Slashdot Mirror

Or Opera...

Actually, it's not quite true that Opera renders the same way regardless of the "identify as" setting. Certain "features" are added/removed depending on the setting.

Nothing too vicious, but for example if you choose "Identify as MSIE 5.0", calls to the JavaScript object document.all will be successful. If you choose "Identify as Opera", the same calls will fail. It's explained in detail here.

I think it matters becuase a ton of slashdotters use IE, whether they admit it or not. And for those folks who do use it, they might not have the auto-update turned on, and therefore might not know about the update any other way. Of course they all should be using Opera. . .

Note that it doesn't actually let you remove parts of Opera, just disable them. But that doesn't matter. Opera's emailer, newsreader and IM client are all so tiny.

But anyway, how the heck can you talk about bloat when the full Opera download is about 3 MB, including everything?

"theming and customising Opera. Could you do this from the menu bar? NO!"

Again, the Opera Composer does not add anything, it lets you change the default install. I hope I've made myself clear :)

"At the time, everybody was haranguing Mozilla for being too slow and bloated, yet here was the supposed champ of lightness and fastness forcing you to get extra programs to slim it down!"

Opera support will actually tell you that libXm.so.2 is Motif. It even says so in their FAQ!

Just look at:

http://www.opera.com/support/supsearch/supsearch.c gi?options=index&name=621

Now please stop trolling willya!

Opera 6.02 for Windows is missing support for bookmarklets. If you use bookmarklets, skip this release and go back to 6.0 or 6.01.

This is sad because while Opera never supported advanced DOM2 bookmarklets, it supported simpler bookmarklets better than other browsers. For example, clicking a bookmarklet in Opera would not cause the page to stop loading, and changes made by bookmarklets would not be lost after hitting the Back button like they are in other browsers.

Rant: first IE 6 doesn't support bookmarklets longer than 508 characters, and now Opera 6.02 doesn't support them at all. Recent versions of Mozilla have a bug where windows created by bookmarklets end up behind the current window (108394) and a bug that prevents the linked-images bookmarklet from working on porn sites (123293). I'm frustrated. Regressions suck.

Well I ****ed that up didn't I? The link is here.

The new Windows version includes a module for
I've been using Opera for about 18 months now. I use it all the time at work on Win NT, I haven't touched IE for months.

When I was working on e-commerce stuff it was much better for testing stuff, better standards compliance, right-click validate HTML option, useful JavaScript error messages (unlike IE), etc.

The "hold right button/click left" for back and "hold left/click right" for forward have become indispensible.

I also use it as my main browser on Linux at home (using it now), occassionally use Mozilla to check the look of pages, but Opera's number 1 for me.

The hotlist is useful too. Can set up a page of links to include in the sidebar, or using the integrated news client, browse USENET groups easily. I've got the Slashdot headlines in there as well.

The MDI knocks spots of IE and even the tabbed browsing of Mozilla/Galeon.

Along with <a href="http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net">Fluxbox&l t;/a>, it's one of my most valuable pieces of software.

Uh, they made a version of Opera 5 for the PPC. I expect that a PPC build of Opera 6 will be released shortly.

Here's Opera 5 for LinuxPPC

Case in point, Linux/PPC is my main platform. Guess Opera just isn't an option for a lot of us.

You have your PPC binaries here. At least it is an option for you.

About 55, I'd say.. This from opera.com
Of 100 employees (December 31, 2000) 55 worked within Technical Development.

Enjoy.

you might consider using a 'decent' browser like opera. it allows you to disable the loading of animated gifs. give it a try...

Take head my son, Google itself holds the answer to this and many questions.

I'm seriously considering founding a religion based around google.

btw, rather than screw with registry settings to make IE conform, may I suggest you use Opera. It comes pre-configured to search google and many others. I use Opera with Javascript etc. turned off and only load IE when I find a page the requires that stuff. That system seems to work well.

Free Ads =)

Actually, I like Opera so much that I bought 2 licenses for the same box (win32 and linux partitions) even though think it's really silly for me to have to pay $15 extra bucks for the extra license.

OTOH, Opera saved more $$$ in time not wasted that it had paid for itself several times over in the first week. Paying for software that makes my life much easier and frees up time for me to make even more cash isn't Evil at all ;)

Mozilla's works good, but Opera's had that for a long time too. Prefer using it most of the time :)

Opera

Opera. Like it so much I paid for it. 'nuff said

install Windows (ouch)

run IEradicator (wonderful little IE remover available here), and make sure Outlook is gone too

install ZoneAlarm, and make sure not to give net access to any MS apps

run Opera and Eudora

enjoy! If evil bureaucrats force use of Exploder/Outlook, install them (after the forcible extraction in step 2) and use only when necessary, giving them one time access privileges only.

Opera cured that problem quite effectively. Since I started using it as my main browser, I can't remember finding a page where back wouldn't work properly. It ignores scripts that try to take it over, and it tracks documents-in-frames properly too, you can go forward and back independently in different frames on framed pages.

• With its monopoly market share, Microsoft has a nearly 100% safe revenue stream. It can afford to develop and then give away IE. We've seen before how well a company without monopoly power can survive with such a plan. Microsoft used its monopoly power to undercut competing browser makers, ensuring that they would never be anything more than niche players.
• By bundling IE with Windows, Microsoft makes the giving away of IE virtually mandatory. If you get Windows, you get IE. If you get a new computer, you most likely get Windows. This is, admittedly, convenient for end users who just want a good browser, but it makes it yet more difficult for third parties to compete.

It sounds like Opera is your browser of choice.

You call Mozilla fast? You might try Opera and see what 'fast' really means...

Opera - truly wonderful.

• So how long after Mozilla goes gold are we expecting Opera to stay around? You can't make money when another product is [better than/"good enough" relative to] your product.

Opera is adware; you can download and use it for free, but there's an ad banner in the toolbar. Actually I don't find it particularly obtrusive, but I have registered Opera nonetheless. However, Opera has a very strong presence in embedded systems, and is the standard browser on some new Nokia phone (check opera.com for more precise info; I can't recall the exact details).

The main advantage Opera has is how lightweight it is, as mentioned by another poster. This makes it ideal for mobile devices and slow computers. Also, remember that even if Mozilla had/gets all the features Opera has, I'm still not sure I'd switch. I find Opera's increased responsiveness (perceived or not) to be a strong motivation to keep using it over Mozilla. Maybe I just don't like programs that make my computer feel slow...I'm running an Athlon ~900 MHz with 512 MiB of RAM. If I had less RAM, I would also possibly choose Opera because it's been running all night and has six window tabs open (my site, submail.net, mozdev.org and three slashdot windows), and it's using 21,252 kiB of memory. Mozilla, which I just opened, has only two windows open (one of them my extremely lightweight site and the other the slashdot front page) and it's using 21,772 kiB of memory.

Depending on your needs and preferences, Opera and Mozilla have different attractions. I imagine Opera will remain in contention on the desktop for some time to come, but probably it will eventually fall from fame to some degree. In the embedded market though, it's got a decided advantage, and quite a headstart.

As for "You can't make money when another product is [better than/"good enough" relative to] your product"...why do you think that? I mean, take the obvious example of Windows 2000 Server and Linux. Microsoft still seems to be making a lot of money. Also remember that Opera is more targeted to Windows users than Mozilla is (at least, that's the impression I get). While breaking into the IE market on Windows is pretty hard, it's becoming easier due to Microsoft's appalling track record with IE--new holes are being reported literally every week on The Register , for example. I'm not sure about this last point, but I feel Windows users may also be more willing to pay for something than Linux users, since most of them are using a proprietary OS in the first place.

Just some thoughts. Personally I think Opera will maintain a presence on the desktop, but Mozilla and IE will comprise most of the market share.

Or why not go with Opera. They've had the function for quite some time and I must say that it's been efficient.

Quick preferences (F12 on Windows) -> Refuse Pop-up windows.

In some cases, people are not even asked whether they want the software. It just installs on the hard drive--a particularly troublesome tactic that some have dubbed "drive-by download."

The concern about viruses is, I think, a very legitimate one. I'm just glad I use Opera, which wouldn't let them do that, I think. Other browsers (Mozilla? Konqueror?) might be just as good, but I haven't tried them.

Yes, I have VPC/2 and I am running OS/2 @ home. I only need Win32 if I get an application (like tax application in Germany or a library application) I can not use with ODIN.

This happens only five times a year and for all other my wife and myself use OS/2!

Some examples:

• Communication with ADSL or/and ISDN, to FidoNet and the Internet.
• Answering machine
• Programming with jEDIT on a native Java aplication.
• Exchanging Sounds and songs with AudioGalaxy/2 or LimeWire in the GNUtella network
• Word processing, Using Spreadsheet or Layout application with Papyrus or StarOffice 5.1a.
• Web Browser like Mozilla or Opera
• ...and many, many more

My source is www.os2.org and as long as I can work with OS/2 I will do it because it is fast, rock solid and it has a nice GUI the *nix community could learn from!

Not need to be installed (no tampering with the system).

Be able to import Eudora adress books.

Be as small as possible.

Have an easy-to-use adress book.

Be freeware if possible.

Be configurable (looks, fonts, etc.).

Be able to handle multiple accounts.

Be able to read/remove HTML.

Pegasus and Eudora was both too large, so the list was narrowed down to:

Kaufman Mail Warrior.

Opera browser mail.

Poco mail

The bat!

i.Scribe

After trying these clients out separately for a while, I came to the conclusion that Poco mail fitted my list best. Not that it was outstanding in any way, the bat! and Kaufman was almost as good. I didn't like the interface of the bat though, and Kaufman, though very nice, had some problems with replying to HTML mails. The only things with poco that didn't fit my wish list is that it is not free and that it needed installation. Otherwise great program. I will be keeping an eye on Kaufman MW though. If some small details are improved, the client will rock.

If you know another WIN32 mail client that fits my wish list pretty close, please tell me. (Never satisfied :)

That's right, it's blank.

Now try it in Opera. What a surprise! That's blank too...

OK, try again. What about Mozilla? Blank again.

Last shot, let's try Dillo. No, that's blank too...

Wait a minute. Why hasn't any other Slashdot reader noticed this already? You can't all be using Internet Exploder, can you?

(we're all using Opera, I tell ya... Opera!)

In case you didn't know, Opera will only send information voluntarily. Opera doesn't harvest anything. You can set up your ad preferences to receive targeted ads, but these are disabled by default. The user actually has to enter information manually, and the information cannot be traced back to the user. In addition to this, Opera has run user surveys to find out who their users are. Cydoor have simply picked this information up from Opera's web pages.

Not only that, but Opera doesn't contain a single line of Cydoor code. The ad module is 100% written by Opera's own developers, and the only thing the ad module does is to download ads. It even sends and receives information from the ad servers in plain text, so anyone can look at what is being transmitted.

But that's not all. Cydoor no longer produce spyware. There is a myth online which never seems to die, and that is that Cydoor are into spyware. They did spy on their users at one point, but not anymore.

Your lies about Opera are, frankly, disgusting. You can even see what Opera writes about this and read exactly what the ad module in Opera actually does. But you don't care about facts, do you?

Gnome+Opera is a great combination, despite Opera using Qt!

Check Opera's own specs for a shameful list of omissions, specifically the woefully undersupported DOM.

Check Opera's own specs for a shameful list of omissions, specifically the woefully undersupported DOM.

They actually released their first version 6 beta 1 a while ago.

browser war between Mozilla and Konqueror?

yes, both are excellent browsers, but I was pretty sure that Opera has at least as large of a share as Konqueror on *n*x desktops.

Sure, the free version has ads, but it's still free, and it seems to render sloppily coded IE-compatible/W3C-incompatible pages with more flair than either of the other two. Opera recently released the TP3 of their version 6, and it is excellent.

just a note.

I doubt that it will be enough for WINE developers to catch up with Win95. No one uses the out-of-the-box version of Win95 anymore, do they? There's all sorts of updates you need to get your software running and, yes, those updates include additions/changes to the API.

Yes and no. There are a lot more people than ever before using that MS-VMS^^^^^NT^^XP brand of OS than before, but a great many people still use win 9x^^CE^^ME. And the vast majority of programs still run just fine on 95OSR2. The key framework of the API is there in 95OSR2. 98 adds some bugfixes (which you can download anyway, and actually aren't all that common - the real F-ups seem to come from the application division) and "Active Desktop" aka "Active Pain in the Rear" which gets chopped on a lot of machines anyway. ME adds little of note beyond the removal of the "DOS" Mode boot option. If you don't run one of these MS programs you may not be able to run other MS products, but your ability to run world class applications that don't try to take over your computer like Pegasus Mail, Opera, StarOffice, etc. should be just fine. If they can keep DirectX less than a year or two behind I won't even need to reboot for games anymore.

A good solid WINE/Win95 compatibility would allow a lot of people to switch to a Free OS (gratuitous link) and quit paying the microsoft tax with minimal impact.

the "user experience" is very smooth. I wouldn't want to use anything else

(Although, for the record, I found installing Ximian to a Mandrake 8.0 system kinda messy... I eventually reinstalled Mandrake without any Gnome packages, and then installed Ximian over that. It's worked fine ever since.)

Galeon simply has a smaller resource footprint and a better user interface

In short, Galeon is good, but Opera is better. But either one is far better than Netscape (although Mozilla is finally getting good) or MSIE (although I still keep a copy under VMware because some websites (like my bank) still won't work well with anything else. Hmmm... maybe it's time to get a better bank...

From here, which is from your link:

Opera does not collect and send information about you, nor your computer, nor which sites that you visit.

all the more reason to stop using MSIE, and use Opera instead. IE and MS generally sucks and I could'nt wait for MS to offer OS-only Windows if they lose the trial.

At least IE's CSS support works right, which the OSS community seems totally unable to do.

A-fucking-men.

I have a website / community that I built.
It has about 1200 users, sees some decent traffic, is a nice enough place.
There are a bunch of custom options, and I'm rewriting the site to use dynamic stylesheets.
I tend to surf with Opera.
I love it - esp. the no-popup option.
But it can't handle custom classes in stylesheets.
And that pisses me off.

Ha, ha

"Opera will be a good browser when it supports all the latest HTML/XHTML standards and CSS. Until my (100% properly coded and W3C validated) websites render as perfectly in Opera as they do in Mozilla and IE, Opera can't really be classified as 'the best browser out there.'"

I'd say that you're either a lying sack of shit, or someone who don't know what they're talking about. (Take your pick!)

Yes, and it is also less bloated. As a bonus, you get mouse navigation which is hard to live without, after a while. When using IE/Moz, I find myself constantly right clicking and waving the mouse to perform magic. Without success.

Tabs are a nice idea, but they're still quite immature in Mozilla. For instance, they don't close in the correct order, so they're no substitute for real tabs or MDI, as found in Galeon or Opera.

I accept that Mozilla is still in development, but many good ideas that make the GUI work better (like this one) are actually being turned down.

Something else that reminds me of this is there is no Apply button in the Themes Preferences dialog box.

I'm getting into many bad habits using Mozilla's interface, and when I go to use something that works properly I find myself doing what I would've done in Mozilla, and it doesn't work (and nor should it). It's a bit like people who double-click on web links. :-)

It seems to me that Mozilla's GUI is made to pacify Netscape 4 users, rather than making it as usable as it should be. I think this is bad for several reasons, not least because Netscape 6 still has a smaller market share than Netscape 4, so Netscape 4 users aren't migrating at all! To me this means that:
a) some users are sticking with Netscape 4
b) some users are moving to Internet Explorer or something else, because they're better, regardless of the menus being somewhat different

Maybe this shows us that open-source projects really need to spend more time on proper GUI guidelines, because as much as I hate products made by certain other companies (that one that makes Windows in particular), I find their apps much easier to use (when they don't crash, etc.).

I think I'm going to end up using Galeon or SkipStone, because the Mozilla rendering engine seems quite good -- it's the GUI holding Mozilla back (regardless of how pretty the "Modern" theme is!).

Having said this, I'm still downloading 0.9.9 :-)

Basically, many webmasters are ignorant, or even arrogant enough to ignore standards compliance. Those who fail to see that standards compliance is the way forward, will have painted themselves into a corner. The cost of completely re-doing a site which has been carefully written specifically for IE and all its non-standard extensions and quirks, could potentially lead to more dot.com deaths. This is a good thing! People who don't care enough to inform themselves don't deserve to do business. Am I being harsh? Perhaps, but being an avid user of alternative browsers, I am tired of fighting with arrogant web designers who don't understand what they are doing.

Finally, we will see who has the foresight or the insight to survive this.

Grim predictions aside (I may have been a bit negative above), this naturally benefits users of alternative browsers. Mozilla and Opera will both be able to display more pages than before, and their user base will probably grow rapidly because of this. After all, the feature sets of these browsers are far superior to IE from a user's point of view (disclaimer: This is a personal opinion based on my personal preference. Ok? Please, no browser wars).

Note that I am not even bashing IE here. The good news is that this can be cheaper for online companies in the long run, since it will pay off to write standards compliant code, rather than writing specifically for only certain browsers. MSIE 6 has decent standards compliance. The problem is the proprietary extensions used so extensively instead of the W3C counterparts.

This becomes even more important now that handheld devices are becoming more and more popular. We will see a significant increase in the number of devices used by consumers, and these devices will be using alternative browsers as well.

It basically boils down to this: The browser market is diversifying, and if AOL decides to go with Gecko, this will speed up this process. It will not be a nice transition. Many may find that they have major problems due to "IE-centric" code on their sites.

AOL may not be doing this because they desperately want to get rid of IE or because they want to support alternative browsers (who knows, there may be many reasons, perhaps these play in as well). Nevertheless, for once, it would seem that the consumer - the user - benefits from such a drastic move.

If AOL are indeed planning to move from MSIE to Gecko, that is...

>It's either that or forever be in bondage to Gates... it won't be long now I'd bet.

Ever heard of Opera?

Qt, made by the trolls! as used by Opera and The worlds best open source desktop enviroment KDE! Gtk is a crap tool kit and it only lets you write crappy little applications and silly little image editors (GIMP), but you can see what a fucking mess this is!

opera mozilla

• Myth: KDE is more integrated than GNOME
  
  Reality: The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is given - the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE, and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It's nonsense of course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to Windows XP, and certainly not compared any version of the Apple Mac.

• Myth: KDE is easier to use
  
  Reality: Again, such nebulous arguments are never explained, and the reader is expected to simply understand the truth. Both KDE and GNOME have user-interface irritations (indeed, all systems do) - but "ease of use" is not a simple thing to measure. What about application (see GNOME apps later) installation and removal: GNOME has the excellent RedCarpet by Ximian , which makes the installation, removal and updating of applications trivial. KDE users are expected to fend for themselves with brutal command line driven systems. GNOME also has the excellent Ximian setup tools to handle various very tricky cross-platform and potentially risky system configuration operations - KDE offers a few small half-assed Linux-only tools, which make no attempt at check-pointing to return to known working configurations.

• Myth: KDE is more popular
  
  Reality: In what sense? Arguably more people use KDE - but it is a close run thing. Most KDE zealots claim the results of online polls as proof of their superior userbase... which is, quite frankly, complete and utter nonsense. Online polls are the joke of the century; it doesn't even require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless. A single post on a zealot-ridden site can reduce the result to a running joke. Popularity is also difficult to measure when both GNOME and KDE are frequently installed on the same system - and indeed, can co-exist except for certain applications such as panels. Many KDE users actually run GNOME applications for their superior features and stability.

  One of the few solid measures of popularity is the adoption in commercial use - and here, GNOME is far ahead. Both Hewlett- Packard and Sun Microsystems have committed to using GNOME as the desktop for their Unix systems. This ties in with the previously mentioned ease of use - Sun's major contribution to the GNOME effort is in the areas of user/developer documentation, testing, accessiblity and user-testing. Three of the less glamourous parts of desktop development. The arrival of the GNOME 2.x series will see these contributions reach fruitition and allow GNOME to make a quantum leap ahead of KDE in most of the basic computer/user issues.

• Myth: Konqueror is the best Linux browser
  
  Reality: Oh for a penny every time this lie is told in any KDE story! Konqueror is a fine piece of software - it's authors deserve plently of praise - it is, however, quite unreliable and lax in its support of basic web standards compared to either Mozilla or Opera . It is also extremely slow - slower than the latest incarnations of the GNOME Nautilus filemanager/browser.

• Myth: KDE applications are better/more advanced than GNOME ones due to the ease of developing in C++ using the Qt toolkit
  
  Reality: See also: Qt/TrollTech. Easily the most common wail heard by KDE developers - and yet it is easily disproved by looking at the actual applications for GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt . KDE applications often have larger version numbers than GNOME ones... an old trick played by commerical software developers. Most KDE apps seem to jump for 1.x releases long before they are ready - KOffice being the best example. None of the components in Koffice are worthy of a 1.0 release, let alone 1.1 or 1.2. GNOME applications wait longer and get more testing in their 0.x stages and despite shorter development phases mature more quickly and reach stable featureful release states more quickly: the superb Evolution (groupware/email), Gnumeric (spreadsheet), Pan (newsreader), The GIMP (image manipulation), Abiword (word processing), RedCarpet ,X-Chat (IRC client), XMMS (media player), Galeon (web browser), and for developers: Glade , Anjuta . All of these packages ooze quality, far outclass and are, at least, 18 months ahead of their KDE/Qt counterparts. It's not only in the area of user applications that GNOME is lightyears ahead, with the forthcoming 2.x a number of impressive behind the scenes technology will finally mature: component technology (bonobo ), media (Gstreamer ), internationalisation (pango ). As a developement platform, GNOME 2.x is, frankly, years ahead of KDE. And what's more, it is not tied to a lowest common denominator cross-platform bloat-fest like Qt. Yet despite all this, we are still fed the lie that Qt and C++ makes development easier. Judge for yourself.

• Myth: KDE is faster and/or takes less memory than GNOME
  
  Reality: KDE is written in C++. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it is when the programmers do not know enough to avoid certain pitfalls that can plague software projects. Stupid use of ++/-- with C++ objects; masses of unnecessary allocations and deallocations of memory, and the most cretinous of all, blaming the extremely slow startup times of KDE apps on GCC. The GNOME 1.x releases were hardly svelt (2.x fixes many of these issues), but GNOME is a fashion cat-walk superwaif when compared to KDE's 500lb fat-momma cheese-burger scoffing trailer trash. One need only look at the recent fuss over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) to see the problem inherent in the KDE architecture and basic design.

• Myth: GNOME development is slower. KDE releases faster.
  
  Reality: Fundamental misunderstanding. KDE releases as one big lump of code due to its use of C++ and the consequent problems with libraries. It bumps the version number of the entire KDE system for the smallest modifications. GNOME, on the other hand is componentized and each component releases on a (almost) separate schedule, bumping it's own version number but not the main GNOME version. Occasional releases of the entire GNOME system are done, and that's when the GNOME version number is bumped (currently it is 1.4). To see this in action, use RedCarpet and you will regular updates to GNOME components. GNOME development is not slower, it is in fact faster and more advanced. Lamers and newbies, however, fail to understand the advantages and just see KDE 1.1.1 followed a few weeks later by KDE 1.1.2. Wow! KDE roolz.

• Myth: TrollTech is a friend of Free software.
  
  Reality: Qt started out as non-Free. KDE developers knew this violated the GPL and are therefore untrustworthy. KDE core developers work for TrollTech. Expensive per developer licensing for writing closed-source with Qt. Labyrinthine licensing nightmare.

• Myth: Most good GNOME apps are actually GTK applications.
  
  Reality: Most KDE apps, such as those from The Kompany are actually Qt apps because they want to port to the more lucrative Windows/Qt market.

• Myth: KDE is attractive/GNOME/GTK is ugly
  
  Reality: Mosfet liquid theme is an ugly and unstable hack. GNOME GTk icons are of a far higher quality than the cartoonish and confusing KDE ones. Qt is basically a Windows-look on a Unix platform.