Fwd: what is the reason for not making epiphany the default
corey.burger at gmail.com
Thu Jan 5 17:22:16 GMT 2006
On 1/5/06, Quim Gil <qgil at desdeamericaconamor.org> wrote:
> Since Ubuntu is strongly betting on GNOME it would be good to offer
> GNOME applications that integrate well with the desktop like Epiphany or
> Abiword, Gnumeric... Even when they are less popular, they are lighter
> than Mozilla or OpenOffice.org and they may fulfill perfectly the needs
> of a good percentage of users.
> Popularity is something subjective, you know. Many users will be
> skipping from MS Explorer and MS Office to Ubuntu, why not Epiphany and
> the GNOME Office family can't make them happier. The user wanting more
> (more extensions, more office complexity) they will be able to switch
> easily to the bigger applications. Those being guided by popularity
> rates can switch either easily, no problem.
> It would be good at least to offer these tools in the default Ubuntu
> installation. Maybe a factor is the limitation of disk space. A
> possibility could be to have a CD devoted for desktop only, assuming
> that server distro users are statistically a minority and generally very
> keen on downloading an own iso that builds a great server - only.
> Quim Gil - http://desdeamericaconamor.org
(Putting my Userful hat on)
For a quick perspective, we at Userful ship Epiphany and not Firefox.
I should note for those who don't know, 95% of the users who use our
stuff don't even know they are using Linux, let alone Fedora Core,
GNOME or Epiphany.
What does this mean for Ubuntu? I think a webbrowser is a webbrowser
to most users. Your average grandma is never going to install any of
the 9 million plugins for Firefox that are out there and thus doesn't
need that capability. But they do want a consistent print/open dialog,
Also, there is a wiki page on this:
More information about the ubuntu-devel