> Love using qutebrowser. Really an amazing opensource browser! The only extension necessary for me was adblocking and now it's even better!
Yay, glad to hear that!
> I did/continue to have issues with qt-webengine though, like 144hz monitor with qt webengine is limited to 60hz but these things are unrelated to qutebrowser.
I'm assuming you're already aware of it, but for context, here's the related Qt bug: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-76006
> In fact most of my "bugs" can be related to upstream qt webengine and wayland support. I feel bad for the authors of qutebrowser for so often getting issues that is actually an upstream bug in qt.
It's not that bad, qutebrowser also has more than enough bugs on its own :D
Jokes aside: If I can reproduce something myself, I'll gladly report it upstream. If possible in any way, I'll add a workaround to qutebrowser. Sometimes neither is the case, then I'll close those bugs asking the reporter to report them upstream directly.
> It doesn't help that qt webengine work is rather slow (imo)
Yeah, it is. It's a relatively small team working on QtWebEngine, and even just keeping up with Chromium changes (and backporting security fixes) is a monumental task. When they update their Chromium snapshot (a subset of the entire Chromium tree), often there are millions of changed lines, and I've heard they regularly need around a person-month or so to adjust their stable API to those changes.
Still, there are only very few alternatives to it, and there's no way qutebrowser could shoulder this kind of work directly (by e.g. being based on Chromium's source, something people did suggest in the past).
> There's magic about pressing "o" and typing in what you want to search from history or Google which is so fast and efficient. I have tried similar setups on other browsers but in qutebrowser the search algos are so simple and snappy, it works great. My colleagues sometimes were amazed at how fast I could navigate across the browser all thanks to this great software
Hehe, yeah! There's a lot of logic people want to add to that (e.g. sorting by frequency weighed in rather than just recency), but all of that has the potential of making things much less snappy. I kind of like the simple approach, but I'm also open to improving it if it can yield even better matches without sacrificing performance. It's a hard balance to strike sometimes.
> Thank you qutebrowser!
You're welcome!