4 ms·

>Why stop at the browser or IM client though? Technically, Gnome itself only exists because of that same mindset (not being satisfied with KDE's initial license

>Why stop at the browser or IM client though? Technically, Gnome itself only exists because of that same mindset (not being satisfied with KDE's initial license). The trouble with "why stop there" arguments though is that they can make any reasonable suggestion seem absurd. There was a valid reason to create Gnome, but is there a valid reason for Epiphany? >I would never presume that people who are predominantly volunteering their time and efforts to work on Gnome have a responsibility to rely on non-Gnome applications for fundamental desktop functionality The creators of Gnome have no responsibility to their users, but as users we have the privilege of providing them with feedback. If 99.999% of Gnome users are providing the development team with the feedback that they will not use Epiphany no matter how much more polished it becomes then what should Gnome do? The way I say it there are three options. 1. Do nothing, continue to develop and polish an application which no one will ever use. 2. Retire Epiphany and then have no "official" Gnome web browser. 3. Retire Epiphany and chose one of the major browsers which most of their user base are already happily using, and then try to make the experience of that browser on their desktop as good as possible. Maybe I am narrow minded, but are there really any other options?

m0nastic 16y ago
I would argue that there is just as valid a reason for Epiphany as there was for Gnome. Epiphany was created after Galeon (another Gnome web browser that nobody used). Gnome worked to create Human Interface Guidelines, and wanted a web browser (which is a fairly fundamental part of a desktop environment in this day and age) that used those guidelines to provide a cohesive experience. Here was an announcement email which explains some of the reasons for it's existence: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/epiphany-list/2008-April/msg00000.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/epiphany-list/2008-April/msg0... I would say that options 2 and 3 that you propose are nonstarters. I feel weird that I've found myself in a position defending Epiphany. I don't mean to be, it's a shitty browser. I just don't find it puzzling that a desktop experience project would want to be in control of their own web browser which uses their own underlying technologies.
- jdub 16y ago
  Note: That was the announcement of the shift from Gecko to WebKit, not the launch of Epiphany itself (which was years earlier).
  - m0nastic 16y ago
    Correct. I had originally written a paragraph about the switch of rendering engines, then figured it wasn't germane to the conversation. I found the reasons they list for the switch still relevant as reasons for the existence of the browser, however.

m0nastic 16y ago

I would argue that there is just as valid a reason for Epiphany as there was for Gnome. Epiphany was created after Galeon (another Gnome web browser that nobody used). Gnome worked to create Human Interface Guidelines, and wanted a web browser (which is a fairly fundamental part of a desktop environment in this day and age) that used those guidelines to provide a cohesive experience. Here was an announcement email which explains some of the reasons for it's existence: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/epiphany-list/2008-April/msg00000.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/epiphany-list/2008-April/msg0... I would say that options 2 and 3 that you propose are nonstarters. I feel weird that I've found myself in a position defending Epiphany. I don't mean to be, it's a shitty browser. I just don't find it puzzling that a desktop experience project would want to be in control of their own web browser which uses their own underlying technologies.

jdub 16y ago
Note: That was the announcement of the shift from Gecko to WebKit, not the launch of Epiphany itself (which was years earlier).
- m0nastic 16y ago
  Correct. I had originally written a paragraph about the switch of rendering engines, then figured it wasn't germane to the conversation. I found the reasons they list for the switch still relevant as reasons for the existence of the browser, however.