This comes from some discussion in reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kde/comments/6svk7w/qupzilla_is_moving_under_kde_and_looking_for_new/)

tl;dr There is no real need to replace one code by another by using the same name. That is not useful for any of the parts (Konqueror and QupZilla), neither for current final Konqueror users who will be put to extinction (it's not the same to install Konqueror and all its dependencies via a package manager than to clone a repo, find out the proper commit, and finally compile it satisfying all its dependencies and proper cmake configurations).

Unfortunately, I am not in the position to be the Konqueror mantainer, but the opinion of current Konqueror users, I think, should matter too.

--

I think we can easily agree on (explicit information is added for third readers; if you don't agree with any of this or sth is not correct, please say so):

- QupZilla being part of KDE is great news. I guess QupZilla will interact better with the rest of the KDE software (protocols, plasma and applications), and it will bring a browser to KDE, now that Konqueror and Rekonq are not mainstream for KDE users anymore.
- Konqueror development is basically stalled (although it revived recently because of its port to KF5).
- Konqueror mantainer, David Faure, is actually Dolphin's main developer and mantainer, and I infer that for him Konqueror is extra load that he is not super happy to be charged with. Nevertheless, he has done very good work all these years maintaining and porting it to kf5 (very much appreciated by some of us, at least).

--

Perhaps we may not completely agree on (or you may not have fully considered) that replacing Konqueror by QupZilla is bad for the two parts.

- Qupzilla's (and Konqueror's) git history will be messed up. Also KDE bugs referring to Konqueror will be messed up (which ones apply to which code?). Also QupZilla will start receiving new KDE bugs about implementing Konqueror features, bringing more noise to all this.

- Current people using Konqueror, and willing to continue using it, will have to go back in git history to locate its actual code, then compile it manually (including dependencies and proper cmake configurations). I would say this is not how >90% of final KDE users get access to their applications.

--

So, I think it's much easier and clean to keep these two applications separated, by using a different name, whichever it is.

Also, if maintaining Konqueror is troublesome and unwanted, which I can understand, I would propose to just keep it in legacy mode (i.e. unmaintained), removing it from Dolphin's mailing list and KDE bugs category, and instead associate it with another category that can be from now on not watched by any maintainer (perhaps at some point a new maintainer will appear, although this may not be very likely). This way David Faure does not have to be concerned about Konqueror anymore, while Konqueror users will still have an easy way to continue using it, if they wish so (at least until KF6 appears and a new porting is required).

--

I will open a bug in KDE with these arguments. It may be a good way to listen to other KDE devs and Konqueror users, if they want to say anything about this.

In the end, I will respect any decisions KDE devs make (as it cannot be otherwise), but I think, as a regular user, that keeping QupZilla and Konqueror separated is simpler and better.

Thank you.