155

Vlad Personally I prefer KDE over Gnome any day of the week. However, it would be much easier for the team to stick with Webkit + I’ve yet to use a chromium browser I like. (They all feel like a pretty UI on top of the engine, rather than a standalone browser. Even Vivaldi has a fair amount of chromium visible) My vote is to go with Gnome and Webkit. Stick with what you know, and end up with a browser rather than a chromium reskin.

Gnome + Webkit:

  • Existing knowledge and progress
  • Less transferable to other platforms
  • Feels like a new browser
  • Easy to keep the same UI design language

KDE + Chromium:

  • New territory
  • Better website compatibility
  • Chrome extension support (No Firefox)
  • Better support for media codecs and web standards
  • More portable
  • Would be difficult to match the appearance of Orion on MacOS
  • Less cohesive look and feel
  • Supporting a company who doesn’t value user’s privacy

    I personally would like to see Orion on Linux sticking with GNOME and running WebKit. Building with GTK would also give the added benefit of easily supporting convergence/mobile layouts. Additionally, there is already a WebKit-powered native GTK browser in Epiphany which can be used as a base/reference as Safari is for Orion on Mac.

    WebKit simply because there are enough chromium browsers already.

    Gnome please! My friend introduced Orion to me in anticipation of getting to use a proper WebKit browser on Linux, and with how great the macOS app is I've been looking forward to doing the same.

    One part of what makes Orion such an attractive option to me on macOS is the fact that it's based on WebKit, which increases the diversity in browser engines. I also in general just prefer the GNOME design language - it's cleaner and more user friendly, and looks like it was designed by designers instead of developers.

    On Linux I would use Epiphany, if it wasn't so damn slow and crashy. I'm kinda forced into using Firefox. But Firefox uses its own design language, so it doesn't really feel "at home" anywhere, and there's loads of tiny little visual bugs that add up to a million paper cuts. To work around this I use the Firefox GNOME theme because it looks so much better than Mozilla's skin. I would love to use a browser that really feels like it belongs on the platform it's on, like Orion on macOS.

    (Slightly OT but if being platform-native is a goal then should QT's portability to Windows be a concern at all? I haven't seen a sleek native-feeling app for modern Windows built with QT, they tend to feel clunky and old)

    A vote for Gnome/GTK from me. From an objective-ish standpoint (well, as objective as I can be as someone who has used both Gnome/GTK and KDE, and generally prefers Gnome/GTK):

    • Gnome is the default DE in many of the "mainline" distributions - Fedora, Ubuntu etc. If you just go and download a default distro, most will give you Gnome. Native look-and-feel integration there is likely to help with user acquisition.
    • Epiphany gives a starting point (if the license is acceptable - not looked at it, I guess that might be GPL)
    • Qt gives an easier pathway towards Windows in the future, although I guess there's a wider question over whether there's any differentiated value in building "another Chromium" for Windows at all - Edge(ium) is installed by default on Windows, Chrome is a few clicks away.
    • The Linux market/audience is difficult to crack, and there is a risk of some blowback - in Linux, a lot of users generally expect software to be open sourced, and will likely focus in on this aspect, rather than on the browser itself.
    • Shipping the browser with Flatpak and AppImage options makes it easy for users to install without a native distribution package. Package maintenance adds a non-zero overhead and I'd suggest starting out with a "portable" method like this, rather than trying to figure out the lowest common denomenator of what the newest glibc you can safely target is etc etc. Obviously if you ship source code, then distrbutions can compile and ship binaries themselves, but then you lose any and all control over pushing out updates - most distros basically blind-ship all upgrades to browsers due to the security implications.

      The Linux market/audience is difficult to crack, and there is a risk of some blowback - in Linux, a lot of users generally expect software to be open sourced, and will likely focus in on this aspect, rather than on the browser itself.

      Yeah. Is it possible to have Orion for Linux open source from the start?

      If not, what's the blocker?

        spicysalmon

        If not, what's the blocker?

        We have created a lot of IP over the last 3 years, namely ported the webextensions API on top of WebKit. We would not like a VC funded competitor to just come in and swoop that before Orion establishes itself on the market (which it did not yet, with just 7000 active users). After we build a brand and presence, and can afford to hire team members to manage an open source of this magnitude, then yes, sure.

          Yeah, that makes sense. Would a well-tailored license fend off commercial vulturing?

          I'm not a partisan on the matter (nor a lawyer), just, thinking of stuff like GPL or MPL or maybe even BSL, to prevent weaponization back at you.

          Would this browser be compiled for ARM considering apple silicon machines running Linux are, well, running ARM linux?

          i would say absolutely webkitgtk simply because in my eyes, webkit makes orion special and different compared to all the other chromium-based browsers out there. there aren't enough webkit browsers. chromium is way too prevalent. if it were based on chromium, it'd just be yet another brave, vivaldi, edge, opera, or arc.

          also, in my opinion, gnome's human interface guidelines and general ui design is a lot nicer looking and more user friendly than kde's.

          I think in an ideal world WebKit would be a good option, but sadly Apple's proprietary fork of WebKit is significantly better (in the real world) compared to WebKit on Linux. Gecko is hard to separate from Firefox, leaving Chromium as the only real choice. I would totally prefer WebKit, but the webapp performance on Linux is too bad to ignore.

          In my mind, the entire appeal of Orion is that it allows the speed and efficiency of WebKit to be combined with the robust extension support afforded to both Chromium and Gecko-based browsers. While I personally like the design language of Qt, if using it means needing to pivot to Chromium on other platforms then, at least to me, it renders Orion kinda pointless on other platforms and makes it yet another Chromium browser, and there are already more than enough of those.