Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Rekonq 2.1 Web-Browser Brings More Features

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,758

    Default Rekonq 2.1 Web-Browser Brings More Features

    Phoronix: Rekonq 2.1 Web-Browser Brings More Features

    Less than one month after the release of the Rekonq 2.0 web-browser for the KDE desktop as an alternative to Konqueror, Rekonq 2.1 has surfaced and it brings more features to this open-source WebKit-powered project...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI4NTE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,045

    Default

    They should port it to Qt5 and get it running on Wayland.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    This browser is pointless. Why does it even exist? Nobody is using it.
    Gives KDE a default browser. Also a convient way to play around with QtWebkit. I used it for a few days on my laptop, its a very nice, simple little browser with no major complaints except one: memory usage is a bit high.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    I used it for a few days on my laptop, its a very nice, simple little browser with no major complaints except one: memory usage is a bit high.
    Extremely slow rendering, unfortunately. In a forum with a lot of emoticons and youtube posts is completely unusable while both Firefox and Chromium run without problems. Qupzilla is slow as well but not unusable as Rekonq.
    Last edited by Apopas; 01-30-2013 at 01:05 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    Extremely slow rendering, unfortunately. In a forum with a lot of emoticons and youtube posts is completely unusable while both Firefox and Chromium run without problems. Qupzilla is slow as well but not unusable as Rekonq.
    As if two browsers which use exactly the same QtWebKit version could have any performance differences…

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    As if two browsers which use exactly the same QtWebKit version could have any performance differences…
    I could throw for(int i = 0; i < 1000000, ++i) { fprintf(foo, "Lalalalalalaa\n") } into the main loop of either and have the thing crash and burn. Just because the rendering backend is the same doesn't mean there isn't some inefficiency in the thousands of LOCs surrounding it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    This browser is pointless. Why does it even exist? Nobody is using it.
    Maybe KDE users want a Qt-based web browser.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    199

    Default extensions?

    I remember there was a plan to get Rekonq working with Chrome extensions. Is anyone working on this? It would make the browser MUCH more appealing.

    One odd thing with version 1.8 is that it doesn't call the KDE dialog box for opening files--the GTK one is invoked! Is this the case for everyone? I should file a bug report.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by molecule-eye View Post
    I remember there was a plan to get Rekonq working with Chrome extensions. Is anyone working on this? It would make the browser MUCH more appealing.

    One odd thing with version 1.8 is that it doesn't call the KDE dialog box for opening files--the GTK one is invoked! Is this the case for everyone? I should file a bug report.
    Chrome extensions can depend on a bunch of Chrome APIs (nacl, pepper) that Rekonq doesn't have, so I doubt it. It has kparts integration though, so you can extend it via those. I don't think trying to bolt on support for Chromes app framework is the best idea for a browser which has a (comparatively) tiny (and much better organized, I might add) code base than the big goliaths (mainly because it uses external libraries for everything, which is a good thing).

    I have 2.0.2 installed, and I get the regular kde file browser (I just checked). If it's already fixed in a newer version it doesn't really need a bug report.

    The one feature I would like to see though is tab syncing with Chrome / Firefox. Unlike reimplementing an addon framework, adding a few compatibility layers to export and import tabs would probably be fairly trivial (unless the google / mozilla sync servers are checking some internals of the browser to verify authenticity). Maybe if I have a free weekend soon I'll pull down the code and see how hard that would be.

    Rekonq benchmarks better than my firefox aurora or nightly against sunspider / octane / kraken by a good 5 - 20%. It is a pretty solid tiny browser.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by molecule-eye View Post
    I remember there was a plan to get Rekonq working with Chrome extensions. Is anyone working on this? It would make the browser MUCH more appealing.
    Preliminary research shows that it natively supports BOTH ppapi and whatever firefox's was called (dont remember atm). Flash worked out of the box ( i had installed from chromium and firefox) and it has adblock built in. I cant vouch for other extensions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •