Slashdot Mirror
Konqueror Compiled For Mac OS X; KOffice Next
scishop writes "Benjamin Reed has just compiled Konqueror for Mac OS X after porting the KUniqueApplication class. A screenshot of the running program can be found here. According to Reed's blog, 'next up is KOffice.'"
iKant believe it!
This port doesn't use X11 at all. I have been on the maillist, and the stumbling block has been the X11 specific code(and a minor thing in QT-mac, reguarding extensions of shared libs). This is a real achievement, and rangerrick is to be greatly congratulated!
You should use AdiumX on your Mac.
Why bother? I seriously doubt anyone would go full-tilt KDE on an OS X box. Mozilla or Firebird are great browser choices.. Why bother to port Konqueror?
Konqueror is more than just a web browser. I would install it on Mac OS X to get all the wonderful KIO slaves that come with it like tar and sftp.
I'd say that covering platforms is important, because when someone says, but do you suppot Blah, you can answer that yes, indeed, you do.
Keep in mind that short term tactics are great, but strategy is what frequently offers tactical brilliance a place to shine. If KDE is everywhere, people will start to use it. That's useful. for KDE. See? Think companies, down the road.
-j, who really can't stand such heavyweight stuff.
I forget what 8 was for.
It's more than just about a browser. It's about porting Linux/KDE stuff over without middlemen like X11. That's a nice little achievement.
:-)
And if someone really really sees no point, THEY DON"T HAVE TO USE IT.
Actually, information would like a turkey sandwich.
The porting of Konqueror to OS X is great news for Mac users, as they now have access to the fast, standards compliant KHTML rendering engine. Many users and developers prefer KHTML to the Internet Explorer or Gecko engines. I was wondering though...does anyone know of a KHTML browser which is completely OS X native? I mean, with a brushed metal skin and full integration into Aqua? It could maybe have other stuff too, like Google search field built-in or something. That would be cool! Anyway, in the meantime I'll just have to continue with Konqueror on OS X.
Gnot really, when you stop to consider the gnaming convensions of other projects.
you get:
that's getting to be quite an impressive list. 4/9 of those are mac only. i doubt you can consider mac ie a separate browser from windows ie, even though they are two totally different rendering engines.
icab is crap, and no one uses it anymore. mac ie still gets used quite a bit soley because it's the default browser shipped with 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2. it's also included in 10.3, and i know some people who are too stubborn to give safari a try. i still consider it crap however. omniweb is safari in drag. and konqueror, although nice it is finally ported, is more or less for proof of concept. opera for mac isn't even up to 7.0 yet if i remember right, with opera being all pissed at apple releasing safari. so that really leaves you with safari, and the mozilla browsers. the only 2 that are mac only in that lot are camino and safari.
i'm dying for a browser as powerful and simple as safari to hit linux. epiphany's not quite there.
- tristan
Check out GTK-Wimp: http://gtk-wimp.sourceforge.net/ Very tasty, if you run GTK+ applications under Windows (particularly XP). It's even mentioned on the Gaim website. :-)
Well, the reasons for porting KDE to Mac OS X natively and the reasons why someone would want to use Konqueror on OS X may be different.
.war files (I do not know if this is an exclusive Konqueror feature or not, and I don't care - it is extremely useful).
Konqueror is not just a browser. It is also a file manager (kind of like Windows Explorer on SuperMan steroids). It suppors io-slaves, which gives Konqueror network transparency that I do not think is paralleled by any other file browser right now. Also, some people dislike the OS X Finder and would prefer to use Konqueror instead.
Konqueror is pretty cool - it has all the latest features such as tabbed browsing, but it also allows to split any view into two (and then again) - you can make it look like Norton Commander if you like.
Konqueror also supports archiving web pages as
So, there are many reasons someone would want to use Konqueror, and not just on OS X or Linux.
The reason to port to OS X could be so that KDE were less dependent on X11 hacks and used Qt API more thoroughly, I don't know. The thing is - the more portable the code is, the fewer bugs there are (unless of course they start #ifdef-ing everywhere, then it just turns into a mess of duplicated non-portable code).
Paul.
OmniWeb may use the same underlying rendering and scripting engine that Safari uses but it is actually quite different than Safari. They are both great products but OmniWeb by far provides you with more functionality
About the only thing that Safari has over OmniWeb is tabbed browsing. OmniWeb has many more options than Safari such as regex filtering of content from sites, the ability to easily masquerade as any type of browser running on any type of operating system, autofilling of forms, tons of display options, the ability to set up shortcuts for the url input line ("google something" starts a Google search for something, "dict something" looks up something in dictionary.com, etc), and much more.
I'm not knocking Safari, it's a really nice, lean browser but its feature set is almost too lean. OmniWeb is kind of like a full-featured version of Safari.
Sapere aude!
There are some apps that have less in the way of choice on the Mac, but with Fink and the now built-in X11, there's much more choice than say OS9.
:D
:D
In regards to browsers, there's Mozilla, Firebird, OmniWeb, iCab, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, and Camino. (My favorite being Camino...)
Mail apps? Plenty. Editors? Plenty. I have 6 right now, not including TextEdit (only two cost money.)
I'm glad to hear you're moving to the Mac. I did it a couple of years ago, and my Linux box has become a server....I won't go back to Desktop Linux for the foreseeable future.
Fear not, though....there's plenty of choice. (With the exception of Window Managers..but you can run your favorite X WM fullscreen if you wish)...
I don't think Apple will have to peddle very hard to charge for their OS, though. It's indeed superior in many ways to what's available for free, and it also encompasses choice, something that was Linux's sole domain before OSX. I like linux too, but my OS of choice is worth every penny. Forget Windows...
OSX just works....I can spend hours twiddling with it, or I can set up and go with no troubles at all. That's the beauty of OSX.
---
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
"- it was designed from the ground up and is conceptually sound, unlike mozilla which was a hack job on top of netscape's browser"
Nope. They dropped the old code and started from scratch a long, looong time ago.
"- unlike other browsers (mozilla, IE), it was designed using 'mature' technology (HTML4, CSS, etc.) and does not have nearly as many compatibility woes as IE, nor as many add-on hacks, as the other browsers had, due to changing stnadards over the years (in other words: it's a newer, fresher code base)"
Nope. Konq doesn't pass basic CSS tests that I have written. Mozilla does.
"- unlike mozilla/firebird, I can use it for hours/days with many pages open (15+) without the entire affair slowing to a crawl and/or dying"
Nope in my case. I'm not sure your problem, but I have no problem with my 2-3 windows with about 7-15 tabs each, open for the entirety my computer is on. The average between reboots on my workstation is a month. I'll close Mozilla to update to a more recent nightly, but that's about it. My hardware isn't insane either --- XP 1700+ w/ 768mb RAM.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
For a while, I've wanted a laptop, as well. Now, I could get a wintel for probably seven or eight hundred, and even load linux on it and probably get most of the APM features to work, even. But I also think OSX would be great for some other reasons, such as solving my problems viewing certain kinds of media, running proprietary software, etc. Maybe I'll even start using iTMS. And Mac laptops--and, in fact, Mac workstations (just not low end desktops)--are priced fairly competitively.
So I admit, I've been thinking, if I get a decent payout from my current work, I may very well spring for a low-end iBook. As an easy-to-use, low-maintanance, commercially-supported Unix on the desktop, it can't be beat.