<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.8.1"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Mon, 2006-27-03 at 10:49 +0800, Senectus . wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> Just out of interest.. is there a specific reason why we aren't supporting epiphany in Ubuntu as the default standard? </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <PRE> </PRE> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> It seems to be a fair bit "slicker" in Gnome than Firefox is, and uses the same (similar) back end... </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> I did my usual "activist check" when I first heard of Epiphany as an alternative default browser. I turned off Firefox and used Epiphany for a week. At the end of the week, I was so glad that I could turn Firefox back on that I practically broke the keyboard typing in the commands to do it. I'm not sure what is supposed to be so attractive about Epiphany. I do know, however, that it doesn't support the plugins (like NoScript and Adblock) that I rely on to make surfing the net even remotely attractive. I also got the overall impression that Epiphany was just not very flexible and nice to end-users wanting to customize it. If Epiphany becomes the default, one of the first things I'll be doing is uninstalling it when Dapper comes out. <TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%"> <TR> <TD> -- Michael T. Richter Email: ttmrichter@gmail.com, mtr1966@hotpop.com MSN: ttmrichter@hotmail.com, mtr1966@hotmail.com; YIM: michael_richter_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber: mtr1966@jabber.cn </TD> </TR> </TABLE> </BODY> </HTML>