Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Thu 25th Sep 2008 17:55 UTC, submitted by fsmag
Thread beginning with comment 331603
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by moleskine
by B. Janssen on Fri 26th Sep 2008 11:13
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by moleskine"
RE[3]: Comment by moleskine
by sbergman27 on Fri 26th Sep 2008 17:31
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by moleskine"
Before I moved 60 users on my largest XDMCP server from Firefox to Epiphany, I looked to see who had FF extensions installed. It was only a couple of people that had one installed. One of them was to give a weather forcast, and I can't remember what the other one was.
The problem with hobnobbing around technically oriented forums like OSNews is that it gives one a very skewed perception of what "most people" need and want.




Member since:
2005-11-05
So Epiphany will be able to use Firefox extensions, is that what you're saying? Cos if so, that's good news. And if not, you're talking bollocks because extensions are one of the main reasons Firefox is so popular. Furthermore, I suspect that talk of "Gnome integration" is overrated. Opera isn't known for Gnome integration either, but no one complains about that. This isn't about worshipping at the cult of Gnome but about assessing the real merits of a web browser. My original point - that Epiphany is largely reinventing a wheel that doesn't need to be reinvented - is one of the curses of Linux.