Skip navigation.

The future of Galeon

Galeon
Galeon

Philip Langdale wrote: "Tommi, Crispin and I were all able to attend the GNOME summit last
weekend, even though Crispin had to pay his own way :-) So, it was
a good opportunity for us to sit down and discuss the future of Galeon.
All of us are very much working fulltime which limits the extent to
which we can hack on Galeon and the amount of activity you've observed
speaks for itself.

As such, we've reached the conclusion that we have to change our
approach if we're going to avoid Galeon getting stale or bit-rotting;
which is important for all of us, as we all use Galeon because we
still think it's the best thing out there :-)

So, what does changing our approach mean? It means considering Epiphany
in a new light; Galeon still does a lot of things, small and large, that
Epiphany either doesn't do or doesn't do as well, but at the same time,
there are some areas where they've moved in front, and most importantly
Epiphany has a bunch of active maintainers who are handling the things
that we struggle to do for Galeon. But you say: Epiphany doesn't fit
my needs or I'd be using it already! True, so our proposal is to bring
Galeon to Epiphany.

Epiphany has a powerful extensions mechanism that exposes many of the
core structures of the program and there is a general willingness to
expose more as necessary. This means that many galeon features can be
recast as extensions, and Crispin has already done this for a couple
of things: the sidebar is now in epiphany-extensions and he's got a
few more hidden away such as in-browser view-source. Also don't forget
that some other features have been independently ported as extensions
already, such as the javascript console.
There are a few galeon features which are hard to implement as
extensions and/or are of a class that makes them desirable within the
base Epiphany package, and these should be directly ported. I've already
made a couple of checkins to port back/forward history copying and
middle-clicking on history entries.

Between these two approaches and the more pragmatic direction that
epiphany is moving in these days (heirarchical bookmark support has
just been checked in!), I believe that we can reach a point where
Epiphany + a set of extensions will provide the same functionality that
Galeon does today.

This seems an optimal solution for everyone; it allows us, the galeon
developers, to avoid duplicating work with epiphany team, it will allow
users to leverage the best from both browsers and most importantly, it
puts galeon on a much firmer footing for the future that is not so much
at the mercy of our ability to find time to hack on it.

I hope that this sounds like a good long term strategy to everyone, but
if you do find yourself recoiling from it, do realise that the current
approach is unsustainable and will almost certainly result in galeon
becoming unmaintained or falling too far behind in some areas, meaning
that you'll be struggling to keep using it anyway.

This process will probably take some time given our other commitments,
so we intend to make a formal 2.0 galeon release (long overdue really)
and keep that compiling against newer releases of mozilla, but our
efforts will be directed towards this extension project.

Of course, anybody who wants to help out, either with the extensions
or with maintaining the current galeon codebase, is more than welcome!

I've added a wiki page at: http://live.gnome.org/Epiphany_2fGaleonIssues
which lists current stuff I can think of. I encourage anyone to add
anything that I've missed, but if you want to list a Galeon 1.2 feature
please categorise it separately :-)"

Also for those who would like more information about the new Epiphany bookmarks system, this page gives a detailed overview.

Is there just one enough reason to use the NATIVE browser?

That's exactly what I also wanted to say.

OK, let there be some Nautilus/whatever LOCAL filesystem browser/file manager, perfectly NATIVELY integrated with system, with no ambition to even notice there's some Internet outside. And let it be AT LEAST SUCH capable and flexible as -sigh- ehm Window$ Explorer (!)
(BTW, OT: As of Debian Sarge, the Nautilus is not even close to be the simple file manager to give to our simple users, we use dead, doomed and buggy Gnome Commander instead.)

But does anybody here think, that Galeon/Epiphany/whatever, well ohh mighty NATIVE browser, will EVER catch on with Firefox in any single aspect of INTERNET BROWSER? And if anyone picks up single good feature that possibly Firefox dosen't have today, if it is viable, there will be a plugin in considerably short time (if there already isn't one).

I'm not saying that Firefox is perfect. But there is massive developement around and it already is nearly the best browser available. Galeon/Epiphany/whatever will probably never attract such a wealth of developers, testers and USERS. And that is the first must-have to produce healthy and vital program.

It is quite clear for me, that however NATIVE they are, users don't care! Users want the best available INTERNET BROWSER, and please be realistic enough to agree with me, that Galeon/Epiphany/whatever mighty NATIVE browser is not very likely to be the best available INTERNET BROWSER. Just because of what I said before.

I'd never give my users browser any worse than Firefox -because simply I want my users to have THE BEST POSSIBLE ONE. And as we slowly migrate from Windows, the Firefox @ Windows is logical predessor of Firefox @ Linux, as well as Thunderbird and OpenOffice.org. It's cool that my users are not forced to learn different application as they move to Linux. There's lot to learn anyhow, and no mean to make it any more difficult for them.

Working on just_another_average_browser will not help anyone in my opinion. If something changed and there will be something very bad with Firefox, then there'll be a reason. But today, I don't see any reason to give up my Firefox and use Galeon/Epiphany/whatever.

There are reasons, that are enough for someone to prefer Opera before Firefox.

Maybe I miss something important. CAN ANYONE GIVE ME A REASON I should use NATIVE browser over, wel, not native Firefox? If there's no such reason, then I don't like to say that, but they are dead. If they weren't tied up and distributed with GNOME, would somebody even notice they exist? Something similar as IE?