Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Krypton · Dec 30, 2003, 05:19 AM

Someone has built Konqueror for Mac OS X if anyone is interested. So now we have yet another promising but incomplete browser

Slightly more noteworthy is that the developer hopes to build KOffice next for OS X.

King Bob On The Cob · Dec 30, 2003, 09:55 AM

Oh Joy.

We already have a good browser based on Konqueror (Safari).

VEGAN · Dec 30, 2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by King Bob On The Cob:
Oh Joy.

We already have a good browser based on Konqueror (Safari).

However, Konqueror is better _FILE_ brower than Finder in many respects...

Nebagakid · Dec 30, 2003, 10:27 AM

NO BIANRY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?! ?!?!

VEGAN · Dec 30, 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Nebagakid:
NO BIANRY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?! ?!?!

I've spent most of the day trying to "make" one for myself... but...

clarkgoble · Dec 30, 2003, 03:57 PM

You can run Konquerer now under X11. This is simply a more "native" version. However I don't know if it supports drag and drop and its interface isn't that Mac-like.

The Finder still sucks with directories with large numbers of files. (I had one yesterday with 1500 files and trying to drag and drop brought my dual 867 to its knees resulting in them being dropped to the wrong place.)

Fothb · Dec 30, 2003, 04:20 PM

This was posted on Slashdot today (probably where the original poster here first read about it).

Slashdot's Mac OS X Konqueror Port Story

Please note that this is a non-X11 port! This means that soon we will be able to use KDE applications under Mac OS X without the need for X11. Seeing as Safari already uses the same KHTML engine that Konqueror has, some people might not be all that excited about having Konqueror ported. But the simple fact that this port would open the doors for Mac OS X native (non-X11) ports of any of the other KDE apps is quite nice.

ambush · Dec 30, 2003, 04:34 PM

so this is basically a slower safari?

Turias · Dec 30, 2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by ambush:
so this is basically a slower safari?

Well, while it will probably be slower and render things similarly, the feature-set will undoubtedly be different.

clam2000 · Dec 30, 2003, 04:36 PM

it not only is a web browser, but also a file, ftp, and ssh browser. THe other implication is that the coder mentioned that he was now going to focus on porting koffice.

(i'm working on compiling it, if/when I finish i'll post a binary.)

--will

bmedina · Dec 30, 2003, 11:31 PM

Also, it can do SMB browsing, supposedly much better than the Finder.

Sven G · Dec 31, 2003, 03:52 AM

Yes, it's Konqueror's power user features that could make it much better than the Finder and Safari together for many people, if more integrated (see "native" Qt) in OS X:

(click for larger image).

It's also very "rational" in its layout, IMO: something very suited for technically-minded people, thus, while still being intuitive enough...

Sven G · Dec 31, 2003, 12:37 PM

... And, as for KOffice, the advantages of having a native Qt/Mac implementation are enormous, especially within a possible perspective of a new independent office suite for OS X (and other platforms, of course).

Personally, I think that KOffice is - both currently and potentially for the future - more "Mac-like" than OpenOffice.org, not only from the look and feel point of view, but also because of being more modular, and, thus, also with more "office modules", both current and in development (see the KOffice website).

Here are two screenshots of KOffice 1.3, BTW (click for larger image, as usual)...

Of course, KOffice is less mature than OpenOffice.org on the MS Office compatibility front - but that should improve in the future, hopefully...

normyzo · Jan 1, 2004, 01:07 AM

I think that, in their euphoria, people are underestimating the amount of work it takes to port an office suite to OS X, even if it _does_ have a semi-native toolkit to use. There are nice things like event loop issues (the Cocoa event loop is like nothing Win32 or Unix has ever had), international input issues, etc, all the little things that Mac users expect. These are the hard things. Like always, it's a fairly quick job to just get something up and running, but for the average person to use it and get any worth out of it, now thats the near impossible part for a large codebase.

That said, I look forward to seeing what these guys can do with KOffice.

Dan

Sven G · Jan 1, 2004, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by normyzo:
I think that, in their euphoria, people are underestimating the amount of work it takes to port an office suite to OS X, even if it _does_ have a semi-native toolkit to use. [...]

That said, I look forward to seeing what these guys can do with KOffice.

I agree!

Currently, both office suites share some problems: KOffice, while more appealing from the look and feel point of view, isn't perfectly "mature" (some newer modules are even in an experimental phase), and OpenOffice.org, while already being a powerful MS Office alternative, looks very Windows-like from the OS X integration point of view.

Probably, anyway, Apple will make something new independently (iWrite, etc., maybe) - but choice (especially with free and open source options) is indeed a very good thing...

davecom · Jan 1, 2004, 09:42 PM

Anybody have any binaries?

normyzo · Jan 1, 2004, 11:31 PM

Please, dear God, does anyone have some binaries???

I must partially eat my words, it looks pretty good at this point in time, but until I get my hands on some binaries I won't know how functional it is for sure.

I look with cries of envy on how easy the guy said this was to port to this stage, with OOo we're not really near that far yet. I spent time re-writing the event handling system a couple of times to get it right for Cocoa, but ATM the complexity and feature-full-ness of OOo is something that is standing in the way of getting a native port. It will take a longer time to get a nice native office suite for OS X out of OpenOffice.org, but it has more features and better compatibility than KOffice. Still, aside from the toolbars, the screenshots look pretty good.

Dan

clam2000 · Jan 2, 2004, 12:00 AM

some news on the email list is that it now builds with native aqua control elements:

see the Screenshot

--will

Krypton · Jan 2, 2004, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by clam2000:
some news on the email list is that it now builds with native aqua control elements:

see the Screenshot

--will

Now that is great - Mozilla's aqua widgets are just graphics as far as I can tell.

normyzo · Jan 2, 2004, 10:25 AM

It looks like, even if they _are_ using native Aqua controls, they still aren't letting the controls themselves draw the text. Note how the text in the popup menu in that screenshot is off-vertical-center... Still, grabbing a bitmap of the control is not all that bad of a way to get easy, quick Aqua controls.

Nebagakid · Jan 2, 2004, 10:33 AM

kate?

MacGorilla · Jan 2, 2004, 10:35 AM

Kate builds but is buggy as all get out. Like click on a button and it crashes.

Krypton · Jan 2, 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Kate builds but is buggy as all get out. Like click on a button and it crashes.

Now that's my kind of software

(The bomb app in the developer tools is fairly old now anyway)