j at bitron.ch
Sat Dec 11 01:54:45 PST 2004
On Fre, 2004-12-10 at 22:14 -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > Is there a difference between the Epiphany and Galeon packages?
> > Yes, they both seem actively maintained, but there is so much
> > similarity it just can't be a coincidence. The README's are almost
> > identical. Even down to the stupid jokes.
> > The have the same dependencies and offer the same features. It
> > must be that one or the other is a fork.
> > Does anyone know the details about this. Does BLFS need to carry
> > both?
> My apologies for replying to my own post, but googling turned
> up this:
> It seems there are some subtle differences between the two browsers,
> but is it enough to warrant carrying them both in the book?
Epiphany is a very simplistic yet powerful browser. Galeon offers more
preferences, possibilities to tweak, but its user interface is more
trimmed for power users. So it's probably a matter of taste to decide
between these two.
> BTW - It seems if BLFS is going to carry Galeon, we should
> consider going back to the 1.2 (stable) branch. Apparently, there
> were many more available features than in the 1.3 (unstable) branch
> that BLFS is using now.
And here is the caveat... Galeon didn't release an officially stable
version of Galeon2 even though they're developing it for more than two
years. I'd definitively not recommend putting the 1.2 branch back in the
book. It is not maintained, i.e. current versions of Mozilla/Firefox
probably can't be used as backend and it still uses gtk+ 1.2, that'd be
a step backwards.
Epiphany on the other hand is the GNOME's default web browser and they
release at least two times a year a stable version.
I'd recommend either putting both, Epiphany and Galeon 1.3, in the book
or just Epiphany.
Jürg Billeter <j at bitron.ch>
More information about the blfs-dev