Default browser of FC3?

[Ricardo Veguilla]

On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 23:46 -0700, Jon Savage wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:03:30 -0600, Stephen J. Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:09:42 +0200, Kyrre Ness Sjobak
> > <kyrre at solution-forge.net> wrote:
> > > lør, 09.10.2004 kl. 15.28 skrev Panu Matilainen:
> > > > Is FC3 really going to ship with Epiphany as the default browser? I mean
> > \> For those who believe that it should be gnome/kde neutral: No, it must
> > > not. Of cource, ideally, kde should be able to have its own default
> > > browser. But when you *choose* to go for KDE instead of GNOME, it can be
> > > safely assumed that you are competent enough to find yourself another
> > > browser.
> > 
> > And with welcoming attitudes like that.. a different distribution.
> > 
> > --
> > Stephen J Smoogen.
> > Professional System Administrator
> You know... I just decided to give Epiphany a spin in FC3 T3, not all
> bad. *But* (dealbreaker(tm) for me,,,
> I noticed that Mozilla (waytoomany MB for my laptop) was showing up in
> my yum update post install. Funny, since I had in no way shape or form
> chosen moz from the graphical internet options when I installed T3... 
> So I did the following:
> [root at swlt01 ~]# rpm -e mozilla
> and got:
> error: Failed dependencies:
>         mozilla = 37:1.7.3 is needed by (installed) epiphany-1.4.0-0.3.6
> (rant on)
> This is beyond rude. The slick integrated lightweight Epihphany
> browser deps on the alltoobloated moz browser? I'm done w/ that. I
> liked Epihany enough to play with it but *really* would rather just go
> w/ firefox & lose the moz dep/provide altogether as far as I can
> tell... yrrgh... ugly
> (rant off)

This will change when the mozilla project finally release the Gecko
Runtime Enviroment (GRE) so that any app that depends on mozilla won't
need the whole Mozilla Suite[1]. In other words, there is little that
the epiphany developers or the Red Hat/Federa guys can do about it
(well, except pushing the Mozilla guys or helping them finally release
that). 

> Actually a neat browser <but> one of the reasons I prefer Firefix is
> its modular nature, If I wanted to install Mozilla well then I'd
> install the whole monolithic shebang wouldn't I?

Well epiphany doesn't use "the whole monolithic shebang" even though it
requires it to by installed. Like I said, this is temporary.  
On a related note, if I recall correctly, the latest epiphany can be
built against firefox. 

[1] Firefox doesn't requires Mozilla to be installed but it duplicate
the code Mozilla uses (obviously the browser part only). 

Regards,
-- 
Ricardo Veguilla <veguilla at hpcf.upr.edu>