Pros / Cons: Replacing Konqueror with Firefox

[Sindre Wetjen]

On Sunday 09 August 2015 09:33:15 Mustafa Muhammad wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2015 4:55 PM, "Sindre Wetjen" <sindre.w at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 07 August 2015 15:03:41 Mustafa Muhammad wrote:
> > > Pros 
> > > 4) Better support for internet video
> > 
> > That is not true. Konq supports the same amount of video formats as
> 
> Firefox
> 
> > fedora (VP8 only). If you want h264 you have to go through some
> 
> configuration
> 
> > for both browsers.
> 
> Firefox is implementing media source extensions, which is required for VP9
> in YouTube and probably in other websites.

What Firefox has in the future is not relevant now. It will also be 
interesting to see what the MPEG-consortium does with the DASH licensing (I've 
read some news about them considering taking money for it) which youtube use 
in combination with the VP9 video streaming. This could prevent Firefox from 
getting VP9 for quite some time, at least for smooth youtube streaming. 

> 
> > > 5) Much better support for the latest standard (HTML 5), if you compare
> > > Konq to Firefox in http://html5test.com you will be shocked.
> > 
> > Doesn't really help if they don't target your rendering engine.
> 
> I didn't understand what you are trying to say.

If you don't write web pages that use the exact number of things that FF 
support as opposed to e.g Chrome, then it will not work in FF.

> > > 7) Higher number of users and developers mean bugs and security
> > > vulnerabilities gets found and fixed faster.
> > 
> > There are more users on WebKit (Safari is more popular than Firefox,
> 
> atleast
> 
> > in my country), the devs do you have numbers that actually quantify that
> > statement?
> 
> https://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2015-06/SquidReportClients
> .htm

Did you take into account the Mobile views?