Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Jul 2009 20:10 UTC
For a very long time now, I've been on the hunt for a distribution that really put a lot of effort into their KDE4 implementation. This has been a frustrating search, full of broken installations, incredibly slow performance, and so many visual artifacts they made my eyes explode. Since KDE 4.3 is nearing release, I had to pick up this quest in order to take a look at where 4.3 stands - and I found a home in the KDE version of Fedora 11. Read on for a look as to where KDE 4.3 currently stands.
Thread beginning with comment 375674
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[2]: requisite khtml gripe
by pompous stranger on Tue 28th Jul 2009 18:43
in reply to "RE: requisite khtml gripe "
Member since:2006-05-28
I think it is KHTML/Konqueror's javascript engine that is broken, not Google's javascript.
KHTML/Konqueror still doesn't support XSLT or XPATH (needed for AJAX), for example. Which is — incredible? — for a desktop project's default browser in 2009.
Every other popular browser project has recently overhauled their javascript engine to focus on execution speed. They are essentially on JS 2.0. Using Konqueror feels like a beta of JS 1.0. It's basically an HTML/CSS page viewer at this point.
RE[2]: requisite khtml gripe
by _txf_ on Tue 28th Jul 2009 20:03
in reply to "RE: requisite khtml gripe "
Member since:2008-03-17
That is an odd comment. Just about the only major benifit khtml has over Firefox is that it is many many times faster. I am surprised everytime I have to load a page in Firefox how long it takes. The real problems with khtml is that it is not recognized and supported by many webapps including google's who then sends it broken javascript making khtml appear broken.
It is true that khtml is quite fast on many (simple no javascript heavy) sites, but performance is also having websites work properly. It is even slower if you consider that one has to start firefox to get website x working properly
Member since:
2005-09-08
That is an odd comment. Just about the only major benifit khtml has over Firefox is that it is many many times faster. I am surprised everytime I have to load a page in Firefox how long it takes. The real problems with khtml is that it is not recognized and supported by many webapps including google's who then sends it broken javascript making khtml appear broken.