http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/item/229/
Epiphany is a very simple browser, more conforming to the spirit of GNOME, which lacks a lot of the features of Firefox. However, I think most people will probably not need Firefox' extra features and plugins. Those who do need Firefox could easily download it when Epiphany becomes the default webbrowser included out-of-the-box in Ubuntu. Ubuntu should aim for consistency, and Epiphany certainly is a better candidate than Firefox if consistency is the goal.

Epiphany currently uses the Gecko-engine for rendering, but will probably feature WebKit - http://live.gnome.org/Epiphany/WebKit - soon. WebKit would probably do a better job than Gecko.

Because somehow Ubuntu brainstorm says the Blueprint URL I gave isn't valid, I give it here in the text: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/epiphany-default-browser

[-558 votes] Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #229


]]> en-us Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:14:48 +0000 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:56:39 +0000 QAPoll module http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/229/ 1) failed to support some feature I commonly use (I'm thinking security features)

2) failed to correctly render pages that look fine in firefox or explorer. ]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:18:40 +0000 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:41:25 +0000
I think you'd be surprised.

Personally, I like that GNOME utilises Firefox as much as it does. I like KDE as well, but one thing I don't like is its insistence on providing its own applications for every task known to man, even when these applications are clearly inferior to third-party, still open source, alternatives.

I also agree with the above comment - Firefox brings familiarity to users who have migrated from other operating systems.]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:26:23 +0000 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:35:40 +0000
Why the heck are we reinventing the wheel? Surely there are more important things to be looking at?

A definitely thumbs down from me. ]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:01:50 +0000 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:31:13 +0000 It's the "same as in windows" so new users are happy to find something familiar in their brand new desktop.
And for extensions-lovers it's definitely not the right browser.
]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:16:36 +0000 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:51:46 +0000 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:35:33 +0000
Compared to Epiphany, Firefox is accessibility-challenged; it does not follow the user's theme settings and (being XUL powered) does not behave like any other application on the GNOME desktop. Its dropdown menus do not (and will not) have configurable menu accellerators, its toolbar buttons are all using Firefox's own theme and display settings, its menus and buttons all have Firefox's own localization instead of stock widgets. Because of XUL, Compiz needs an ugly workaround (any workaround is ugly) to properly recognize Firefox's menus as menus.

As well as just plain ugly, these are usability issues. When a major application such as the web browser behaves in a manner substantially different from any other application on the desktop, the features provided by that desktop environment (of which there are many) will be difficult to learn and understand. Another point against learnability when we use Firefox: Its icons are likely to be different if the user is not using the distro's default theme for each. This means that people will not get the connection between a particular image and the action that it always represents.

For accessibility, this is a huge issue. Here we have a web browser (I will stress: The most common application at this point in time) that will not change if the user needs a high contrast theme due to vision problems. Its font size will not grow if the user chooses a bigger font in the Font settings. Instead, he has to repeat that preference, again, in Firefox.

That is what we are trying to avoid here! GNOME (and Ubuntu, I hope) is all about having a cohesive desktop where one global setting can change the behaviour of every program, such that one does not need to spend more than a short moment making things work. With most of the GNOME applications, that is working beautifully.

Firefox, being a program clearly not built for GNOME, simply does not fit here as a default. As long as it is "Ubuntu's web browser", the default desktop will appear broken.

Granted, Firefox 3 is making progress, but most of the features users come to expect from GTK (and therefore Ubuntu) still do not apply with Firefox's XUL interface. At this point, Epiphany with the new Gecko or with Webkit is a much more consistent and intuitive choice.]]> Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:45:49 +0000
Yes, Epiphany feels more integrated already. Yes, it lacks some functionality, mainly for the mentioned reason. This is fixable though.]]> Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:44:07 +0000
I'd like to respond to some of the criticism.

Internet Explorer is the default browser on Windows, and still has the most market share - http://www.xitimonitor.com/fr-fr/barometre-des-navigateurs/firefox-juillet-2007/index-1-1-3-102.html - even though Firefox has a lot as well. This doesn't make the "familiarity" argument very convincing, because it means a lot of converts to Ubuntu will be ex-Internet Explorer users who have neither used Firefox or Epophany before. And "familiarity" is relative, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Epiphany all have an address bar, a back, forward, stop, home and refresh button. If you think that's what matters when using a webbrowser - and I do - Firefox users are already familiar with how they should use Epiphany. It's 'merely' the extra's which differentiate the browsers, in Firefox' case that's the extensions (and I already mentioned that the majority of the users don't use those extensions). And even if it isn't familiar, that not a strong argument against choosing the better application - Epiphany - as a default.

And I don't see how Epiphany would be "rammed down the throat" of users if it would be chosen as default. I could say the same of Firefox because that is chosen as default. Ubuntu is constantly making choiches for what should be a default, so phrasing it like that is strange.]]> Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:22:02 +0000
"Internet Explorer is the default browser on Windows, and still has the most market share... even though Firefox has a lot as well. This doesn't make the "familiarity" argument very convincing, because it means a lot of converts to Ubuntu will be ex-Internet Explorer users who have neither used Firefox or Epophany before."

I don't think that many Windows users suddenly go from using Internet Explorer, Microsoft this and Adobe that to using a free, open source operating system. I think in most people, they have already thought about the concepts behind the movement, and on that basis probably already use a FOSS browser, the most popular one being, of course, Firefox.

You're right to argue that including Epiphany as the default browser would not be ""rammed down the throat" of users", or at least it wouldn't be doing that any more than Ubuntu currently does with Firefox, but think about this: If Epiphany was made the default browser, how many users would download Firefox anyway? My guess would be at least three-quarters. Under the current arrangement, how many users download Epiphany themselves? Again, I can only speculate, but I am sure it is a lot, lot less.

We could also have this argument with Opera or any other browser, but because Firefox is the most popular FOSS browser (as your own statistics prove), it makes sense to include it by default.]]> Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:28:01 +0000 Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:39:31 +0000 Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:14:17 +0000 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:07:11 +0000 Most of the people i installed ubuntu with are replacing old windows versions on old computers and mainly want a clean uncomplicated and slick os. And they just love the search function in the address line.

I think it would already be a great advantage to have epiphan y installed by default if not the default browser. So people can try and find out it's way better without needing someone to point them to it and getting around the epiphany vs. epiphany-browser name confusion.]]> Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:13:10 +0000 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:38:31 +0000 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:52:52 +0000 >> "If Epiphany was made the default browser, how many users would download Firefox anyway? My guess would be at least three-quarters. Under the current arrangement, how many users download Epiphany themselves? Again, I can only speculate, but I am sure it is a lot, lot less."

Indeed, we can only speculate. The thing is, you cannot evaluate with numbers because most users are not even AWARE that epiphany exists, since Firefox is bundled by default. Maybe a lot of people would not bother downloading firefox if epiphany was installed, because it fits the use of a big chunk of the population.

Epiphany is the first thing I install on my computers, on those of my family and other relatives.

Its launch time (5 seconds, cold start) beats hands down Firefox 3's (15 seconds?), even on modern hardware.

Firefox is also an integration, usability and accessibility disaster, as others have explained above.

But then, I pretty must lost hope on this. Been trying to convince folks that epiphany should be the default, for the last two years, and it seems that most ubuntu users either don't care, or really don't want to give up their power-user, slightly more extensible browser for one that is simpler, better integrated and would benefit a lot of people. Just look at how this idea got modded down into oblivion in a few minutes/hours.]]> Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:59:54 +0000 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:29:32 +0000
Fan Boy Argument 1: People are used to firefox so lets keep it.

Well, using that logic why not run IE6 under wine? that is the most used browser.

But more seriously, you have to understand this is not an absolute argument, using firefox introduces many usability, accessibility and technical constraints, and there is also an assumption here in this fanboy argument that the user's conceptual model is currently the most suitable one (suitable here meaning fit for purpose - purpose depending on the context in which the interaction is occurring between the user and interface). Any interaction model is heavily influenced by the context in which the occurs, essentially using firefox in windows is not absolutely the same as using it under linux, so its not fair to state this fanboy argument is such absolute terms.

At the extreme I could argue many of the semantics are the same between the two applications. From a high level, the affordances of both applications are essentially the same.

Fan Boy Argument 2: If people want it they can just install it.

We should be trying to understand who are users are, and how we can best support them - support meaning enabling effective communication between the computer and the user, reducing the gulfs between expectation and actualities. We should be aiming to give the best experience to as many users as possible, the outstanding defects in firefox work against this goal.

Fan Boy Argument 3: I cannot use .... plugin.

Well, this is aimed at those fanboys who never contribute to open source. If you are not helping out an open source project, try filing some bug reports for missing extensions in epiphany, or even better write them. Alternatively, fix the many outstanding technical and accessibility defects in firefox, then i will listen to this argument. For other people who do an amazing job by contributing to open source software, I hope you understand that epiphany gets a fraction of the attention of firefox, and lack of extensions does not reflect an inferior application, just a less loved one perhaps.

]]> Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:49:02 +0000 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:09:41 +0000 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:55:18 +0000 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:42:25 +0000 Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:58:46 +0000 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:24:40 +0000 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:22:56 +0000
Epiphany Fan Boy Argument 1: using firefox introduces many usability, accessibility and technical constraints.

Answer: No, It doesn't.

Epiphany Fan Boy Argument 2: If you want familiarity install IE with WINE.

Answer: Now, this is ridiculous. Please don't try to undermine arguments by making up a straw man.

Epiphany Fan boy Argument 3: Firefox is not well intergrated to Gnome.

Answer: It has not stopped people from preferring firefox as default browser as you can see from the massive negative value this brainstorm idea got. Regardless, firefox 3 is going to fix this, thus this argument is not valid for not including firefox in the next ubuntu releases (considering the next release, Hardy is going to ship firefox 3)

Epiphany Fan boy Argument 4:
I don't want to install it myself.

Answer: It is clear most people prefer firefox over epiphany, it would be ridiculous to make firefox installation harder and call that an upgrade to usability. Firefox's "outstanding usability issues" are either non-existant or epiphany suffers from them as well. So it doesn't really make sense.


Epiphany Fan Boy Argument 5: If you are not helping out an open source project, try filing some bug reports for missing extensions in epiphany, or even better write them.

Answer: How about YOU do it? You are the one intending to make his favorite, feature lacking browser the default for no actual reason.


--
I know both browsers and use epiphany for local browsing of web pages. From my understanding there are barely two differences between firefox and epiphany:

- Gnome integration: To be fixed by firefox 3.
- Plugin support: Firefox got plugins, epiphany doesn't.

Under those considerations, I am glad the community kept its sanity and voted down this, terrible idea.]]> Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:34:58 +0000 Those new to GNOME and Ubuntu might not even know of Epiphany. If not installed instead of Firefox, it could be installed along with it.

People new to GNOME and Ubuntu have likely never heard of GNOME, Synaptic Package Manager, Add / Remove Programs that actually adds programs, Pidgin, Rhythmbox, F-Spot...


> Plugin support: Firefox got plugins, epiphany doesn't.

Actually, Epiphany does have plugins, though the Extensions manager has to be installed seperately for some reason (I recall there being a good reason for it somewhere). Just install epiphany-extensions. Epiphany's extensions are arguably superior since they can be written with C or Python (or really any language with the bindings), and can be enabled or disabled at will without restarting the browser. Installing them with a click needs work, but I imagine that could be done with an extension. Epiphany's extensions system is light-weight and tidy enough that they can double as a way to detach non-essential features from the core browser. The extensions are often subtle additions that interoperate well. Most of the things seen as Firefox extensions do not appear in Epiphany because the latter browser has a different design philosophy. Firefox is a sort of monolithic application, common to the Windows world, where there is an inexplicable urge for everything to exist within the same window and under the same process. (This is likely because Windows does an awful job with inter-process integration). Firefox is therefore similar in feel to an IDE, while Epiphany is a bit more like a glorified text editor.

My biggest issue with Firefox right now (and one of the reasons I stopped using FF 3) is its complete ommission of dbus for RSS feed subscriptions. Dbus is an extremely cool technology that lets applications talk to each other easily through a single messaging daemon, essentially permitting rapid development of integration APIs. The coolest part about dbus is how its availability is unique to the free software world, so one-size-fits-all applications rarely support it (since they generally target Windows). With Epiphany's News Feed Subscription extension, I can simply click the Subscribe button and have my open feed reader automatically updated with that new feed. Absolutely no need for extra configuration or button-pushing by me anywhere; it just works!

The really cool thing then is that the feed subscription thing is future proof, such that any program listening to my channel can see "hey, someone wants to subscribe to this RSS feed!", rather than just an arbitrary list of programs that exist at the time of the extension's creation. (In the future, this could include not just local applications, but applications on connected trusted devices as well).

Now, let's contrast this with Firefox's RSS subscription, where the selection of applications to subscribe with is limited to a few "chosen ones" and the system does not grow at all. Subscribing to a feed in, for example, Liferea, requires that I copy and paste the link or manually enter liferea-add-feed.

Have a Firefox extension for dbus-powered RSS subscriptions? Not that I can see...


> Epiphany Fan Boy Argument 1: using firefox introduces many usability, accessibility and technical constraints.
>Answer: No, It doesn't.

I elaborated on my comments, so it would be good if you did so with yours. Firefox requires kludgey workarounds from the wrong places so that its XUL menus are recognized as actual menus by the window manager. Drag and drop behaviours are inconsistent with the rest of the environment. Configurable menu accellerators are a powerful feature in GNOME completely ignored by Firefox. Global font size preferences? Toolbar preferences?

No, not a major issue if you limit your interest entirely to Firefox, but this influences the entire user experience! If Ubuntu's default applications all follow different UI guidelines and behave in ways that do not integrate (as is often the case at the present time), then a potential user will find the environment inconsistent and hard to learn. As well as painting Ubuntu as ugly, this injures usability in a very real way not just for Firefox, but for the environment as a whole since the user can not easily pick up on the magical features made available, and even if he does, he can not expect them consistently. With properly integrated applications built specifically for the environment (portability being a non-issue; this is not a one size fits all spaghetti-like mess), the user interface conventions of that environment can be anticipated at all times.]]> Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:03:52 +0000 Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:30:01 +0000 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:48:34 +0000 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:56:44 +0000
atleast I find Epiphany gr8 for my use :)]]> Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:59:47 +0000
Now before all those Firefox fanboys come out with flaming fists, I DO NOT support kicking out Firefox in favor of Epiphany, I just think Epiphany should be included in the default package that uses GNOME desktop.

"I like KDE as well, but one thing I don't like is its insistence on providing its own applications for every task known to man, even when these applications are clearly inferior to third-party, still open source, alternatives."

you are contradicting yourself here, next time learn what "THIRD-PARTY" means first. It's fine to include third party software, but kicking out native software for third party's? nope.

"Most people already know Firefox from Windows, its updated frequently and has good extensions. I see little reason to change when many websites will happily support Firefox but not officially Epiphany because its much, much, lesser known."

And most people from Windows knows how to install firefox, since it's not the default browser for Windows. So the fmailiarity argument is completely nonsense, if you argue about familiarity, then people should be most familiar with Firefox being not the default browser and installing Firefox themselves.

"People new to GNOME and Ubuntu have likely never heard of GNOME, Synaptic Package Manager, Add / Remove Programs that actually adds programs, Pidgin, Rhythmbox, F-Spot..."

Well said. One of the major point of migrating to a new system is to learn something new.

And I support Epiphany-Gtk for being the default browser in GNOME, I also think it'd be nice to include Firefox too.]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:23:01 +0000 Epiphany-browser is in the repositories. If such a browser is your preference, then download it and remove firefox the moment you install ubuntu. I just removed firefox 3 beta, and installed epiphany from the command line in under a minute.
If you're going to make the orthodox-FOSS argument that firefox isn't really really really free, then use gobuntu. That's what its there for.]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:14:53 +0000 Epiphany-browser is in the repositories. If such a browser is your preference, then download it and remove firefox the moment you install ubuntu. I just removed firefox 3 beta, and installed epiphany from the command line in under a minute."

By YOUR LOGIC, there is an even simpler argument...

Epiphany should be made the default browser in GNOME desktop environment since it is PART OF GNOME, and let people install Firefox from the repositories. And people migrating from Windows should be more familiar with it since they should be used to installing Firefox as a third party program.]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:19:40 +0000
Well, thats probably up to every distribution.

I just tested Epiphany with the Webkit backend (Debian Sids repo) and for me its just a big joke to a browser.

The Safari concept is ready and will directly turn Epiphany to a real browser and not a "Kindergarten" app, now Epiphany maybe can be default browser for Edubuntu and children.
]]> Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:05:52 +0000 Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:56:52 +0000
No, it makes far more sense to preinstall Firefox, as the only people who feel passionately about Epiphany are Gnome fans, who clearly already know how to use the repositories.]]> Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:30:07 +0000
People, we are discussing a "default" browser. The fact that you use xxxx extension is not a problem because you could always install firefox even if Epiphany is not available.

You should be surprized by how many user don't talk about Firefox, Epiphany or Internet Explorer but about "Internet".

Forget completely extensions or advanced features. People in my neighboorhood that use Ubuntu don't even know why sometimes I say Linux and sometimes Ubuntu. They don't even understand the difference between a .doc file and Internet : it's all a crazy computer stuff that they are forced to use.

According to my experience, in this configuration, Epiphany is better than Firefox. In fact they don't even notice that I change the browser (really, it's interesting to learn to see like average joe see a computer. They don't even see if I change the theme if it doesn't involve changing the colour) but I receive a lot less requests for help.

I strongly believe that we should study the question with open mind and facts, not sentiments. Such a study could be greatly beneficial for both browsers and for Ubuntu.]]> Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:39:10 +0000
FF3 fixes tons of these issues, like theme integration, speed, memory use, etc. While still being a much more capable browser.

Also, isn't Webkit still in development? Gecko is mature and well-supported, possibly more so than any other rendering engine.]]> Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:29:30 +0000
However much i like ephiphany i dont think it should be default. Also, look at the firefox roadmap, FF4 will be built on webkit.]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:05:39 +0000
(I'm kidding)

I think that every one here is used to use Firefox why change it?]]> Sun, 18 May 2008 12:21:58 +0000 Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:40:51 +0000 Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:33:46 +0000
@Nece228. Even if epiphany does though, Firefox integration can be improved via plugins]]> Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:24:30 +0000 Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:31:06 +0000
Existence of bugs wouldn't hold an open-source browser back. Epiphany isn't as buggy as you might think it is (considering the amount of Epiphany's bug-reporting users compared to Firefox), and Firefox is STILL buggy. Epiphany as the default browser of Ubuntu can open more doors for a good (and potentially great) browser. People saying that Epiphany has too many bugs and less add-ons are just chanting blah-blah. Usability and performance are the prime strengths of Epiphany, which I believe matches that of Google Chrome. Making it the default browser won't hurt. It doesn't mean Canonical would push Epiphany down your throats, it means they would just "promote" Epiphany's use. Firefox can still be installed anyway.

Epiphany is so underrated (and underappreciated) because for one, it is poorly "advertised," and users are still jumping on the bandwagon of whatever browser it might be. I bet one of the reasons why Empathy (GNOME app) is planned for realease in Karmic (instead of Pidgin) is because of the same reasons stated on why Epiphany should be Ubuntu's default browser. ]]> Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:30:22 +0000