Alan Cox writes:
>
> > I have heard a lot of things about konqueror, and much of it is not really
> > good.
> > I really cant tell, I haven't seen anything of it. Is it as good as the
> > developers
> > say it is ?
>
> Not in my opinion, but its also not as bad as some of the people who compla
> I have heard a lot of things about konqueror, and much of it is not really
> good.
> I really cant tell, I haven't seen anything of it. Is it as good as the
> developers
> say it is ?
Not in my opinion, but its also not as bad as some of the people who complain
about it make out either
Heya,
>
>
>I have heard a lot of things about konqueror, and much of it is not really
>good.
>I really cant tell, I haven't seen anything of it. Is it as good as the
>developers
>say it is ?
>
Can't really say because I have done any "standard" (if there is one) test.
But I had a chance to try
>For a small browser the new gtkhtml work is looking very promising as a core.
>Its actually the KDE khtmlw widget (that nice fast but not full of js/java/..
>kfm viewer) aka 'konqueror' redone into C with a lot more gui independance.
>
>Once its stable as a gtk widget it seems a good basis for a
> Yes, I suppose it would be good news also, if only their browser was GPL (or
> some other genuinely free & open-source license). However, AFAICT it is
> thoroughly proprietary.
>
> Maybe they will choose to contribute back to Microwindows. However, since
> Microwindows isn't GPL (it's MPL) th
) they have no obligation to do so.
Regards,
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Andru Luvisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Greg Haerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 7:36 PM
Subjec
