Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla-KDE Integration

Posted by Hemos on from the working-together dept.

zniper writes: "According to this mail on the KDE-KFM-DEVEL mailing-list, Corel revived the Mozilla QT-port and claim to have a port even more stable than the official GTK version. Additionally, they are planning to port Gecko to the KDE2 kparts architecture, allowing it to be embedded into Konqueror and other KDE2 programs. "

1 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Konqueror already rocks... by update() · · Score: 5
    Incidentally, this news is not about Konqueror, although there has been speculation about using Gecko as an alternate rendering engine for Konqueror, alongside khtml.

    I mean, how long have they been working on Mozilla?..And when did development of the Konqueror HTML widget start? I am really surprised they could build a good-functioning (speaking as of the final-beta ) web-browser in such a short time! ..How did the KDE developers manage this?

    I think these are important questions to ask. Whenever anyone here tries to raise the issue of "What went wrong with Mozilla?" it's always met with angry accusations of trolling and claims that the project is doing great, just great! especially if you've tried the last couple of nightly builds which are much better than those of a few days ago.

    Mozilla is the flagship project of the "Open Source Movement" (not to be confused with the "Free Software Movement") and when it was launched, Eric Raymond and CmdrTaco were featured prominently in everything from C|Net to Cat Fancier preemptively declaring victory in the browser war. Three years later, Mozilla isn't close to their first release and has been crushed by Microsoft in both market share and quality. At the same time, the Konqueror team has come up with a 90% usable browser from scratch in half the time, with a tiny fraction of the developers and bug testers and without the resources and experience of Netscape behind it.

    It seems to me that the sensible course would be to make an honest effort to figure out where Mozilla went wrong instead of keeping up the pretense that everything is going perfectly. I mean, when Eric Raymond goes into CEOs' offices doing what he's not embarassed to call his Prince From Another Country act, don't they ask him what happened to Mozilla? Wouldn't there be practical and rhetorical advantages to having an answer to that question?

    ---------