Slashdot Mirror

Opera used to have a user friendly version called Unite ... conspiracy theorists say Facebook paid them to shut it down.
http://www.operasoftware.com/p...

And what does Opera have to say about all this?

Does this answer your question?

''The Opera Devices SDK provides an excellent end-user experience on Smart TV. With its support we have been able to fast-track the certification for premium content, encompassing specifications like Encrypted Media Extensions, and enabling superior rendering and rapid time to market,'' says Lou Schreurs, Senior Vice-President of Product Creation, Bang & Olufsen. ''It has helped us to deliver the high-quality viewing experience that Bang & Olufsen customers have come to expect from our TVs.''

Opera Devices SDK to power Bang & Olufsen connected TVs

although it's not open source and not free for purchase without advertisements, Opera 7 does everything the administrator says IE does but Firefox doesn't.

better, IE implements CSS2 more completely.

and it's available for Linux as well as Win32.

Opera runs on OSX!

On the last and final occasion that I downloaded this waste of code, I did so for my mother, for whom I was installing another lacking piece of software known as Windows XP. She doesn't like the lacking browser that comes integrated into the kernel of that lacking piece of software, so I offered to install this Mozilla thing instead. I downloaded the waste of code and installed it, and guess what happened? It fscked up everything in her account. Whenever you logged in, the computer would completely STOP responding and the only thing you could do was power-cycle it to get the lacking thing working again.

That's the power of Windows XP at work, in conjunction with the high quality of Mozilla.

Once again, let me emphasize what caused this lock-up:

• The power of Windows XP
• The high quality of Mozilla.

Luckily, I was the one who installed this Windows XP, and being sysadmin for several big UNIX boxen, I semi-automatically set up a second account, for maintainence, when I installed the so-called alleged operating system. I logged into that account, busted this stupid waste of code known in the state of Rhode Island as Mozilla off the computer, and then proceeded to use the other browser, that piece of junk that comes integrated into the kernel, you know, to purchase and download a worthwhile browser. It's called Opera and it is the best browser in the world. I have been using it since version 3 and highly recommend it. For those of you who don't want to pay for such a thing, you can still download it for free and use it for an unlimited amount of time, however there will be unobtrusive advertisements in the browser's toolbar. But after using it for a few days and realizing that it DOES make more efficient use of your network connection, whatever it might be, as well as providing other BENEFITS, you will WANT to pay for it. Trust me. I did.

My first conclusion is that Microsoft should purchase Mozilla and integrate it into the kernel, side-by-side with their existing Internet browsing solution, to increase the bloat of their fine Windows line of operating systems. Every call to a URL would select by random between the two browsers. And Microsoft would change their name to Microzilla.

My second conclusion is that the UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems that I use (including HP-UX, AIX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and IRIX) are superior to the operating systems currently shipped on the majority of personal computers.

On the last and final occasion that I downloaded this waste of code, I did so for my mother, for whom I was installing another lacking piece of software known as Windows XP. She doesn't like the lacking browser that comes integrated into the kernel of that lacking piece of software, so I offered to install this Mozilla thing instead. I downloaded the waste of code and installed it, and guess what happened? It fscked up everything in her account. Whenever you logged in, the computer would completely STOP responding and the only thing you could do was power-cycle it to get the lacking thing working again.

That's the power of Windows XP at work, in conjunction with the high quality of Mozilla.

Once again, let me emphasize what caused this lock-up:

• The power of Windows XP
• The high quality of Mozilla.

Luckily, I was the one who installed this Windows XP, and being sysadmin for several big UNIX boxen, I semi-automatically set up a second account, for maintainence, when I installed the so-called alleged operating system. I logged into that account, busted this stupid waste of code known in the state of Rhode Island as Mozilla off the computer, and then proceeded to use the other browser, that piece of junk that comes integrated into the kernel, you know, to purchase and download a worthwhile browser. It's called Opera and it is the best browser in the world. I have been using it since version 3 and highly recommend it. For those of you who don't want to pay for such a thing, you can still download it for free and use it for an unlimited amount of time, however there will be unobtrusive advertisements in the browser's toolbar. But after using it for a few days and realizing that it DOES make more efficient use of your network connection, whatever it might be, as well as providing other BENEFITS, you will WANT to pay for it. Trust me. I did.

My first conclusion is that Microsoft should purchase Mozilla and integrate it into the kernel, side-by-side with their existing Internet browsing solution, to increase the bloat of their fine Windows line of operating systems. Every call to a URL would select by random between the two browsers. And Microsoft would change their name to Microzilla.

My second conclusion is that the UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems that I use (including HP-UX, AIX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and IRIX) are superior to the operating systems currently shipped on the majority of personal computers.

I recently upgraded a Win box (yes, the shame) from Netscape 4.75 to 6.11 and it's a dog.

It depends on how fast your computer is and how much memory it has. Older computers with less than 300MHz processors and less than 64MB or RAM won't run Mozilla/NS6.x well. If you have an older computer that's low on RAM get Opera.

Is there much difference between the Mozilla 1.0 build and the Netscape 6.11? Should I have chosen native Win code during the install instead of "generic" code?

The Netscape version tends to run several builds behind the Mozilla version. This is because Netscape's people put together a custom build from the original Mozilla build and this takes time. Furthermore, the Netscape version is likely to be weighed down with a lot of AOL specific crap -- like custom themes, links, sidebars, and applications you don't need -- that will slow it down even more. Go to Mozilla's official website and download the latest build. It will have the latest bug fixes and improvements that won't make it into Netscape for weeks or even months.

Let's compare those to Opera now (v5.11):

Startup Speed: IE6. But only because it mostly starts up with Windows. Opera is a fairly close second, and Mozilla takes at least 10x as long.
Winner: IE

Interface: It's a matter of preference. If you like root-level windows for each page, Mozilla is better. If you like MDIs, Opera is better.
Winner: either Mozilla or Opera

Rendering Speed: Definitely Opera. Mozilla beats out IE by a bit, but Opera is much faster.
Winner: Opera

Image Rendering: Opera. It's damn fast.
Winner: Opera

Interface Speed: Opera and IE are tied. They're both win32 native speed. On slow machines (like mine) IE tends to drag resources sometimes though, pausing interface responsiveness for a short period of time. Mozilla is just damn slow on a p266.
Winner: Opera, but not by much

Download & Install: You must be joking. Opera v5.11 is 2.18 megabytes. Neither IE or Mozilla come close.
Winner: Opera, by far

Editable Text Boxes: They're identical in Opera and IE. And yes, Mozilla's suck.
Winner: Opera and IE tie

Stability: Mozilla crashes every once in a while (though much less than it used to), Opera crashes every once in a while (though much less than it used to), and IE is pretty solid.
Winner: IE, by a small amount

Loading Cached Pages: Opera and Mozilla both theoretically load them instantly, but Mozilla takes a bit of time to do so on my machine (i only have 96mb RAM and a p266).
Winner: Opera by a small amount

Sidebar: Sidebars suck. I turn them off in all browsers.
Winner: Tie between all of them, since they can all be turned off

Standards support: Opera supports nearly all standards perfectly, with some of the advanced features of CSS2 being the sole exception. IE does not properly support even CSS1. Mozilla supports standards nearly perfectly with a few CSS2 bugs.
Winner: Mozilla, by a small bit. It's helped by the fact that it also supports non-standard pages better than Opera ("de facto Netscape standards") with its quirks-mode backwards compatibility

Gender Recognition: Opera has it. IE and Mozilla don't.
Winner: Opera, by far.

Cost: Opera is free with ad banners, or $30 without. IE and Mozilla are both free.
Winner: IE and Mozilla tie.

Overall Winner: Opera. It's small, fast, and the gesture recognition kicks ass. And in v5.11 Java/JavaScript/Flash/etc. all work properly 99.9% of the time, and CSS rendering is nearly flawless (much better than IE6's CSS anyway). And it's fast on my p266. Did I mention that I like the gesture recognition?

I think you mean Opera. Oprah is a talk-show host.
------

While everyone continues to use software that is in it's 19th beta stage, buggy and unfinished, I can use a very stable commercial product (say, IE for example) that performs well

Not if your computer doesn't have an x86 processor. In that case, you'd need an emulator plus a copy of Windows (USD $320). Even if you are running on an x86, you need a virtualizer ($300) plus Windows. Isn't $600 a bit steep for a web browser? Might as well just pay for Opera.

What's that rule in software development? Something like, adding more members to a project team makes the project later. Or to put it another way, too many cooks in the kitchen...

Spoil the broth. See also The Mythical Man-Month.

Lose the Java support, and you've got a fantastic browser in Opera in just over a 2MB download, which seems to support just about everything you described. If you want Java, it's closer to 10.

I don't think it could get much smaller, because of the complexities involved in the increasing scope of the HTML standards, JavaScript, CSS and the like, plus the fact that they seem to be writing the code to be reasonably portable.

If you really want to get insane, I'm sure somebody COULD write a browser in hand-coded assembler to be extremely small, but the benefits would be outweighed by the sheer difficulty in maintaining this code and loss in portability.

Want a lightweight Mozilla for Windows? Try Kmeleon. Stripped down, but is fast and small (about 3MB), as well as free, and seems reasonably stable too. I use this and am pleased with it, but I prefer Opera still because it's been in development longer and seems to be more consistent in its rendering capabilities.

--

You know the choice isn't just between Mozilla and IE. There are other browsers available. You ever tried Opera? How about Lynx?

You know something? I can't find any music on 8 track, and it's amost impossible to find a convenience store that sells leaded gas. The next thing I'll find out is that my parachute pants from junior high school don't fit anymore. What's this world coming to?

Why don't you try using a real browser? Internet Explorer is AWESOME if you use Windows, but even if you don't, there are several options such as Netscape, Opera, and Mozilla, (or derivatives).

</RANT>

--

of course those icons on web pages sure don't get any more legible.

Isn't it about time more browsers had this? Are there any plans for Mozilla to include this functionality?

With difference between the top end and bottom end of display technology, and the tendancy of (less skilled?) web designers to create "best viewed in NxN" sites, html viewing software neads to be deisgned to cope with these differences.

Thad

I've tried Opera for Linux, and despite it's alpha stage, it runs faster and better than Netscape ever has. When it catches up to the windows version, it will most certainly be worth the price.

Check it out at: Opera for Linux

As for startup time (always the problem with normal Mozillas) - it is now much, much quicker than Netscape 4 on either Windows of Linux, and getting close to IE5 (which is the fastest starting browser I've ever seen, except maybe Lynx or something).

Then you haven't used Opera or Konqueror. But it's great that Gecko in its Galeon incarnation, which supports a much broader spectrum of web standards than either of the above, can compete in load speed. That's a really big hot buttom for me.
--

• ActiveX: no security, can do anything if permitted, permission has been overriden by exploits. (MS operating systems only)
• Java: "sandbox" security model, should be secure, but numerous exploits in the past have shown that it's not.
• JavaScript/VBSCript/JScript: primitive scripting languages (VBS/JScript=MS proprietary), have been used for more exploits than Java, but usually more benign.

Next, if you're using Windows, download Proxomitron. It will allow you to selectively filter JavaScript, per site or per user request. I don't know of similar solutions for Linux.

Turn off JavaScript by default and only turn it on if a site doesn't work anymore (chances are, there isn't much content there to be missed anyway).

By deactivating Java and filtering JavaScript, I have been able to greatly increase the stability of Netscape on my NT4 system. It hardly ever crashes (about once a week), although I have lots of windows open (right now, it's 14). That's Netscape Communicator 4.7. I have heard that Navigator alone is even more stable, but haven't tested that one.

Now you're safe from exploits like the one reported above. If you use IE, you are vulnerable to many other exploits (like the recent JavaScript bug that allowed sites to spy on your cookies and thus determine top-secret user ID data that can be used to compromise credit card numbers and much more). If you think that IE is the better browser, you should at least deactivate or filter the insecure layers mentioned above.

Oh, and you might also use Opera. You pay a few bucks once (and I urge you to pay, as they need your money to continue development) and get a rock stable browser with all the essential features, super high speed and high security. If you think IE is better coz Bill Gates gives it away for free, that's your decision.

--

When I got sick of Netscape 4.7x crashing and bogging down, I downloaded Opera 4.01. In the second day of evaluation, I went ahead and paid for it. I'm pretty much switched completely over now.


...phil

I've got one of those Intellimouse Explorers (the huge silver ones with the superfluous tail light and like three extra buttons; well, what the hell, here's a http://www.microsoft.com/Mouse/explorer.htm link) and sites that won't let you back out are an incredible annoyance. See, two of the buttons on there serve as Forward/Back (respectively) while browsing the web, and after about 20 minutes of using them, I was hooked. You wouldn't believe how simple (and remarkably intuitive) to navigate with your thumb. Now if I could just find a good use for those buttons in Half-Life... I mean, sure, it's easy enough to hold down the back button and select the page before the offending site, but that would require moving my cursor over six or so linear inches of desktop space. Isn't that just a little bit unreasonable? No? Ah well.

I've got one of those Intellimouse Explorers (the huge silver ones with the superfluous tail light and like three extra buttons; well, what the hell, here's a http://www.microsoft.com/Mouse/explorer.htm link) and sites that won't let you back out are an incredible annoyance. See, two of the buttons on there serve as Forward/Back (respectively) while browsing the web, and after about 20 minutes of using them, I was hooked. You wouldn't believe how simple (and remarkably intuitive) to navigate with your thumb. Now if I could just find a good use for those buttons in Half-Life... I mean, sure, it's easy enough to hold down the back button and select the page before the offending site, but that would require moving my cursor over six or so linear inches of desktop space. Isn't that just a little bit unreasonable? No? Ah well.

Is probably the best browser you can install at the moment, though Opera is pretty good too. Too bad Opera isn't free (as in beer and speech) and doesn't render some sites too well, mostly to blame to not so good HTML.

On a side note, a update of how the software is going can be found on http://www.operasoftware.com/linux/ind ex.html

This isn't ment to be flame or anything, its ment to be informitive. It would be nice to see more options available for any OS.

Try EPOC/ARM then - from Symbian. Built in MS-synchronisable Office and email progs. No Netscape but Opera is good enough. And has Java support.

How's this for a tasty (albeit expensive) "net appliance".

(There is life beyond MS and Linux ...)

Regards, Ralph.

I agree that iCab is looking really good. But as a Mac user too, I welcome anything that's not Micros~1, as do most /.-ers, I assume. This is why I have been trying every Mozilla milestone since M10, and why I'm an alpha tester for MacOpera. We need alternatives, we need choice, we need support for standards.

However, I agree that a nightly build is hardly newsworthy.

• The web designer knows best.
• The web designer has read the text at least once by the time he starts on the design. During the process of the design, he forgets that the text must be read by someone, someday, and makes the design the first priority. This, of course, leads to a pretty site that is only accessed once, since content is what brings them back.
• The web designer tries to make the page absolutely 100% the same on every platform in every browser. The harder he tries, the less accessible the page becomes, beginning with static font sizes, and ending with just a huge image with text on it.

Opera has some good features implemented to solve some of these problems. Namely:

• Two document modes - user and document. Both are customizeable, and the following things can be turned on and off for each:
  • Document CSS.
  • Document font/color.
  • User CSS (a separate .css file stored locally that can be inserted into pages. IE also has this, but it isn't easy to toggle. Mozilla should have this by the time it's released.)
  • User font/color.
  • Tables.
  These modes are toggled with one click or keypress, and are set separately on each document window. The default mode may also be set.
• The font sizes for most standard HTML elements (Normal text, H1-H7, PRE, etc.) can be customized. The percentage font increase for each font size is also customizeable.
• Images can be toggled with one or two keypresses/clicks. There are three modes - all, cached only, and none.
• Zoom.

Also, none of the browsers I've seen currently implement the W3C recommendation for alternating stylesheets. (Basically, this means that the document specifies several different styles and the useragent lets the user pick one.)

--

For Windows (and eventually Linux, it's alpha now) check out Opera. For Macs ICab is excellent.

• embedded linux - including Red Hat Tools for Embedded Developers
• 
  EL/IX Application Programming Interface - an embedded application programming interface
  Graphical IDE - cold fusion
  Hard Hat Linux - os for embedded appls
  mobile linux - allows linux to work on very small devices
  

No flames here, just a suggestion that you actually read before commenting. It's not hard to find information about Opera and there are plenty of reviews around the net.

No, Opera is not a text-only browser. Why would they do that when Lynx has been the category-killer there for years?

-------

For example, I can navigate links in a Webpage without a
mouse, move forward/back document windows, amble to
next/previous document in history and so on.

A list of shortcuts is available here.

Windows has the fastest JVM and things run OK under IE. Linux NS crashes every two seconds or so. The Mac NS doesn't properly support JDK1.1.

No-one uses Linux because it doesn't work. Working now involves much more net access than it used to. Linux has no good browser, therefore, it doesn't work. Yes, this is rather harsh, but is unfortunately true.

On the other hand, I think that there's enough pressure for a good browser that one will materialize whether or not Mozilla solidifies. People will simply have to pay for it under Linux where it is free under Windows. (That will be rather a shock, won't it?) For instance, Opera is working on a bunch of ports for their software. I expect to be able to play $30ish for a decent Linux browser (one that doesn't require the use of kill -9 as frequently as "back") early next year.

Now if someone would just write all the plugins in Java and get a good Java implementation...we'd be set.

I've not done IE under unix (of any sort) recently, so can't update you on that.

But a comment on the browser scene: netscrape, sure, is underfeatured and over-bloated. IE is evil, of course. Mozilla isn't remotely ready for "public consumption".
My recommendations on the unix browser scene boil doing to either Opera (as & when they get their act together) or Konqueror - part of the KDE. I'm using the latter now as one of my mainstays for non-javascript browsing - even slashdot comes out OK in it, and it's stable enough (1.1.2). Oh, and it also renders PNGs correctly in a webpage.

Same thing I've wondered in the past...

When ever I preview, I always go back to the original, make changes there, and post that one.

Of course, with a nice browser like Opera, you can go back, and all your form content will be preserved.

A bug or a feature? you decide... I like it.

Yeah, Windows. I suck. I'm also at work.
--
- Sean

I've been using Opera as my main browser on Windows systems for a few months, and I paid the $30 or $35 registration fee to help support the effort.

Early versions of Opera were weak and very skimpy on features like JavaScript and plug-in support, but the current version is great. It is smaller than Navigator and Internet Explorer and much faster to load and render pages. It supports JavaScript, CSS 1 and Netscape plug-ins.

Another thing I like about Opera is that it holds closer to standard HTML than the other browsers. It is less forgiving of bad HTML, so it's useful to have around when you're trying to create standard HTML that would pass the W3C HTML Validator.

Opera also has a button on the browser you can click to render a page in "easy-to-read" format, which helps when the designer has gone nuts with graphical backgrounds and text.

There are a couple of rendering things I don't like about Opera, such as the way it displays lists. For the most part, though, it handles pages as well or better than the other browsers.

Most tech journalists still describe the browser war as being Microsoft vs. Netscape/AOL. Some sites like BrowserWatch are reporting that up to 10 percent of its visitors are using Opera, so we may be reaching a point where it should be taken more seriously as a competitor.

To download a 30-day version, visit Opera Software.

It's 16 grayscale "colors" - for those that have sat at grayscale X terminals, that can be very clear to look at - possibly better for the eyes than colour in some lighting conditions.

And it uses EPOC/32, not Windows CE. Once Opera/32 is completed, I know what I'll do if I get some excess money to burn... :-)

• project magic - ports to other os's
  reasons to pay - justifications to pay

• project magic - ports to other os's
  reasons to pay - justifications to pay

Of course, it won't be free, which might turn off a lot of open source fanatics. but you can bet IE won't be free (free like speech, not like beer), either. I remember seeing IE for Solaris crash more than a few IPC's in my day.. Hopefully Opera and TrollTech (who's actually doing the port) know what they're doing.

If they do a decent job with it, I'll shell out the $35 for Opera.

Go to the netscape archive. All versions back to 2.x for Win, Mac and *nix platforms.
Opera is still not quite ready ( I check every week). Check out their Project Magic page.

I use fetchmail to download the mail, exim to filter it, and mutt to read it on Linux. It works fine. But, then again, I've never had to reboot on the occassional times Netscape goes beserk (just killall -13 netscape)

Opera is a small, fast browser that has worked quite well for me when I was using Win9x/NT. Outlook Express is nice, too, but it needs the massive IE core to be installed. Have you tried Eudora Light?

Opera fits all those requirements. Well, except for the Linux one.

Opera fits on a floppy, at least zipped. If you play around with its settings (no disk cache, no optional anything, etc.), you might be able to get a semi-old (one or two years old) version to work from a floppy.

Here's the newest zipfile (about 100kb bigger than v3.5, but still fairly small):

O360E32 EXE 1,307,250 04-02-99 12:13a


Compare *that* to IE or Netscape.

I usually don't need to do this at SlashDot, though.