Galeon, Epiphany ready for a reunion

Nautilus is meant for file-management, and that's exactly what it should concentrate in. Adding web-browser capability would mean they'd have to add all the features in a modern browser to their codebase, making it a whole lot larger and more difficult to maintain. It would also mean that they would have to concentrate on improving two completely different things at all times. Plus, nautilus is already quite a memory hog and, as nautilus seems to imply, a huge beast. Then it would also be a bug-ridden web browser for God knows how many years. Does it still sound so good?

Tabbed view might not be a bad idea though, but I can't say more about that before I get a chance to actually try that.
-WareKala

Well, simply put: there's no need to. There already exists external programs which do the same things, so what would the point be in making Nautilus just use even more memory and make it bigger and more cumbersome by adding such features? Gedit is just the perfect tool for quick viewing of text files, and perhaps some editing, so what good would Nautilus gain from integrating the same functionality? People claim Gnome is bloated, but just compare it to KDE...

Oh, and just dragging a file over a shortcut on my desktop copies the file directly to my other computer over SFTP. So, nothing new there. And Konqueror has had those web browsing features etc a long time already, so they've had time to polish them a bit. But if the Nautilus crew were going to add those, they'd pretty much have to start from scratch, which again would bring along a whole bunch of bugs and unwanted side effects.
-WareKala

I've alway wondered why nautilus can't be like Konqueror or the Windows Explorer that allows to directly access web pages?

Because a file manager is a distinctly different beast than a web browser. (FYI, Nautilus *did* dupe as a web browser in the 1.x days, and it was no smashing success, to say the least.)

I personally use konqueror many times while I'm working in Gnome

Yes, isn't it great that you can mix and match apps between desktop environments? :-)

Here we go again, our daily troll is back...

If you think so much is wrong with GNOME(And it really seems like you think *EVERYTHING* is wrong with GNOME) why don't you just use another DE, or make your own, so that nobody can force their point of view on you .

You seem pretty eager to force you own points of view on everybody, luckily you are not a one of the developers, and thus have no power to do so.

Now go away.

Not that I actually found this person being a troll but I'll paste my two pennies.

• Integrated File Manager (Browser) and Web Browser is a good idea.
• This may or may not have actually failed for Nautilus as it is still an available feature, depending on how you compile it.
• In all such schemes to migrate a group of Windows users, there are large concerns with consistency, such as integrated browsers (Windows Explorer).
• Personally, I switch between many different browsers as I randomly find a reason to simply "use something different". Firefox, Galeon, Epiphany, Konqueror, Internet Explorer, Opera, Mozilla (Suite), Lynx, Links.
• You name it, I've probably tried it just because I felt like it. What am I more often to use? If I'm in Windows and have access, Firefox. If I'm in Gentoo Linux, I'll probably use Epiphany because it is more tightly integrated into the look and feel of Gnome.

Now, as for my point, this person has made a suggestion and is not necessarily trolling. Why should we be treating them like they are?

--
Ultimately, we all much sust out our own means to exist. We are all children of one God or another.

I don't know anyone personally who uses Epiphany. They all prefer Galeon or plain Mozilla. But all of them would rather use Epiphany than Firefox..Including me. For me it is mostly a matter of consistency: Firefox doesn't act and feel like a regular GTK program, simply because it isn't one.
-WareKala

I don't know a single person who *chose* Epiphany. It was forced on them.

And here's another one. Firefox simply does not integrate well into GNOME.

I don't know a single person who *chose* Epiphany.

I am one.

I moved from Mozilla (~1.0) to Galeon (1.2); I moved away from Galeon in disgust, when I found that it had more preferences than features - that is the same reason that moved me away from KDE (0.9 alpha, 1.0, 2.0) to WindowMaker/ION and then to GNOME (used it randomly from 1.0 to 1.4 before switching) - and got back to Mozilla. Then I choose Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox. Last month, I threw it away, when I realized that I had the most coherent desktop except for the browser; also, because most of my half-a-gig of memory was sucked by firefox.

I switched to Epiphany, and I don't regret it: it's lean, it's mean, it's faster than Firefox and, when I change my theme, it stays coherent with the whole desktop.

Firefox is never going to integrate well with Linux desktop environments, due to its being multiplatform.

Oh, and by the way: as for the version numbers of the software I've been using on Linux, you'll see that I'm what they call "a poweruser"; yet, I've more things to do with my computer than configuring my frickin' browser.

It was forced on them.

Every software forces the view of its creator(s) upon its users; it's the very nature of software creation.

Debian - Even Hell Freezes Faster. -- seen on #debian-devel

Are you trying to say that the parent poster is an idiot? If so, why? Just because (s)he doesn't share your views of the world doesn't mean (s)he is an idiot. Please be more polite.

If you're not calling the parent poster an idiot, the I've misunderstood your message. I truly hope that's the case.

I choose Epiphany over firefox, do it's simplicity and it's great intergration with my desktop.

Just for us lesser informed people, what are the history and difrences between emacs and xemacs? I always thought that xemacs was the X edition of emacs, like other xprogram: xclock, xeyes etc.

Whatever you think of RMS and his ideas, the man is clearly very intelligent. But as a manager... not so much. Emacs/xemacs, the gcc split, hordes of angry and disappointed developers (I'm still licking some wounds) - the early years of the GNU project were not always pretty. Even when RMS was technically correct - and he often was, his management and people skills still steered the ship toward disaster. The best thing the man ever did for his own GNU project was take two steps back from a technical role. Not everyone is cut out to be a manager. Things have gone more smoothly ever since...

Here's a decent overview of the Xemacs situation in particular:
http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/history_of_emacs_and_xemacs.shtml

Actually I think quite a lot of good code gets waisted in emacs (and xemacs) because of the awfull userinterface. Maybe one should pick up the code and make som gtk/emacs application...

Emacs CVS can already use GTK2 for its interface. We shouldn't be too far here from a final release.

I would imagine that most coders don't want anti-aliasing. The default X fonts are perfect, and when I go from Emacs to another window (which happens more and more rarely), that anti-aliasing is hard on the eyes.

Furthermore, why would you want to use Bitstream Vera? It only includes ASCII and the ISO-8859-15 characters. That means that if set that as your Emacs font and open any document with, say, Japanese kana or Cyrillic, it would just appear as white blocks. The GTK2 text field has font substitution, bu that's not really a solution, for a bizarre mixture of glyphs from different fonts is no substitute for a single, coherent, and well-planned typeface.

No, Emacs as it stands with GNU Unifont (including most of Unicode) set as the default font is where it's at.

I see your point. It looks like RMS have had his problems ruling the FSF.

Today, how much do he do software development? And is it still focused on Emacs? Because as you say, he's a really smart guy :D

What problems?

managing FOSS developers is like herding cats.