Slashdot Mirror


Opera Releases Stable FreeBSD Browser

1nsane0ne writes "The Register is reporting that Opera has released a production FreeBSD version. It appears to have fixed some of the problems that I found in a few hours of playing around with the betas and will be interesting to test a bit more."

116 comments

  1. My Obligation by jonnyfish · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is my duty as a random Slashdot idiot to ask the following:

    isn't BSD dead?

    1. Re:My Obligation by bayankaran · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, an Opera to accompany the dead is nice.

      --
      Tat Tvam Asi
    2. Re:My Obligation by pfish · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's still very much alive...

      It may not be perfered by many, but it's still heavy in development, and prefered by many ISPs.

    3. Re:My Obligation by Dannon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since they've got Opera now, it'll be a little while longer. At least until the fat lady sings.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    4. Re:My Obligation by dacarr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Opera has an OS/2 version. You figure it out.

      --
      This sig no verb.
    5. Re:My Obligation by jo42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mebbe its time you installed HeadExtractionDevice.rpm on yer leenooks box - as in extract head from rectum... :-p

    6. Re:My Obligation by OzJimbob · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Too true. My boss at the ISP I sysadmin at started insisting 6 months ago that we use FreeBSD on every machine instead of Linux. And I recently switched my own web server over to FreeBSD and haven't looked back. While Linux is making in-roads on the desktop with distros like Lycoris, FreeBSD is where it's at if you want a plain, powerful unix server environment. But then, now that software like Opera is available, FreeBSD is becoming more usable on the desktop as well!

      --
      -"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
    7. Re:My Obligation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! The ISP I work at used to use mostly BSD/OS, but the costs of support contracts was insane, and we could figure out just about anything using google groups anyway. We moved some machines to Linux, and some to FreeBSD. Since, we have switched nearly all of the Linux machines over to FreeBSD. In an ISP, I'd almost allways go BSD, but here at home, I'm typing this on Debian/PPC.

    8. Re:My Obligation by hyperturbopete · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      isn't BSD dead?

      jackass

    9. Re:My Obligation by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wasnt happy with 4.6 FreeBSD, but when 4.7 came out, KDE3 compiled. Xfree drivers that worked for my video card. Koffice compiled without problem. Everything worked for KDE/Gnome.

      The biggest problem I had with FreeBSD was ports didnt compile, but 4.7 most ports I tried compiled out of the box. Only grip I have is, its still using gcc 2.95, while 3.2 is out. But I hear 5.0 is completely GCC3.3 based.

    10. Re:My Obligation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you spend your life in front of a computer reading Slashdot articles.

    11. Re:My Obligation by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      It's halloween so.... well, it is just around for today.

    12. Re:My Obligation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they've imported 3.3 yet. If it's a beta-quality odd-numbered release, they may never do it. They've had enough troubles with bugs and GNUisms in 3.2 as it is.

    13. Re:My Obligation by bluFox · · Score: 1

      try ecomstationit is another avatar of OS2

      --
      ~561
    14. Re:My Obligation by someonehasmyname · · Score: 1

      All the servers at the ISP I sysadmin run FreeBSD.

      --
      Common sense is not so common.
    15. Re:My Obligation by frankie_guasch · · Score: 1

      My boss at the ISP I sysadmin at started insisting 6 months ago that we use FreeBSD on every machine instead of Linux.
      Why ? I have many servers with linux and I've always wanted to test FreeBSD. But I don't see any reason.
      I've seen posts about the ports software admin better than rpm. But the true is RPM rocks for servers. It keeps you up to date and never broke for me.

      I don't want to start a Linux vs FreeBSD thread. I'm willing to try. Just give me a reason.

    16. Re:My Obligation by reg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have you tried installing a second compiler for ports... gcc 3.2.1 (which is in current) wont buy you anything with the base system, other than 15% slower compile times. But you can install the gcc32 port, and then use 'make CC=gcc32 CXX=g++32' to build ports such as KDE or Gnome which might benefit from the newer compiler. You might also want to insure that you use the correct -march setting for your machine also, because gcc 3.2.1 will generate worse code than 2.95 if you just leave it to the default arch (vanilla 386).

      Regards,
      -Jeremy

    17. Re:My Obligation by KarateBob · · Score: 0
      Hey, Opera is(was?) on BeOS too, so what does that tell us?

      KarateBob

    18. Re:My Obligation by salimma · · Score: 2

      A requiem would be more appropriate. May I recommend Mozart or Duruflé ?

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    19. Re:My Obligation by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

      Exactly, even if you install gcc3.2.x you cant compile the kernel yet with it. I tried just to see if it would work, it didnt. (Yup, the port description warning is correct)

      When the base system is gcc3.x based, it should have show an improved speed. On my gentoo linux desktop with AMD optimizations compiled in, you notice the speed increase.

      I'll prob snag a copy of 5.0 development later and play with it, I already have to grab the cvs version of Xfree for ATI Radeon 9700 support.

    20. Re:My Obligation by diamondc · · Score: 1

      You can try FreeBSD on a spare computer.. I dont like recompiling every piece of software, myself. Of course you can just pkg_add -r any program but you can do the same thing with Debian/RedHat using apt-get.

      I prefer Debian stable for the servers I run at work ( I work at an ISP). Makes for easy admin'ing and more time to slack off ;)

      --
      "I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
    21. Re:My Obligation by anarkhos · · Score: 1

      If by "Linux is making in-roads on the desktop" you meant "Linux is not making in-roads on the desktop" you would be correct.

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
    22. Re:My Obligation by dacarr · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're not referring to April Fools' Day, sir? =)

      --
      This sig no verb.
    23. Re:My Obligation by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      RPM? I think you mean "apt-get" rocks for servers...
      .

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  2. Good to hear by Helmholtz+Coil · · Score: 5, Informative

    Very good to hear. I love my FreeBSD desktop dearly, and one of the last ties I had to enabling Linux compatibility was a release version of Opera. So far I have yet to find a better combination of

    • low-profile,
    • high speed, and
    • functionality
    in a single browser. Most of the other browsers I've come across were of the "choose any one of the above" variety. I've found niche uses for all of them, but Opera was the best choice on a old P75 for me.
    1. Re:Good to hear by kennyv · · Score: 1

      I agree, Opera is a great browser, and I always find myself trying to use mouse gestures in IE. Lets hope they fixed the slowdown with image heavy pages, though.

    2. Re:Good to hear by Theom · · Score: 2, Informative

      Phoenix?

      --

      mp3: l33t term for empty.
    3. Re:Good to hear by RubberDuckie · · Score: 1

      Well, I suppose it's time to try Opera. It's not in the ports collecton yet, but is availaible here.

    4. Re:Good to hear by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 5, Informative

      It *IS* available in the ports tree. Has been for several weeks. /usr/ports/www/opera It's currently at 6.10 B1, though. Expect an update shortly to 6.10.

    5. Re:Good to hear by RubberDuckie · · Score: 1

      That's odd. A 'make search name=opera' find's linux-opera, but not opera. I guess I'll have to look a little more carefully next time.

    6. Re:Good to hear by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Even though I love Opera, you are right! I installed Mozilla for my family and my sister complained hard (IE is, well, hidden...so she had the choise Mozilla or Netscape 4.76). I installed Phoenix and she loves it.
      My sister is no computer geek, so Phoenix is clearly heading in the right direction.

    7. Re:Good to hear by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yes phoenix is easy to use because there's no extra that you don't even want!

      anti-bloat at it's greatest.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:Good to hear by yosephi · · Score: 1

      have you done a cvsup on your ports tree lately?

  3. Re:Jesus christ - front page and nine replies so f by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Who would think that a dead browser... "

    Define dead. Percentage-wise, IE is the only browsezr that's alive.

    Somehow they've found money to keep developing new versions of Opera, so I wouldn't be so quick to call it 'dead'.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  4. Re:Jesus christ - front page and nine replies so f by unicron · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe it's a Halloween/Zombie thing.

    Dad, You killed the zombie Flanders! He was a zombie?

    --
    Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
  5. The real news by schussat · · Score: 5, Informative
    The real news here isn't simply that the BSD version of Opera 6.1 has been released, but that 6.1 is now available generally for Linux -- both i*86 and PowerPC platforms. This is a really significant development, and it means that, as of right now, the Linux version of Opera is now at a higher release number than for Windows (which is at 6.05 right now). The Opera folks are really moving on Linux development.

    -schussat

    --
    The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
    1. Re:The real news by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      FYI, Opera 6.1 is built on QT 3 platform.

      I guess its why it is a real improvement. Most of cut/paste stuff problems (I heard, win32 users here) are gone.

    2. Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, and the cool new feature of having the
      entire hotlist file tree complete with folders
      in the pop up box for bookmarking a page.
      Opera's bookmarks are the best.

    3. Re:The real news by xean · · Score: 1
      • This is a really significant development, and it means that, as of right now, the Linux version of Opera is now at a higher release number than for Windows (which is at 6.05 right now). The Opera folks are really moving on Linux development.
      It was only in the last couple of days I went to download Opera - however there was no shared lib version to work with the Mandrake 9 QT libs, however the new v6.10 does have rpms for mdk9!

      What I think Opera are trying to do here is to sell a browser to the niche (but fast growing market) of *nix desktop users - which most other software companies do completely ignore.

      Much thanks to Opera for thier continued support of these platforms and for producing a great, damn fast and stable browser... The speed of Opera getting a version out for new versions of distro's is a definate sign (IMHO) of their comittment to both these platforms and users.
    4. Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this guy up and the idiot he responded to down.

    5. Re:The real news by anarkhos · · Score: 1

      I wonder why the Mac OS X version sucks the proverbial shit.

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
    6. Re:The real news by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      I'd say you're right; thought of the same thing a couple of days ago. Mad propz to the Opera peeples!
      .

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    7. Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera 6.1 exists because the Windows/core people are working on Opera 7. The Windows beta is due any day now. (In fact, people were expecting it last week.)

  6. Nice by rppp01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am glad to see Opera available to yet another platform. Perhaps Opera is trying to become the netscape of Unix-land.

    Opera is a lot faster than Mozilla, and I think it is a prime browser. I've been using it off and on for almost 2 years (I knew a guy who was from Norway, and was huge on this browser even back then).

    This is awesome. Way to go Opera. Congrats FreeBSD.

    --
    They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
    1. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I knew a guy who was from Norway, and was huge on this browser even back then"

      Could you please explain that phrase?

    2. Re:Nice by evilviper · · Score: 2
      I am glad to see Opera available to yet another platform. Perhaps Opera is trying to become the netscape of Unix-land.

      You completely lost me there. If 'Opera is trying to become the netscape of Unix-land', then that makes Netscape what???

      Perhaps you meant Opera is trying to take Netscape's spot by porting to all the Unix platforms?
      Perhaps you meant Opera is tring to be the Internet Explorer for Unix?
      Perhaps you meant Opera is trying to make their browser as unstable and feature-bare as Netscape 4 an Unix?

      I just don't follow.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Nice by Shanep · · Score: 2

      Perhaps you meant Opera is trying to make their browser as unstable and feature-bare as Netscape 4 an Unix?

      The instability of Netscape is just truely astounding. I still remember getting lots of "bus errors" when trying to run Netscape under Red Hat 5.0 and thinking that I was doing something wrong. ; )

      Netscape 7 under Wintel seems a lot better, but I can't help but wonder why they would bother any more. I'm running it out of morbid curiosity, just wanting to see if they've upgraded the speed and stability from the Netscape 6 (molasses) release. Maybe they're trying to be a minority of minorities. I can't see any niche left that they could fit into, even if they could fix all the old problems.

      Choose an arch and choose an OS and you can always be sure that Netscape will crash on it, right when you actually are about to do something at a stage that you think you should be cut-and-pasting, just in case.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    4. Re:Nice by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Yes, Netscape 4 was unstable.
      Yes Netscape 6 was stripped of the best Mozilla features.

      Still, the performance & stability in the latest versions of Mozilla is quite impressive.

      As for niches, Netscape lost out because it was slow and unstable. Now that Moz has all the features known to mankind, it just might make a killing once again. The fact that it is open source (not under the GPL) means that anyone can use it, extend it, and modify it.

      I would dare say that Netscape/Moz has a very good chance to take back the desktop, as this time it's Microsoft that has been sitting around while the competiton catches up.

      Even if you don't believe that Moz has a chance against Internet Explorer, it's still the best Open Source browser, and I would argue that once the performance improves a litte more, it would be the best browser, anywhere, period.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Nice by Shanep · · Score: 2

      Even if you don't believe that Moz has a chance against Internet Explorer

      I quite like Moz and really hope that it continues to get better. My mind is certainly open. Netscape 7 and the new Mozilla's are looking good.

      I would actually like to see Mozilla kick arse, especially against IE. I just learned to really hate Netscape and when 6 came out it was like the last straw.

      I'm sure the open source community will keep making Moz great. It's just that when I think of Netscape, all I can think of is the slow buggy Netscape of times before open source was able to improve it.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  7. Now BSD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Can enjoy the pathetic advertware that windows users have to put up with

    at last BSD is gaining ground

    Still at least Mozilla is completely free of that crap and costs a wallet busting $0.00 unlike Operas "deal with the crap or put up the cash" based business model

    thanks but no thanks

  8. I'm amazed Opera did that by bogie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Feel free to chalk this up as a "BSD is dead post", but considering how few people use linux as a desktop, there must be 10 times less BSD desktop users. Really I'm not trying to troll, but there are just not nearly as many bsd desktop users as there are linux ones.

    That said I'm surprised Opera would port for that small a user base, especially considering its a payware browser. I guess the same could have been said for Beos which never had a large user base.

    Anyway good for Opera. Its too bad the other 99.999% of Desktop ISV's out there ignore any linux or nix, that isn't OSX. I keep waiting money in hand, but year after year they never come, Sigh.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by talks_to_birds · · Score: 3, Funny
      Interesting concept:

      "..there must be 10 times less BSD desktop users.."

      "Ten times less.."

      Is that times a negative ten?

      Or maybe "one-tenth"?

      hmm.. a real puzzle.

      t_t_b

      --
      I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
    2. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously, there were enough users willing to complain and request a native version to make development of a native version worthwhile.

    3. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      there must be 10 times less BSD desktop users

      Your probably right, but you know what? I'm glad developers don't always pay attention to things like that, because if they did Windows would be the only OS with any support what-so-ever. I'd dare say 95% of all desktop machines run Windows, if not more. So by your logic, supporting Linux or Mac OSX is a waste of time.

      I happen to personally really like FreeBSD.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    4. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at it this way: They're going into a market where there is little competition. IE isn't avaliable for BSD. Does Netscape have a BSD version?

    5. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can any of you guys say OS X.

    6. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by bogie · · Score: 2

      "I'm glad developers don't always pay attention to things like that"

      Me too, Like I said its cool that they did.

      "So by your logic, supporting Linux or Mac OSX is a waste of time."

      Exactly. That's why linux gets no desktop support and Mac gets significantly less than windows does.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    7. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by bogie · · Score: 2

      Maybe, but the fact remains that hasn't worked with Adobe or Intuit or any of the other desktop software publishers so I don't know how "obvious" it really was.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    8. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by bogie · · Score: 0, Troll

      figure it out smart guy.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    9. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by bogie · · Score: 2

      Obviously I don't think supporting linux is a waste of time, but obviously the desktop software companies do.

      Fact is linux is still ignored by all the big dekstop developers. Sure we get the odd game once in a blue moon but overall commercial companies have passed on linux. That doesn't mean I don't think Redhat 8 with OpenOffice kicks ass, but it doesn't change the fact we are still being ignored.

      I'm not the one who needs convincing.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    10. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the otherhand, the latest Opera has obviously obtained some intense portability improvements. Not only is Opera now available for FreeBSD, but it is also finally available for LinuxPPC. Once you have adapted the code to a portability mindset, sometimes ports just fall out of the woodwork. Besides, porting to FreeBSD seems a reasonable way to test the portability efforts...

    11. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FreeBSD has run KDE/QT apps for years and X11 apps since time immemorial. If portability (and not sloth) was ever an issue, it would be because of "Linuxism"s in the code.

    12. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    13. Re:I'm amazed Opera did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To paraphrase Douglas Adams, who was talking about an OS that has since become based on FreeBSD, "FreeBSD represents only 10% of the Free Unices," but clearly it's the top 10%."

  9. Re:Jesus christ - front page and nine replies so f by kgasso · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your average Slashdot poster is a zombie 365.25 days a year anyway. :)

    Mmmmmmmmmarf, BRAINS!

  10. Re:damn... freebsd is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WRONG!

    IN CORRECT JAPNESE:ol yol beys al bilong tu as! -AH!

  11. Opera's appearance by rsax · · Score: 2, Informative
    I've tried Opera on Windows 2000 Pro, FreeBSD 4.6 and NetBSD 1.6 .. when I used it on *BSD, only the linux version was available and it had a really 'chunky' appearance which didn't match the rest of the KDE environment (the default one or the themes I tried). I know they have 2 versions of the browser available : a statically linked QT one and a dynamically linked one. I've tried both but no luck. Other than that it's a great, fast browser which I'd definetly like to purchase.

    That being said, as each day passes it's going to be harder and harder to pry Mozilla from my cold dead hands, especially with such great add-on software.

    1. Re:Opera's appearance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...when I used it on *BSD, only the linux version was available and it had a really 'chunky' appearance which didn't match the rest of the KDE environment...

      Typical Slashdot reader.

    2. Re:Opera's appearance by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      The newest versions of Opera for Linux are really good about working with QT 3. I have mine set up and skinned with Mosfet's Liquid just fine. In the past though, that wasn't the case. They used to use QT 2, but about a month ago they switched. There were some problems at first with black boxes on certain windows when you would apply QT skins, but that seems to be fine now. Also, linking to libqt-mt would also couse a few incompatibilties, but that may have been corrected.

      They are trying to keep the binaries as small as possible, and that is tougher for them to do on Linux, due to the subtle differences between some of the distributions. At least, that is the impression that I got from the programmers.

    3. Re:Opera's appearance by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      I always DL the stacically-linked versions, never had any problems installing and using those.
      .

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  12. It's a shame by RatBastard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a shame that the IE VS Netscape war has made it almost impossible for most companies to make a living selling good browsers (or even email clients). I have no problem paying a reasonable amount of money for a quality product.

    You don't want to pay for it? Fine. Use the advert version. Or don't use it at all.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then buy Opera and shut up. Opera exists in this "almost impossible" market. Like it? Buy it. There's nothing more to it then that.

      Oh and just in case anyone wanted to mod this up (haha, yeah right): Fuck you too.

  13. Presto - Where'd It Go? by eegad · · Score: 1

    Hmm.. 6.1 is groovy, but I was actually hoping for a release of 7.0 (Presto) at the end of this month. Anyone know what happened to it?

    1. Re:Presto - Where'd It Go? by 13Echo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is looking like there will be a bit of a delay for the Linux and BSD versions of Presto, until some time after the Windows release. That is probably why they are trying to get 6.1 as stable as possible- to gear up for 7.0.

      Actually, I don't expect Presto to arrive on Linux until December or January, at the earliest.

    2. Re:Presto - Where'd It Go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The release of Opera 7 for Windows isn't slated until next year (unofficially). You can expect a *nix version after that. To give you an idea: Opera 6.0 for Windows was released on 29 November 2001; Opera 6.0 for Linux wasn't released until 15 May 2002.

  14. Re:Jesus christ - front page and nine replies so f by NanoGator · · Score: 2

    "...for that matter you could take freebsd itself... " ...please! *bad-dum-CHING!*

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  15. Browsers, Java, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having Opera come out with a native browser for FreeBSD is a good thing but what is really needed is decent Java support.

    Yahoo's reason for choosing PHP over Java/J2EE, is simply due to poor Java (especially threads) support in FreeBSD.

    I am not using FreeBSD because Java support totally sucks compared to Linux, Mac OS X and Windows.

    1. Re:Browsers, Java, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, just to point out the obvious from a slightly different angle, Yahoo selected "FreeBSD and PHP" over "Linux and Java/J2EE". So while you seem to think that FreeBSD thread/Java support in -stable is worse than Linux, Yahoo must also think that Java support in Linux isn't that great either.

    2. Re:Browsers, Java, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want Java support, compile jdk-13 or even jdk-14. There may be some features that aren't supported yet, but the average (gratuitous, stupid) applet works with no problems.

    3. Re:Browsers, Java, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java support on Linux is fine actually.

      Yahoo uses BSD and don't want to move, enough reason I guess.

    4. Re:Browsers, Java, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Migrating to Linux or another OS was NOT part of the decision-making process when selecting PHP over J2EE. The requirement was that the new choice runs fine on FreeBSD.

      They literally have many thousands of boxes running FreeBSD to serve up many millions of hits daily. Imagine what would be involved in replacing the OS on each of those.

      Hence, the original post was correct. They selected PHP over Java/J2EE because Java/J2EE support sucks on FreeBSD.

    5. Re:Browsers, Java, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cause SUN spend all the engineering mind power
      on "open source"-ish java for blackdown,
      and DID NOT SPENT A CENT ON FreeBSD java support.
      Thats all.

  16. Now if they'd fix the pricing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On sale for $29, but checks out at $39.

    Way to go Opera!!!

    1. Re:Now if they'd fix the pricing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only 29. For everyone.

    2. Re:Now if they'd fix the pricing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.
      Still $39 when you go to check it out.

      Review your order:
      Licenses Operating System Price Shipping SubTotal
      Opera for FreeBSD $39.00 $0.00 $39.00

    3. Re:Now if they'd fix the pricing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. Re:Jesus christ - front page and nine replies so f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dead = not growing or gaining an audience.

    Oh, and I'm sure if 2 FreeBSD users buy opera they have paid for the 'porting costs.'

  18. This Tells Me... by istartedi · · Score: 2

    ...that BSD is... no, no, it doesn't tell me that. It tells me that Opera must be very portable, since they wouldn't have invested too much effort on the *BSD desktop market. Really, I'm surprised that this required much effort at all since the BSDs run X and most of the major X-based desktops anyway. I mean, I can see how you'd have trouble porting from Windows to *NIX, but once you've ported to one *NIX, the rest shouldn't be that difficult unless you've shot yourself in the foot, which the Opera developers plainly haven't.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  19. Re: IMO A Linux user is a future BSD user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all the caos in Linuxland people wants stability offered by BSD systems. Unless, the linux guys want to PLAY all day long applying patches here and there, trying different file systems and so on. It is good to have choices, but not if you want to do real work.

  20. Re:web browser for freebsd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    belongs on a server that nobody ever logs in to.

    hmmm, do you mean like yahoo?

  21. Re: IMO A Linux user is a future BSD user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen. Spaghetti gives me a headache.

  22. Stupid, really. by bplipschitz · · Score: 1

    I've been using Opera [v6.02] on FreeBSD for some time now with no problems--what's the big deal?

  23. The Microsoft Chord Sung From Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now the people who use linux have reached the level of Microsoft, with their beat on the small fry?

    Just because the apparent user base is smaller means that you should no longer pay attention to a used product?

    Based on these questions and the apparent answers above, we should extrapolate this further to show that microsoft has a far greater use ration comparing Microsoft to linux on the desktop than linux has to BSD. So in that light, opera should also put no time in their efforts to develope for Linux. Simply follow the croud in their development of Windows based solutions.

    So an operating system gets media attention for being a grass roots movement, makes a profit for some and the makes it to the point where you have the distributors charging you $99 for the media (which I last remember being the price for Windows XP media). And people start taking on the additude of those using the proprietary software.

    My spelling and gramma may suck, but there is still something rotten going on here.

  24. Re:Jesus christ - front page and nine replies so f by MobileC · · Score: 1

    They probably 'found' the money that was invested by people like me purchasing it.

    Fran :):):)

    --

    Fran
    :):):)
    1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

  25. A real Review by evilviper · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since this is severly lacking, I thought I'd let you know how Opera actually works (you know, instead of just saying how happy/unhappy I am, that it exists).

    I liked one think about the pre-release beta version... I didn't see any banner ads. It was likely accepting my Linux registration, despite not being the linux version.

    The release (6.1) does not accept a Linux registration key, and you have to register all over again... Understandable, but still irritating.

    That said, this is far better than the initial beta, or the Linux version under emulation. Just plain and simply, it is far more stable... I have yet to have it crash on me. Athough I've only been using it for a few hours, this is a very very good sign.

    Additionally, I was previously unable to paste text from a webpage in Opera into AbiWord, and a couple other apps. That has now gone away, and the clipboard is working (mostly) as it should.

    <RANT>
    That's step one. Now all they have to do is *completely* redesign the interface and I'll be a happy Opera user. Since that's probably not in the cards, I'll continue to use Opera as little as possible.
    </RANT>

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  26. Re:web browser for freebsd? by Shanep · · Score: 2

    a web browser for freebsd is like playing quake on my stereo. freebsd, just like every other non-Mac, non-Windows OS, belongs on a server that nobody ever logs in to.

    As far as I can remember, Quake was designed and built on NeXT machines, BTW.

    The minds behind the production of the current Mac OS are the types that would run something like FreeBSD as a desktop. It's those types that create. The types who share your attitude are the types that take whatever is given to them, are not creative and try to appear like they matter when all they're really good at is shooting shit in Quake.

    --
    War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  27. Re:Jesus christ - front page and nine replies so f by Shanep · · Score: 2

    Your average Slashdot poster is a zombie 365.25 days a year anyway. :)

    I can see, not just by your 5 digit user id or your accurate depiction of the average /. user, that you've been around /. for a while. Taking into consideration leap "years" shows that you're one not to get caught out by /. loosers who rip to shreds any post that has too little information to convey the posters opinion absolutely completely. These /. loosers most often ram your own opinion down your throat as if it is thiers and nobody elses, as if you deserve it for not being quite verbose enough. They have a need to add and blow out of proportion the smallest and most irrelevant amount of information as if it is what matters most, in a pursuit to show everyone how much better they are than the original poster.

    I stand ready, poised for such a reply.

    --
    War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  28. why do this? by chajath · · Score: 1

    why does the company even bother doing this? *BSD has already got an excellent Linux emulation system and they can run Linux version of Opera.

    Why? Why? Why does the company do this?

    I can never understand...

    1. Re:why do this? by KjetilK · · Score: 3

      I think it is as simple as there being many free software geeks at Opera, some like Linux, some like FreeBSD, and one of the FreeBSD geeks figured that Opera is easily portable, so it was just a matter for somebody to sit down and do a all-nighter to get it done. So, the answer to that question is probably: Just because we could.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  29. And now they have fixed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only took 23 hours.

  30. Opera, dead? by Phactorial · · Score: 1

    Users thinking that Opera is dead should be reading Slashdot a little bit more carefully. This "small time" browser is very quickly becoming the leading source of components for embedded systems' web browsers (it's small screen rendering is the only way to go). This is not to talk about the accomplishments it has made on PC and workstation platforms, without a doubt it contains one of the fastest page rendering subsystems out there. I am willing to bet anyone that Opera will be a little bit more than rich by years end.

    1. Re:Opera, dead? by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      Their deal with Macromedia should help, too.

  31. NetBSD/mac68k version? by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    So when's Opera going to port to my platform? My SE/30 is just dying to run Opera on it's black and white 512x342 screen. I bet the ad banners won't even fit.

    OK, I'm only kidding. Partially. *grin*