Epiphany / Firefox
lathiat at bur.st
Wed Sep 21 06:00:58 CDT 2005
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 01:46:52PM +0300, Sandis Neilands wrote:
> I tried preview release live cd (breezy) and guess what - epiphany depends on
> it again!
> On 9/20/05, Edward H. Trager < ehtrager at umich.edu> wrote:
> On Tuesday 2005.09.20 21:48:44 +0300, Sandis Neilands wrote:
> > Hi!
> > After reading gnome-bittorent-too-simple thread I have a question about
> > browsers - why not to include Epiphany as a default gnome web browser? It
> > better integrated in gnome, it's simplier, it doesn't use THAT much
> > reousrces as firefox does. Don't know about security though.
> And does it really work as well as Firefox or not? Has Epiphany really
> been tested
Epiphany uses the firefox engine, so you get all of this for free, it
just changes the UI.
IMHO firefox is better, it has a more consistent UI, and people know
about 'firefox', can use it on windows/mac, so easy transition point, etc.
> in the way the Firefox has? Not only with regard to security, but also
> with regard
> CSS-1 and
> CSS-2 correctly, DOM handling, etc.? The last time I tested Epiphany
> (admittedly this was quite a
> while ago), it performed fairly poorly on some of my tests (which were
> mostly in the
> CSS and DOM realm at that time).
> While Firefox still has a fair share of problems with it (hence the need,
> for example,
> for Ubuntu to patch it to handle Indic rendering properly, something that
> the Firefox
> people really need to settle once and for all in their own code base), does
> it not seem
> wiser to stick with the more actively developed and presumably more
> actively tested
> Then how did evolution get in? I don't really think it's used more than
> And Jeff - where else can i ask question to devs?
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
Trent Lloyd <lathiat at bur.st>
Bur.st Networking Inc.
More information about the ubuntu-devel