<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Gerald B. Cox <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gbcox@bzb.us" target="_blank">gbcox@bzb.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><span class=""><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Eli Wapniarski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eli@orbsky.homelinux.org" target="_blank">eli@orbsky.homelinux.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow:hidden">I believe that it would be counter productive to maintain an OCD stance when<br>
trying to promote KDE with applications that you know will turn newbies away</div></blockquote></div><br></span>I believe it's a bit counter-intuitive to promote KDE with non-KDE applications.</div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
kde mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:kde@lists.fedoraproject.org">kde@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde</a><br>
New to KDE4? - get help from <a href="http://userbase.kde.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://userbase.kde.org</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">What's worse, though-- a *bad* KDE application, or a non-KDE application? That seems to be what we're arguing about, mainly? Perhaps s/bad/obsolete/ would be a better way to describe Konqueror. One could argue both don't do a good job of promoting KDE.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">That's kind of what I was getting at above (although I mainly chimed in here to reply to the assertion that Konqueror was more secure because it had a dead upstream and very low user base). The desire to have all KDE applications, where appropriate in the browser, makes sense, but Konqueror specifically is... well... I don't recall reading many testimonies from people in these threads who actually regularly use Konqueror as their primary browser.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other here, other than to note that for me, and other KDE users I know in person, Konqueror is a mild annoyance when initially configuring a system. I would absolutely prefer it if a better browser was shipped by default but it wouldn't be the end of the world if it wasn't.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">The interesting question, it seems, is "does shipping Konqueror as the default do any *harm*, besides annoying the majority of users who aren't going to use it as their main browser?" Which I suppose is why we're discussing about security vulnerabilities.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">If the KDE project did not have a browser, would those who are against shipping any non-native KDE applications be against including an external browser? If a browser existed, but it was a "bad" browser (think, say, IE6 or worse when it comes to standards support), would it need to be our default and *only* browser (in the image) by the same rationale?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">As it happens, Konqueror is neither of these things, which is why I don't have a strong opinion on this either way.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Ben Rosser</div></div>