Slashdot Mirror
Linux Opera Beta Released
Mal_ writes "The first alpha version of Opera for Linux has been released. There are still a number of key features missing, but rendering of HTML 3.2 and 4.0, and CSS is apparently working. The release is binary only, and requires GLIBC 2.1 and kernel 2.2.*, although the team are working on several other Unix ports.
You can get more info and download the binary at the Opera Web Site. " Update: 01/05 03:00 by N : Reports are coming in that this beta also works under FreeBSD's Linux ABI. Chris Piazza has made this screenshot available.
Barely anyone actually USES either of those "free" alternative you suggest. (lynx, indeed) Most people use Netscape and most people don't have a problem w/ the fact that it's "not free". Basically most users of Linux don't give a damn about all that political crap. They just want software that doesn't crash and that they can get cheap.
And... "Embracing non-free software solutions is a dead end"???
While this may be the popular dogma around here, it isn't actually all that true. Microsoft embraces them all the time, and they seem to be doing quite well. As do most software companies that actually make money in the real world.
Only in the wacky world of slashdot would this drivel be considered insightful.
Yes, it's a problem to perfectly reconcile the amount of memory in use.
But when the system slows to a literal crawl, I can simultaneously hear the disk running continually, and swap space starts disappearing in large quantities, that's a clear sign of either memory leakage, or some other intense usage of RAM.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I was running M12 last week, and whilst writing a Slashdot article, the process grew to 112MB in size. I only have 96MB of RAM, so you can imagine what happened to system performance.
Mozilla may be fairly featureful, but:
- It's still quite buggy. Needs to be Purified or something of the sort.
- It's getting faster, but is certainly not fast.
- RAM pig. Big time.
Opera may only be at the "pre-alpha" stage, but they have code base out there to support the things that don't work yet on Linux, so it seems reasonable to expect this to come in time.And it can't conceivably consume as much RAM as Mozilla. Urk...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Try a nightly build of mozilla. It won't support SSL, and some of the bugs are irritating, but it's currently my main browser as of the M13pre releases. I won't go back to Netscape (except when I need authentication or SSL) now.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
As everyone knows, pre-alpha software has bugs. So, since calling it "beta" is incorrect (and therefore a bug), it is, in fact, correct. :)
Also, pre-alpha software is often feature-incomplete. So, as missing the pre- makes the title incomplete, this is also correct. :)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There is absolutely no other reason for MDI. There was no precedent in any user interface existing before it, or in previous versions of Windows (which tried to do CMU-style tiled windows to solve the problem).
Opera is small and fast, Mozilla is too big to download and too slow to use.
It may be small and fast now, but what happens when they put the other 75% of the features in? It'll have to grow. As for Mozilla, yes the source is big. You can hardly avoid that. I'd imagine that the Opera code isn't exactly teeny either. Anyway, its not neccessary to use the source. You can always just download the binaries. And yes, its still a little slow in places. But its improving very quickly, and is far closer to being stable than Opera appears to be.
"Some smegger's filled in this 'Have You Got A Good Memory?' quiz!"
>. It puts multiple windows inside a "Desktop" area, perpetuating the Star Office mistake
;-) I prefer top level windows, but the best compromise, IMO, is to allow the user to select this as a preference.
Isn't this the age old MDI vs SDI argument?
Some people (myself not included) prefer to have all the windows related to a given application within a parent application desktop, presumably so you can do things like minimize/restore all of them at the same time. (most of these people seem to still like Windows 3.1, though
Lotus Notes used to be my least favorite tool on my work machine (NT, yeuck!) until version 4.5 came along with the option to run each new window as a separate process. I like this. Now I can actually use this as God intended with separate windows for databases, mail, phone book, etc.
Seems like Opera could offer this and have it both ways.
From the page:
====
Why does Opera Tech Preview seem to freeze as much as it does?
Actually, the sad but true answer to this question is that GLIBC 2.1 has a serious problem closing certain file and socket handles. We have seen nothing short of unexplainable anomalies related to the close() function in GLIBC 2.1.
Currently because of this, we're considering releasing a statically linked libc5 version until this has been brought under control in GLIBC.
==
Is this just a lame excuse or is there really a problem here? If so what is it and why has it not shown up before?
Do they have a new version that doesn't segfault as often? Last time I tried it, I could only use it on Slashdot when I didn't have moderator points, or else the forms would overload it.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Call me crazy.
An article similar to this one was posted a few weeks ago, although there was nothing on Opera's web site acknowedging the existance of a Beta for Linux yet. The File was at metalab, so it is unknown how official it was. You can download that version here
Sosumi. just kidding. DONT!
This really ought to get directed to Ulrich Drepper; that could provide a straighter answer as to whether the problem represents:
- A serious problem with GLIBC 2.1
- A serious problem with an interaction between GLIBC 2.1 and Linux
- A serious problem with the understanding that the developers have of POSIX and/or ANSI C that causes these "unexplainable anomalies" to be "unexplainable."
After the number of other misunderstandings that I've seen of versions of LIBC, I somewhat suspect the third option, although there's not enough evidence to strongly support any position. Best to contact Ulrich with a test case.(In other words, they might be misusing file pointers or close() and the anomalies would thus be their fault.)
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
....try the web interface to the ftp server
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
No offence to the Opera guys, but I gave the page a quick glance and from what I can tell it's way behind what Mozilla can do right now. And Mozilla is improving fast. And its open source. My question is, what exactly is the market place for Opera. Yes, I know choice is good. But in this case I can't see that it would be a sensible choice.
"Some smegger's filled in this 'Have You Got A Good Memory?' quiz!"
Read the FAQ, the list of problems this release has scared me off :) Slow, takes long to load pages, leaves ini files all over the place, no thanks. I guess it's a technology preview, but you would imagine they would still have major stuff like this worked out. oh well, this comment was posted with the viewer_gtk from mozilla m12. A little viewer that certinly kicks some serious butt, so I'm happy for the moment. Finkployd
A) It's not a beta, it isn't even really an alpha, it's more or less a snapshot. /. story on this is here.
B} Opera don't want any feedback from this release, the Opera coders have more than enough to be getting on with. When they run out of bugs, they'll release a beta, then we can help.
C)If you do need some help or have some generic feedback (SDI, cough cough), try the Opera.linux newsgroups.
D) The previous
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I think I would like to use a browser that's more advanced than the version of netscape that I used in 1994. I bet that browser would run about as fast on modern hardware as opera does.
Opera For Linux 4.0a Can't:
Communicate via SSL or TLS
Submit forms other than through ecma script
Display Frames
Display Animated GIFS
Display PNG or TIFF images
Proxy Settings
Preferences only 20% working
Cookies
Local Files
No Plugin Support yet
Transfer window
HTTP Authorization
Proper Font Handling
Screen refresh
SDI
Asynchronous DNS
//Phizzy
"Most European technology just isn't worth our stealing," -- Former CIA chief James Woolsey, referring to Echelon
This is only a technology preview. This might even be considered pre-alpha software. I follow Opera very closely (I'm alpha/beta testing for the Mac port when it's ready). If it was beta-level I'd have let you all know 10 days ago, when I first heard about this. :)
Constitutionally Correct
There are 'more free' solutions available, like
Mozilla, and indeed, lynx. The browser in KDE is
coming along nicely, and there are many browser
projects in need of some support.
Embracing non-free software solutions is a dead end.
But this is the same release, not a newer release. The binaries are byte-for-byte the same. So if you've already downloaded it once, there's no need to re-download it.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.