When is Konqueror going to become a real browser ? Why hasn't it matured ?

[Gerwin Krist -|- Digitalus Webhosting]

He Huys,

IMHO:
Sorry but I can't call Konqueror a real browser, as much as I like it's
speed and lightweight. One of the main reasons is that it does not
handle https really wel (I dunno if it's handled by Qt now or kssl). The
support and the import function for root certificates is really bad.

But I think there are just to few developers for it ...


Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 of January 2009 19:33:29 Lukáš Tinkl wrote:
>> Dne Tuesday 27. of January 2009 19:26:13 Linuxguy123 napsal(a):
>>> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 17:06 +0000, José Matos wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 16:52:28 Linuxguy123 wrote:
>>>>> I knew that... I was hoping someone had an inside scoop or reason why
>>>>> its the way it is.
>>>> Several of us have (probably) some ideas why that has happened, on the
>>>> other hand your preamble will turn us way from giving any kind of
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> For example what do you understand as a real browser? Do (e)links, lynx
>>>> or dillo (among others) qualify? If the they don't qualify why are
>>>> there users using them to browse the net?
>>>>
>>>> If you define a real browser as browser that deals with all the pages,
>>>> then I am sorry but there aren't any. No single browser deals with all
>>>> pages (imagine those IE-only pages, as an example) so there are no real
>>>> browsers. QED.
>>> When will Konqueror work as well as Firefox does as far as handling
>>> webpages without errors ?
>> I think José explained quite well your twisted perception of how the "real"
>> browser should look like. I for one know of many webpages that work
>> correctly in Konqueror but fail miserably in Firefox; guess why? Because
>> these pages were designed for IE only
> 
> Once I helped one guy with testing web pages on Linux - it worked in Firefox, 
> IE6 in wine but Konqueror failed - totally messed page. So I read w3c specs - 
> and guess what? Konqueror was only one browser rendering it correctly (by w3c 
> specs :).
> 
> Back to topic: there are possibilities to replace Konqueror - or at least 
> KHTML - with WebKit. Arora is nice Qt 4 lightweight browser but looks now that 
> development stalled for a while. One reason is maybe waiting for Qt 4.5 - it 
> adds support of embedding Netscape plugins to QtWebKit. Another missing 
> feature is password management. 
> Try 'yum install arora'.
> 
> R.