RE: galeon

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

Assuming that we are choosing between Galeon and Epiphany, can you tell us
how Galeon is more appropriate for GNOME? So far I just hear that Galeon has
more features/settings. Yes, I do hear that you are trying to keep things
simple despite that.

If they really are so similar then how should we choose?

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Langdale [mailto:philipl mail utexas edu] 
> Sent: Montag, 19. Mai 2003 18:26
> To: desktop-devel-list gnome org
> Cc: Luis Villa; Tommi Komulainen; Christophe Fergeau; Yanko 
> Kaneti; Ricardo Fernandez Pascual
> Subject: galeon
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Perhaps I write this at a time that is far too late, and 
> perhaps nothing
> I say will resonate as I might hope, but I have been told that one
> should not go quietly into the night; so let the dance with futility
> begin.
> 
> And to anyone who would complain that this has been done to death,
> please bear in mind that this is the first time we've spoken up.
> 
> We (the galeon team) have had a minimal presence on ddl; the only
> significant item of note being ricardo's formal proposal of galeon
> for the 2.4 module list, and one can only imagine that such a low
> profile does not do wonders for one's position in a debate such as
> the one over adopting it or epiphany as GNOME's browser. I suppose
> that I use 'debate' somewhat loosely as it's been rather one-sided
> to say the least. That's also been why I've been disinclined to
> say anything up until this point; one does not easily turn a
> concensus. Nevertheless, I'm told that we're open minded people so
> perhaps what I say may be illuminating or useful in some way.
> 
> It has been disturbing how little is known about galeon by the
> people who discuss it here and will eventually be making the
> decision about adoption. I did ask havoc to actually take a look
> at the program which he apparently did, though he only summarised
> his findings. Details on what he didn't like or what could be
> improved would be very much appreciated; and that goes for everybody.
> We've recieved a lot of vague and non-constructive complaints in
> the past with regard to HIG compliance and the like. Things will
> not be quick to change without specific problem descriptions, and
> suggested solutions are always welcome.
> 
> There is certainly a perception amongst some that galeon 1.3.x is
> somehow galeon 1.2.x but simply ported to the gnome2 platform. This
> was not true when marco was running things (and we didn't hear it
> very much then) and it is no more true now. I'm not really sure where
> this one started, but it's frustrating to say the least. We are also
> sniped at by disaffected members of our existing user base complaining
> that we're taking a scyth to any and all useful features; It is not
> fun to be sitting in the middle of these sorts of ignorance powered
> condemnations.
> 
> My teammate Tommi Komulainen has asserted that there need not be a
> dichotomy between HIG compliance and providing power and flexibility
> to the user, though there are those that would gladly declare such
> a relationship whether in a positive or negative light. And 
> it is based
> on this assertion that we have tried to proceed; and I believe that we
> have been decently successful in this regard. It seems 
> horrifying to me
> that someone can seriously claim "we can't do that because we 
> can't fit
> in a menu item for it in a compliant way". That seems to reveal a lack
> of imagination more than anything else.
> 
> I'm not going to go into the gory details of why marco left, as it's
> not really the point, but the rest of us felt that he had gone to far
> in stripping galeon down to the point where it ceased to be a program
> that we'd actually use ourselves; and then, what's the point anymore?
> 
> We've been focusing on getting functional parity with the old 1.2.x
> code base, and it's been slow going; both due to excessive external
> commitments on the part of the team members and in trying to 
> be careful
> as to how these things are done. Nevertheless, those who've cared to
> pay attention and actually use the program are generally impressed.
> 
> I don't think it is particularly constructive to go through a probably
> mind-numbing feature list, but I'd encourge everyone to actually
> take a look at the program as it stands today and make an informed
> decision about it.
> 
> We have been, are, and will continue to be, open to, and happy to
> recieve, suggestions on usability improvements and accessibility,
> though hopefully not of the "take it out" kind... And at least we
> have a sane bookmark system. :-)
> 
> With respect to the issue of a11y which has been discussed here
> intensively, I'd echo the existing arguement that an a11y 
> broken browser
> is better than no browser and that official status will provoke work
> (and hopefully extra hands!) to get things working.
> 
> Though we are more and more disillusioned these days, we do believe
> that we've produced something that can be a consistent part 
> of the GNOME
> desktop and a useful tool for users. If nothing else, we'd like to see
> our work condemned from an informed position.
> 
> respectfully,
> 
> --phil
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>