 5 buttons and the url-bar left from them, also one toolbar, 2cm at all.

regards bag

[fannymites]

Does it really make a difference which is the default browser? I can't see many people choosing a distro based on which browser is the default. From this thread it seems opinions are divided so if Epiphany is default and a new user prefers firefox then they will just install firefox and vise versa.
Firefox seems to be a more popular browser than Epiphany so the ubuntu developers probably want to use the one that will appeal to most users.

[Turgon]

Sorry Turgon,

but i think you can Create (under the Editmenue) your own personal toolbar with epiphany. In my case i have only 5 buttons and the url-bar left from them, also one toolbar, 2cm at all.

regards bag

I know that, but this function is quite limited. My comparing is with both bookmarkbar and tab-bar, which are nice to have at all time when you are surfing. I can edit away anything, but that takes away much off the user expirience. Im talking about which browser who uses the space most effectivly. And thats firefox as it is today.

[Curlydave]

I know that, but this function is quite limited. My comparing is with both bookmarkbar and tab-bar, which are nice to have at all time when you are surfing. I can edit away anything, but that takes away much off the user expirience. Im talking about which browser who uses the space most effectivly. And thats firefox as it is today.

Agreed. This is a big issue wiht Epiphany. TBH the only thing I like about Epiphany over Firefox is that it's faster and much more responsive. Other than that, it doesn't have much going for it. Ideally I'd want what FF is in Windows: Everything it is in Linux, but fast.

[Turgon]

But why is firefox so slow under ubuntu? Im sure it was much faster in SuSE.. :???:

But anyway I don't find Epiphany much faster and it actualy slows down my laptop since I can't tell the computer not to download all the irritating commercial flash animations.

I don't find Opera any faster ether. Opera actualy gives me only 1900 kb/s average on internettspeedometers while Firefox gives me a healty 2100 kb/s.
As for responce I feel no diffrent.

[MadMan2k]

@turgon:
perhaps you should read the thread from the beginning.
this is not about which browser is the best one featurewise, but which one will fit the needs of a beginner best.

And you must admit that messing around with toolbars and configurating adblock are quite advanced tasks.

[Turgon]

@turgon:
perhaps you should read the thread from the beginning.
this is not about which browser is the best one featurewise, but which one will fit the needs of a beginner best.

And you must admit that messing around with toolbars and configurating adblock are quite advanced tasks.

I have read the thread more or less, and while features havn't been the main subject, its a very imoprtaint thing why a browser is to be chosen.

But even if we don't count features and toolbar editoring, firefox is default still a beter browser. Epiphany uses the space even worse default contra firefox, than it will if you edit it a little bit. Tabs are too thick. Its not that famous as firefox is and most of us havn't even seen what Firefox 1.5 is able to do, but I hear that its much faster.

So why change?

Firefox works really well.

If it works, don't fix it!

[opera118]

I don't find Opera any faster ether. Opera actualy gives me only 1900 kb/s average on internettspeedometers while Firefox gives me a healty 2100 kb/s.
As for responce I feel no diffrent.

Are you kiddin'? How can you even think of measuring web browser speed as in kb/s over the Internet?! You must have no knowledge in the stocastics of networks, and seriously, if you're using a web browser simply for file transfers then you chose the wrong tool, boy. It's called FTP, and yes, opera handles ftp MUCH smoother than any other browser, but still you should use dedicated apps for that.

The program opera as is, is a great lot faster in gui response than any other browser, especially under heavy usage. It can be compared to almost anything, except FF. FF can't be compared. FF is like a dead seal in your bed. It ain't moving and it sucks.