Re: The future of Galeon

On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 17:29 -0700, Rob Reid wrote:
> I've never used epiphany, but is its extensions framework radically
> better than firefox's?

I wrote a post yesterday explaining a couple of technical advantages of
Epiphany's extensions; I googled and found it at
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.galeon.devel/2341>. The main
technical difference is that Epiphany extensions can take advantage of
system libraries. Besides that, they are roughly equivalent (but they
use different programming languages).

Also, there's a different distribution mechanism. Firefox has zillions
of extensions; there's no quality control, nor is there any way to know
without trying an extension whether it's a shoddy mess or a work of
genius (indeed, some extensions spring to mind which are clearly both).

Epiphany extensions, so far, don't have the same problem. Most of the
extensions I've discovered are developed by people who chat on #epiphany
on irc.gnome.org and read the mailing list and ask for peer review. The
epiphany-extensions package is maintained by the Epiphany maintainers,
and it strives for the same level of quality. An extension in the
epiphany-extensions package is guaranteed to be simple and intuitive,
with attention to details (for instance, no Epiphany extension requires
a browser restart).

But hell, maybe that's just because there aren't enough extensions yet.

-- 
Adam Hooper <[email protected]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDXYWD90GtBxQ61zARAl83AJ9WHXNd1EfQ8rmuHJ6RZ0Fqe64MOACglvJ8
JzOFke+8ZOaLq0Wo5grvPu0=
=IGUi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----