On Tuesday 21 April 2015 15:44:35 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Thomas Lübking wrote: > > I know nothing about the trouble w/ QWebEngine¹, but what is insinuated > > here is that it's completely unusable, unmaintainable, undistributable > > - ie. Qt then simply won't have any full blown web engine, resp. has > > one that nobody uses? That issue would seem -a tiny bit- faaaar beyond > > kdepim or anything KDE related, to me those claims read: "Qt now has no > > longer a web kit/engine". > > That's exactly the problem. I have objected to the QtWebKit deprecation on > those exact grounds on the upstream Qt mailing list, but my complaints have > fallen on deaf ears.
I think that's not a fair characterisation that they fell on deaf ears. They were heard, but it's simply a matter of fact that WebKit is no longer a possible target, since Apple removed the necessary bits out of WebKit and they're a much harder group to work with than Google. So it's simply not an option to continue to develop WebKit. If someone has 100 full-time developers to spare, I'm sure un-deprecation could happen. (I'm not exaggerating) > That said, Google is a web-centric company and as such more likely to put > evil stuff into their browser than Apple. In fact, Chromium and Chrome > already have the reputation of hiding spyware (mis)features in their code. I'm not sure about spyware, but they do have a history of inserting things of theirs, like the HTTP-over-QUIC they recently talked about. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358