Irrelevance of the debate: (was "Epiphany versus Firefox" etc ad nauseam...

[Michael T. Richter]

On Wed, 2006-15-02 at 00:44 +0100, John Nilsson wrote:
> So, not having been presented with Epiphany, they wouldn't know the
> difference. But given the choice I think they'd take epiphany, exactly
> because it's mostly equal for all other purposes (ignoring the power
> features of Firefox).

When this debate first opened here, I installed Epiphany and switched to
it as my default browser for a week just to see what all the fuss was
about.  When the week trial was over, I gladly switched back to Firefox.
I think your last parenthetical comment is what makes all the
difference.

Your statement, essentially, boils down to "if you handwave away the
features that make Firefox superior Epiphany is just as good as
Firefox".  That is a truism and not really much of a stunning
observation, isn't it?  Because it is those "power features" that make
Firefox for me.  I really missed my ad-reduced browsing.  I really
missed my popup-free browsing.  I really missed being able to whitelist
Javascript and not worry about malicious sites using Javascript to screw
me over.  I really missed, basically, all the features of Firefox that
make it superior to Epiphany.  The oft-touted "HIG" issues never entered
into things.  It's not as if GNOME apps are really anywhere near as
coherent in their execution as people want us to believe, after all.

--
Michael T. Richter
Email: ttmrichter at gmail.com, mtr1966 at hotpop.com
MSN: ttmrichter at hotmail.com, mtr1966 at hotmail.com; YIM:
michael_richter_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber:
mtr1966 at jabber.cn
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20060215/d02d7fcd/attachment-0001.pgp