Philip Langdale of the Galeon team just announced that some major Galeon developers decided at the GNOME summit that the way forward for Galeon (which hasn't gotten much development in the last few months) was to shift focus to expanding the power of Epiphany's extensions system, and coding Galeon functionality as Epiphany extensions.
Post a Comment
Member since:2005-07-06
Maybe because epiphany is a native application and doesn't only emulate the gtk widgets? Choice is good.
And, BTW, I use firefox but I'm all but fully satisfied. It use way too much memory and I've got the feeling that after a few hours it slow down the whole desktop.
I hope that 1.5 will fix this problems.
Member since:---
> Maybe because epiphany is a native application and
> doesn't only emulate the gtk widgets? Choice is good.
The same applies for Galeon by the way. Galeon and Epiphany are just sitting on top of the Gecko rendering engine which still is the core of Mozilla. While the window is GTK+/GNOME based (bookmarks editor, toolbar, dialogs etc.) the stuff rendered in the window is still based on mozilla + xul. Basicly Galeon and Epiphany are doing the same thing, use the same resource and render the same thing.
> I use firefox but I'm all but fully satisfied. It use
> way too much memory and I've got the feeling that
> after a few hours it slow down the whole desktop.
But how is this possible ? Technically this is absolutely bullshit.
Firefox is directly based on the Mozilla core. So when you compile Firefox as browser then you only get the browser as is. The Mozilla core + Xul + Gecko and all the other stuff.
But if you run Galeon or Epiphany you do even more.
The Mozilla core + Xul + Gecko and all the other stuff + Galeon (or Epiphany) ontop of that + GNOME and GTK libs. So at the end Epiphany (or Galeon) are way more resource hungry than Firefox alone.
This is not just because I say so, this is because it is so and can be verified by everyone else.
Member since:2005-06-29
This is not just because I say so, this is because it is so and can be verified by everyone else.
Until you actually try it out and see that the original poster was right. In all its goodness, Firefox doesn't really use your resources in a very efficient way. Galeon and Epiphany feel a lot faster than Firefox does-- no matter what the theory says, it's the practice that matters to me.
Same for KDE. Konqueror as a webbrowser might not be the better than Firefox, but at least it's faster in usage than Firefox is.
Same applies for Firefox on OSX. Safari beats the crap (literally!) out of Firefox performance-wise. Probably not feature-wise though.
Member since:---
You need to get your facts straight.
1) Firefox uses XUL as its primary GUI toolkit.
2) Epiphany uses GTK+ as its only GUI toolkit.
3) They both use Gecko to render web pages.
4) Firefox on GNOME uses XUL in addition to an emulation layer to provide a GTK+ look and feel.
5) All things being equal, Firefox should be more resource intensive and slower than Epiphany/Galeon.
6) Epiphany/Galeon is better integrated into GNOME than Firefox.
7) Epiphany/Galeon is a lot faster and more responsive than Firefox on GNOME.
Member since:---
> You need to get your facts straight.
No, it's you.
> 1) Firefox uses XUL as its primary GUI toolkit.
Right, thats what I said.
> 2) Epiphany uses GTK+ as its only GUI toolkit.
Also correct.
> 3) They both use Gecko to render web pages.
Correct, but Gecko uses XUL to render the buttons inside it's view. That is, Buttons, Sliders, Comboboxes, Entryboxes and so on.
> 4) Firefox on GNOME uses XUL in addition to an
> emulation layer to provide a GTK+ look and feel.
Firefox uses some native GNOME Dialogs now as well as some native GTKFilechooser but XUL stays XUL.
> 5) All things being equal, Firefox should be more
> resource intensive and slower than Epiphany/Galeon.
No this is wrong. Epiphany and Galeon are more resource intensive than Firefox. Since you put Galeon or Epiphany ontop of an existing and fully installed Firefox/Mozilla installation. Not just that you also add the requirements of GNOME.
> 6) Epiphany/Galeon is better integrated into GNOME
> than Firefox.
No doubt, but XUL doesn't integrate into GNOME and that's the problem.
> 7) Epiphany/Galeon is a lot faster and more
> responsive than Firefox on GNOME.
Care to back this claim up with any values ?
Member since:---
As confirmed by Christian Biesinger (you know, from Mozilla project) Gecko never uses XUL but something more low-level; "on some platforms it asks the OS theme engine to draw the button. if it doesn't do that, it's drawn using crossplatform code and CSS" XUL is used for application windows, menus, toolbars etc.
Whichever consumes more resources is subjective. If run nothing but X already, then you need only XUL in addition when running Firefox, but (partial) GNOME when running Epiphany. Which one is heavier, I don't know but I'd suspect the GNOME subset. (Then again Firefox itself also uses GNOME libraries if available, so go figure.)
But if you already run full GNOME desktop, using XUL is nothing but overhead.
To compare XUL vs. gtk+ looks, try loading "chrome://pippki/content/certManager.xul" in Galeon or Epiphany.
-- tko
http://blogs.gnome.org/tko
Member since:---
Member since:---
> 3) They both use Gecko to render web pages.
Correct, but Gecko uses XUL to render the buttons inside it's view. That is, Buttons, Sliders, Comboboxes, Entryboxes and so on.
No. XUL uses Gecko, or rather, XUL is rendered by Gecko just like CSS and HTML is rendered by Gecko.
Correct othervise.
> 5) All things being equal, Firefox should be more
> resource intensive and slower than Epiphany/Galeon.
No this is wrong. Epiphany and Galeon are more resource intensive than Firefox. Since you put Galeon or Epiphany ontop of an existing and fully installed Firefox/Mozilla installation. Not just that you also add the requirements of GNOME.
Yes, but with Firefox there is *much* more XUL to render than there is with Galeon or Epiphany.
It wouldn't make much sense to run Galeon without Gnome and that means Galeon is not taking any more resources than other Gnome programs. One of the (claimed) advantages of Desktop Environments is shared resources, you know.
Furthermore, unless Firefox is compiled without Gnome support it will also use Gnome libraries if available. This is the way the official FF is built.
Let's take a look of the Gentoo ebuild... You'll need the gnome-vfs package for Gnome support. Hmm... now if we take a look at the gnome-vfs ebuild you'll get a bit more Gnome deps...
> 7) Epiphany/Galeon is a lot faster and more
> responsive than Firefox on GNOME.
Care to back this claim up with any values ?
No, but logically it should be true: With firefox you have a lot of XUL chrome to render by the slow Gecko. At the same time this XUL/Gecko combo has to emulate the look of GTK and it's theme engine and render web pages.
However, to be honest, I've never noticed Firefox's widgets being much slower than pure GTK.
PS. I'm not the poster you replied to.
Member since:2005-08-26
> Well but 'feelings' or 'practice' don't make the things I said less valid. Valid facts are.
Feelings and practice are extremely important. Whatever metric/reasoning you may be using is supposed to accurately predict what will happen in practice. If it doesn't it just shows that your metric/reasoning is somehow flawed.
Member since:2005-07-06
> I use firefox but I'm all but fully satisfied. It use
> way too much memory and I've got the feeling that
> after a few hours it slow down the whole desktop.
But how is this possible ? Technically this is absolutely bullshit.
well, I suppose this is due to the interaction between firefox and xorg/XAA. I know for sure that x11perf results drop after a few hours, and specifically in the -aaXXtext tests, and, for example, gnome-terminal feels more sluggish, until I launch glxgears (this could be related to bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4320, I learned about this trick here). I'm not sure how this can influence the rest of the desktop.
Member since:---
Member since:---
> I use firefox but I'm all but fully satisfied. It use
> way too much memory and I've got the feeling that
> after a few hours it slow down the whole desktop.
But how is this possible ? Technically this is absolutely bullshit.
Read the original post again. The OP didn't claim Galeon being better in this matter.
I used Galeon compiled on top of Firefox for quite a while until I got tired of the overall slowness of it and especially the really bad memory leak problem. It was so bad that I had to quite Galeon for night - if I didn't all my memory inc. swap would be filled in the morning to the very last byte... (not always, though)
Now I've switched from using Firefox/Galeon to Opera/Konqueror and now web browsing is more enjoyable than ever.
At the same time I switched to KDE as I find it to be much faster than Gnome esp the new 2.12.
It really feels as if I had gotten a new faster computer. And the overall quality of KDE and it's apps compared to Gnome... There is no comparison actually.
I'm very happy that I did this 
Computing is fun again.
Member since:---
Member since:2005-10-02
Well, I've never had that problem. I know others have had, but I haven't.
Most issues with FF is due to poor plugins or extensions.
However, I do think a slightly more Gnomeish mozilla-based browser is a good idea.
Even better would be KDE (and KDE apps) developed according to the fundamental ideas in the Gnome HIG.
Member since:2005-07-06
After opening this thread in booth from a fresh start.
firefox-bin
Total: 93.4 MiB
RSS: 31.0 MiB
Shared: 16.6 MiB
epiphnay
Total: 86.4 MiB
RSS: 28.6 MiB
Shared: 19.2 Mib
Opening News Archive,Features,Interviews,Editorials,View Tpoics in new tabs.
firefox-bin
Total: 102.4 MiB
RSS: 39.2 MiB
Shared: 18.8 MiB
epiphany
Total: 92.6 MiB
RSS: 33.9 MiB
Shared: 19.1 Mib
Conclusion:
This discussion is pointless.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-10-02
approach seems reasonable.
Take a browser with very little in it, and add extra functionality as extensions. Seems wise to me - now where did I see that before? 
Extending Ephiphany with Galeon functionality through extensions is a better approach than developing two different browsers on the same codebase (one with very little in it (Ephiphany), and one with quite a bit (Galeon)).
But of course, the modular approach has always been my favourite, so I'm very biased on this one.
Member since:
---
I realize that Epiphany is a pretty unpopular project with many people, but it has improved greatly since it was first bundled in to Gnome. The Epiphany version that ships with Gnome 2.12 is actually a pretty good browser. I've actually made the transition over from Firefox, and have been very happy with it overall. There are a few items I miss (adblock is the biggest... I know there are CSS tricks, but that isn't nearly as friendly or usable; some of the options that can only be set through gconf and/or about:config), but they are minor compared to the benefits (easily searchable bookmarks and history is great; much easier keyboard navigation, should you choose to use it, than what I saw in Firefox).
If the Galeon developers bring some of their more advanced magic over to Epiphany, it seems to me that everybody wins. Gnome's default browser becomes more usable and widely acceptable to people. Firefox will still be used be many people who want the same browser across multiple OSs.
Member since:---
Member since:
2005-07-06
I'm not sure which is faster. But I have been an Epiphany user since late last year. Mostly because it blends with the rest of GNOME.
Some may complain that Epiphany lacks functionality. I guess not much of a "pro web surfer". Whatever Epiphany lacks, I don't miss much.
If I understanding correctly, "coding Galeon functionality as Epiphany extensions" won't effect Epiphany's elegance and simplicity. Therefore whatever development the Galeon guys are bringing over are highly welcomed.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
"Would you please stop diffamating KDE using people ?"
I made no stab at the quality of KDE, I called into question the character of the "KDE community" which is very poor indeed.
If GNOME developers would have that much brains then they won't need to re-invent themselves all the time.
Why did the KDE developers go and develop KHTML when they could have just used Gecko? According to [0]Wikipedia, KHTML was introduced in 2000 with KDE2 while the Mozilla project was launched in 1998? Im sure they had valid reasons just as the Gnome developers had when they decided to develop Galeon/Epiphany.
[0]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecko_%28layout_engine%29
Member since:---
"Why did the KDE developers go and develop KHTML when they could have just used Gecko?"
I'm clad they did. To answer why, I'll quote myself from the beginning of this thread:
"I used Galeon compiled on top of Firefox for quite a while until I got tired of the overall slowness of it and especially the really bad memory leak problem. ..."
"Now I've switched from using Firefox/Galeon to Opera/Konqueror and now web browsing is more enjoyable than ever."
Member since:2005-07-06
"I'm [g]lad they did. To answer why, I'll quote myself from the beginning of this thread:"
Yes if you read the rest of my reply:
"Im sure they had valid reasons just as the Gnome developers had when they decided to develop Galeon/Epiphany."
Thank you for validing the existence of Galeon/Epiphany and proving my point. Decisions were made by the KDE/Gnome developers and were both happy. You love KHTML and I love Epiphany.
Member since:---
Member since:---
And my respect for the KDE community continues to decline. Why does KDE attract all the idiots?
Since when passionate feelings have made people idiots? It was that kind of feelings that kept me using Gnome for so long regardless of its shortcomings.
There is all kinds of people in every community out there. Is it smart to attack the whole community, just because there (inevitably) is some "idiots"?
Member since:2005-07-06
[/i]"Since when passionate feelings have made people idiots?"[/i]
Passion is one thing, calling the Gnome developers "super stubborn/selfish/stupid" is completely different. Not only is it immature, its also clearly trolling which is a very common trait in the KDE community.
"There is all kinds of people in every community out there."
Yes and for some reason KDE attracts the worst elements of a community namely trolls and indvdiuals that show no respect for the hard work of others. I'm sick of hearing all this garbage coming from the KDE community about how terrible Gnome is.
Member since:---
Passion is one thing, calling the Gnome developers "super stubborn/selfish/stupid" is completely different. Not only is it immature, its also clearly trolling which is a very common trait in the KDE community.
In that case you don't understand passion. Throughout the human history it has always been something that makes people sometimes act stupid or say something without thinking it through.
Yes and for some reason KDE attracts the worst elements of a community namely trolls and indvdiuals that show no respect for the hard work of others. I'm sick of hearing all this garbage coming from the KDE community about how terrible Gnome is.
Are you *really* under the belief that the Gnome community doesn't have its good share of these people too? I've not noticed much of a difference between the camps in this matter. And remember, I was a Gnome user before...
The fact that I don't agree with Gnome devs doesn't mean that I don't respect their work. And if your comment were meant to be taken literally I wouldn't respect the work of the KDE devs either, which of course if far from the truth.
Member since:2005-07-06
"In that case you don't understand passion. Throughout the human history it has always been something that makes people sometimes act stupid or say something without thinking it through."
But didnt you just say:
"Since when passionate feelings have made people idiots?"
Yes you and the KDE community are "idiots" because you "act stupid". Thank you for once again proving my point for me.
"Are you *really* under the belief that the Gnome community doesn't have its good share of these people too?"
After using Linux on the desktop for more than 2 years and on the server for more than 5 years, its been my experince that the Gnome community is very passive and lighthearted while the KDE community is aggressive and quite frankly rude.
"The fact that I don't agree with Gnome devs doesn't mean that I don't respect their work."
And yet you call them "super stubborn/selfish/stupid". That sounds unrespectful to me.
Member since:---
> Yes you and the KDE community are "idiots" because you
> "act stupid". Thank you for once again proving my point
> for me.
Calling the KDE community to be "idiots" is plain dump and shows that you are the only one that "acts stupid" here. To say I do feel sorry for you, the KDE community feels sorry for you and I bet the GNOME community don't want supporters like you too. If GNOME can only prove itself by diffamating others and disrespecting other peoples work then it clearly shows that people should decide for KDE. Not just because of its supperior technology but also because such rude attitude like yours should in no way be tolerated. The GNOME community is reducing itself because people want to keep distance from individuals like you. We see this with every new former GNOME user we are winning daily for KDE.
Member since:---
"In that case you don't understand passion. Throughout the human history it has always been something that makes people sometimes act stupid or say something without thinking it through."
But didnt you just say:
"Since when passionate feelings have made people idiots?"
It is a well know fact that even the smartest people do stupid things sometimes. And more often so when they feel passionate about something.
Acting sometimes stupid doesn't make people idiots.
And yet you call them "super stubborn/selfish/stupid". That sounds unrespectful to me.
Ok, so if I don't have much respect for Joe Redneck as a person I can still respect his work as a e.g. construction worker...
Member since:---
"Passion is one thing, calling the Gnome developers "super stubborn/selfish/stupid" is completely different. Not only is it immature, its also clearly trolling which is a very common trait in the KDE community."
this is true. the reason why is that the KDE desktop has a lot more to compensate for. its a bit like the unintelligent person who calls others uninteliigent, the ugly person who calls others ugly, or the homosexual who dislikes homosexuals because they are homosexual themselves and want to draw attention away from it.
What?! This is one stupid post. Plain and simple. LOL
Member since:---
Want to compare Konqueror to Epiphany? I used to compare Konqueror to Galeon back in 2002, Galeon was winning...
Why didn't the Epiphany guys work more closely with the Galeon guys?
Let's compare:
GNOME - KDE
metacity - kdwm
nautilus - konqueror
epiphany - konqueror
gaim - kopete
gimp - kolourpaint
gnumeric - kspread
abiword - kword
dia - kivio
anjuta - kdevelop
glade - qtdesigner
gtotem - noatun
audacity - krec
gnome-terminal - konsole
gconf - control center
sound juicer - kaudiocreator
evolution - kmail
gpdf - kpdf
calculator - kcalc
bluefish - quanta
gnome:
dvdrip
kino
gxmame
freeciv
gnucash
gnomemeeting
kde:
kasteroids
kstars
kalzium
kturtle
khangman
kgpg
khexedit
kpalmdoc
k3b
rosegarden
amarok
I'm sure I'm missing a few, but it seems to me like KDE comes out ahead.
Now is that because KDE's developers are simply superior or that the GNOME developers are selfish/stubborn/stupid?
Judging from what happened between Epiphany and Galeon, I would think stubborn at the least. Galeon existed and was better than Mozilla, or anything else at the time. Tabbed browsing came from Galeon, as far as I know. And what did GNOME decide to do? Use Epiphany as the default browser, which was horribly buggy at the time.
Selfish and stupid also apply, IMO.
However, they could prove me wrong by making GNOME 3.0 better than KDE 3.4.x. Think it will happen? Then make it happen!
I use both at the same time, BTW.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:---
Okay, so rosegarden, amarok and quanta are not included in the default KDE install + koffice.
But neither are dvdrip, kino, freeciv, gxmame, or anjuta included in the default GNOME install + goffice.
I'd appreciate more detailed explanation of why you disagree.
I'm not trying to prove anything, just stating my opinion with examples to back it up. I am interested why you thought my list was extremely KDE biased. I thought it was mostly fair..
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-06
gimp -> krita
planner -> task juggler
[Criawips] -> kpresenter
[Dia] -> kivio
[Gaphor] -> umbrello
[Skynet] -> kstars
[[0]] -> klogo
[[1]] -> keducation
rhythmbox -> amarok
[1] I don't know what this application is. Did you mean KTurtle?
[0] Keducation is not a singular application.
Member since:---
> [Criawips] -> kpresenter
Criawips is still just a name and the guy is still hacking on it whenever he finds time. It's nowhere near usable or good enough for production. KPresenter is and works flawlessly well.
> [Dia] -> kivio
DIA is a joke and not reliable for production usage.
> [Gaphor] -> umbrello
Gaphor is nowhere close to Umbrello.
[Skynet] -> kstars
I don't know this app but some of the others you named are nowhere good enough for production usage nor are they reliable. Unfortunately I had the situation that I had to draw plenty of graphs for university and DIA always caused a lot of problems like crashing, like saving corrupt files, like printing strange results and and and. The KDE counterpart Kivio was more like Visio and worked like that. I had to use it to get my work done and finished. Same applies for Gaphor which is nowhere. Just throwing some use cases on a canvas doesn't make it a good UML application. Same applies for Planner compared to Task Juggler for KDE.
Look it's ok that GNOME has these tools, but sadly they are totally immature to the counterparts found on KDE. And I say this - not because I want put KDE in better light here, just because the KDE counterparts were the only ones that worked reliable enough, were mature enough compared to the money hungry alternatives found for Windows. And I tell you this, not because I am up for a flame fest towards GNOME, I say this because I really was in need of these tools for over 4 years in a go (the time where I was at uni) and now as IT-Professional in the company that I am working on. Project leading.
Member since:---
Member since:---
> bluefish - quanta
bluefish is not a gnome app, it can use gnome-vfs optional at compile time, nothing else, there are some attempts to follow the HIG but mostly completly ignores it.
screem - quanta
would be a more accurate app comparison in terms of being gnome / kde apps, and in terms of features.
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-04
Member since:---
And my respect for the KDE community continues to decline. Why does KDE attract all the idiots?
Have you ever considered that maybe these people only *seem* like idiots? Propably not. It wouldn't fit into your seemingly black&white world.
So why would KDE users act "a bit funny" and therefore look like "idiots"? Maybe that's just because they're really enthusiastic about their great DE.
Understandably this is not the case with Gnome users who just can't nothing but humbly take what ever crap is given to them from their godlike, allmighty, allknowing devs.
When I was a Gnome user I rarely had anything good to say about it. In fact If I said something about it to my friends I propably cursed it or said that its nothing special - like it really isn't. Gnome also made me to claim that Linux is not ready for Desktop yet.
This was totally different with KDE. For the first time it has made me really enthusiastic about Linux Desktop. My girlfried propably thinks I'm crazy after I gave her a full tour on KDE
PS. I switched from Gnome 2.10 to KDE 3.4.2. Before the final switch I briefly checked Gnome 2.12 too only to find out it is worse than ever. Especially the performance was horrible. To me it seems that it is it's all downhill for the poor little Gnome. We all know who is responsible for that.
Member since:---
> And my respect for the KDE community continues to decline. Why does KDE attract all the idiots?
Stop generalizing, I happen to be a KDE user and I don't share the sentiment of the poster you replied to. The fact of the matter is that there's a vocal (and sometimes obnoxious) minority - from both camps - hanging out in online forums. You, my friend, fall into this category and you know why? Because instead of moving on to next article when the discussion got out of hand you stopped to post a message where you provoked other people by calling them idiots.
Think about it.
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:---
In case you didn't notice - I was responding to carbon-12, not you. Follow the link in the header of my previous post.
Sorry, my mistake. I'm not sure why I first thought your answer was to me even though you clearly quoted the other poster. I realized this too late. And that link in the header... well I'm new to this forum.
Anyways, I'm still the poster you "don't share the sentiment" with...
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:---
You know ... more polished the widgets are, easier they slide and so everything feels faster and smoother. I know that Gnome users don't appreciate realism, but if you really have a nice, realistic desktop with shadows, transparency, and stuff, then all you need to add is nice polished theme and some grease.
I despise every application that does not start on K. They are good for amateurs but power users need some extra functionality - the more the better. I can't wait TrollTech is bought by MS, or at least Enlightenment 18.0 prealpha is released.
Member since:---
You know ... more polished the widgets are, easier they slide and so everything feels faster and smoother.
You can't fool us. You're clearly just a Gnome user pretending "a stupid KDE user".
But now that we are at this, could you please tell me why Gnome 2.12 is sooo slow? This is the release where they added more polish with the default Clearlooks theme, BTW.
It's not just the widgets, I literally had to wait for the desktop to redraw after changing desktops...
With the same low end hardware which really shows every difference in performance, KDE 3.4 feels a lot faster and more responsive than Gnome 2.10. even with all the eye candy enabled.
Let's take kwin vs metacity for an example... Oh my god what a difference! While kwin is as fast as Openbox3, Metacity is one of the most sluggish feeling window manager I've ever used. And this is true even after enabling the halfpaged "reduced resource usage" in gconf.
I can't wait for KDE 3.5. According to some beta reviews it will be even faster...
Member since:
2005-08-16
Member since:
2005-07-06
Why did the KDE developers go and develop KHTML when they could have just used Gecko? According to [0]Wikipedia, KHTML was introduced in 2000 with KDE2 while the Mozilla project was launched in 1998? Im sure they had valid reasons just as the Gnome developers had when they decided to develop Galeon/Epiphany.
Nice providing wikipedia links, but you have to considering the facts in the history.
It' is true that the Mozilla project was launched in 1998, but the code was not in a usable state. It was not even possible to build, as lots of the Netscape code was not released(IP issues). And as history shows, most of(all?)it had to be rewritten anyway.
KHTML was introduced in 2000 with KDE2, as in KDE2 was released. Work on KHTML actually started before Mozilla was introduced. And even more important in 2000 when KDE2 was released Mozilla was not even close to be usable. The first really usable releases was the 0.9 series in 2001(but KHTML was still ahead back then).
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:---
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:---
Member since:---
Please explain me why EVERY gnome-related news ends up with a lot of kde or simply anti-gnome trolls starting flames.
Maybe its because they love linux, have seen and understood the advantages of KDE, and therefore are embarrassed of the fact that there are people out there, who try to promote Linux for Desktop with something like Gnome.
Member since:---
Member since:
---
<- KDE user
I was honestly under the impression that the Gnome camp flamed more in KDE threads than KDE users flame in Gnome threads. It reminds me of the "This Land" flash from the last elections - http://www.jibjab.com/Home.aspx
As a conservative*, I thought it skewered Bush pretty well and let Kerry off lightly. Then I read on a liberal board how everyone there thought it bashed Kerry too hard and let Bush off easy.
I realized there that attacks always seem worse when directed at one's self (or one's group). Each party thought the cartoon made fun of them more than the opposition. Similarly, it seems KDE and Gnome each feel that the other side is guilty of worse flaming/zealotry.
In reality both sides have their share of nuts, and it's pretty useless to argue about it since our perceptions will be skewed by our alignment.
*I'm sorry to have mentioned politics, was necessary to explain how I came to my conclusion
Member since:---
> "No company will take GNOME serious if this is the only
> way of public communicating."
>
> that seems a very odd and out-of-touch comment
> considering that the vast majority are taking GNOME
> seriously when none are taking up KDE.
I wasn't refering to the companies that support GNOME now (those who have the developers hired) such as Novell, Red Hat, Sun and so on. I refer to the corporate companies that GNOME is targeted for (that is every else company that still uses Windows).
Member since:
2005-07-18
Member since:
---
Both browsers are running on the same machine (Ubuntu Breezy Badger). Both have two tabs with the same websites open (/. and google).
Epiphiany is using 88.2MiB
Firefox is using 91.5MiB
The difference isn't enough for me to care much but it seems like Epiphiany uses less resources.
/Prefers Mozilla
Member since:
2005-07-08
My biggest problem with Firefox is how sluggish it feels on older hardware, that's the reason I switched to Epiphany on my duron 1ghz Ubuntu box.
In my opinion it shouldn't need to take a second just to open a menu item.
And I also think it has nothing to do with XUL or GTK, the problem is that it uses XUL AND GTK to render the widgets.
It doesn't really feel like a problem on nowadays hardware, but it does on mine.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Is this comparison out of date? Epiphany seems a bit slower than Firefox (maybe because it's based on a Mozilla 1.6 engine?), which in turn is slower than Mozilla 1.8. Except for script speed, they are all slower than Konqueror.
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#linspeed
Member since:---
Depends on the version of epiphany, I would expect most versions to be built against 1.7, just like firefox is (deer park uses 1.8)
It would be nice if more attention was paid to gtkwebcore that nokia released so gnome could have a nice fast 100% native browser like konqueror.
Member since:
---
