Re: Galeon 1.2.5 to 1.3.19 conveersion a couple of questions

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 11:02, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>If that provides the same functianlity, I cant figure out how to do it.
> >>> The functionality that "sessiosn" provides is the abilty to store one
> >>> or more groups of tabs, such that I can simply select a session, and
> >>> wind up with several tabs each open to the desired site.
> >>>
> >>>How can I acomplish this in the new version?
> >>
> >>   Bookmarks/Add Tabs As Folder makes folder with all currently open
> >>tabs saved as bookmarks in that folder. Then I close all tabs, then I
> >>right click on that bookmark folder newly created and say Open folder in
> >>Tabs. All tabs are back and shining. Looks just what you're describing.
> >> :)

What you describe is _not_ session management, and is very cumbersome by 
comparison. Saving a session involves saving and restoring the details (URI, 
name, etc.) of every tab in every window, in the correct order. There should 
be crash protection: if Galeon crashes, it provides an option to restore the 
entire session upon restart. Galeon 1.x has had an excellent implementation 
of session management for quite some time.

> > What's the rationale behind removing basic functionality?
>
>    Seems like redudant functionality to me, same as your first point -
> there is explicit well-known URL input already, no need for duplicating,
> IMHO.
>    Here http://ometer.com/free-software-ui.html and here
> http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/ you may find some answers
> regarding "The Gnome way of things". Seek for "The Question of
> Preferences". Streamlining, simplicity, consistency, maintainability are
> the buzzwords - technically savvy features seeking geeks are minority of
> minority. :)

I don't understand why Galeon is trying so hard to follow GNOME's guidelines. 
After all, isn't Epiphany the default GNOME Web browser? Why compete for the 
same user base when there's a whole lot of people who want something else? 
I'm not saying that Galeon should be a convoluted mess, but by the same token 
I fail to see any reason why it should be ultra-simple like Epiphany or 
Safari. Galeon 1.2 was the ultimate power browser, so why make such a radical 
change in direction? There are many good things which can be learnt from the 
HIG in terms of software design and UI layout (I am not anti-HIG or 
anti-GNOME2), but IMHO Galeon can improve upon these without compromising 
functionality in any major way. I am not adverse to an extensions system 
(like Firefox and Epiphany) or hiding more complex functionality in Gconf.

I still use Galeon 1.2.x as my primary Web browser. I evaluate each new 
release of Firefox, Konqueror and Opera as a possible alternative, but I keep 
coming back. The fact that such an old browser can still compete favourably 
against (supposedly) the latest and greatest is a testament to its quality. 
That quality should be leveraged, not ignored.

> > Can the 1.2 serries of Galeon possible to compile on a modern release?
>
>    Supposedly yes, with respective older Mozilla version. I'm not pretty
> sure, if 1.2 Galeon line would be able to handle XFT (antialiased)
> Mozilla versions.

I think Mozilla has dumped GTK+1 support in their 1.8 branch, so we're 
approaching the end of the road for Galeon 1.x. It's a shame :(

-- 
Sridhar Dhanapalan  [Yama | http://www.pclinuxonline.com/]
  {GnuPG/OpenPGP: http://dhanapalan.webhop.net/yama.asc
   0x049D38B4 : A7A9 8A02 78CB AB1B FCE4 EEC6 2DD9 249B 049D 38B4}

"Recently I bought Office XP. It was quite unpleasant feeling giving so much 
money for so buggy product. ... Solution: Uninstall Office XP and Windows."
  -- Georgi Guninski, security expert, http://www.guninski.com, 2001-07-12

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBCBZRxLdkkmwSdOLQRAkMSAJ96sP2TsbFslCanUgmsLGlAf5GcxgCfYmgS
Y4OwRFnOdpuTxlyn4xGCi9Q=
=HaH7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----