Slashdot Mirror
Which is Better, Firefox or Opera?
Roblimo writes "Firefox and Opera are the two most popular cross-platform Web browsers. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Kris Shaffer tested them side-by-side on SUSE Linux 9.1, Mac OS X Panther, and Windows 2000, and decided that your choice may depend more on what you *do* with your browser than anything else, unless (as is the case for many of us) Opera is off the table from the start because it's not open source."
Each browser has its uses.
Saying one is better then the other is silly.
However saying both are better then IE is truthful
Both have their merits and shortcomings. I believe no objective "better" exists.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
IS, Opera, Safari are all commercial, so they can't be compared if you're ignoring commercial products.
antipaucity
Am I the only one who gets pissed off at these "head-to-head" comparisons that don't have the guts to announce a winner? I musta read about 20 for the PS3 and Xbox 360, and one of them predicted a winner (PS3). I don't care if they are wrong, I just like an article to be concluded. None of this "well, they are both good" crap.
I don't want ads when I'm browsing let alone built into my browser. Firefox for me!
Firefox has gestures, popup blocking, ad blocking, site scripting through GreaseMonkey, tabs, themes, a million other user written extensions that can enhance your web browser, strong community support, fast updates for security fixes. And it's free, free as in beer, free as in speech. What else could you ask for ?
Moderators:
This is not an offtopic post.
For instance, if there was an article on slashdot debating whether Windows or MacOS-X was better, a poster talking about the advancement of Linux, Gnome and KDE would be marked insightful.
Yes, the parent post is a little bit sarcastic, but just because it doesn't jive with the slashdot "groupthink" mentality of Microsoft being evil doesn't mean it should be flagged offtopic.
And yes, IE is cross-platform too, just on a much more limited scale.
Plus, the choice of websites one can visit SHOULD be a factor in browser use. IE can visit some sites that require ActiveX, and Firefox / Opera can render properly sites that require better CSS2 support. Simple as that.
The point of responses to news posts is to evoke discussion. If this post inspires a +5 insightful response, then is it really that bad, or offtopic?
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
...unless (as is the case for many of us) Opera is off the table from the start because it's not open source."
So, you're not willing to consider software because it's not open source? Even when it might be (*gasp*)... better?
I love Opera. It's a sleek, fast, well designed browser with a terrific user interface. I'm also a full-time Linux user; while i like and support the open source "movement", i do it because it's simply a better OS (for me) than the alternatives. The price is right, of course, but that's not the main reason i chose it. At all. Just chose what's best for your needs. Then see if it's worth it's price. Opera is, for me.
I also like Firefox a lot. It's Mozilla sans-the-bloat, and renders pages very well. Still, it's much slower than Opera and the user interfase still needs polish. It does have some perks i'd love to see in Opera though (like AdBlock), but overall i keep gravitating to Opera. Specially because of the memory footprint and interfase (yes, i know FF supports things like mouse gestures via plugins, and that's why they are no good. Opera was built with that stuff in mind and integrates them perfectly).
Notice that as Firefox and Opera compete for the lead, and Safari, Camino, Mozilla, and Konqueror speed behind, IE is not even in the race. It's been lapped five times while it was in the pit, and the driver just woke up.
Yeah, I made a recent switch to opera and I'm almost converted. The only thing that bothers with with my opera 8 is that it segfaults about one or two times a day. However, thanks to its session management, that's not a total problem because when I start opera the next time, all the same tabs are open with the pages I was browsing before it crashed.
One of the most important features *for me* in a modern browser is how tabbed browsing works along with session management. One of the important features is where I want something like an "undo close tab" option. I had that in firefox with tabbrowser extensions (it's such a pain to have to find all the extensions I want after you install mozilla/firefox..i wish they would just dump the extension idea and build everything into the browser--it could be done without more "bloat".) In opera I can just click edit-undo when I close a tab by mistake. The killer was that all the tab extensions I had to get for firefox really slowed the feel of the browser down and made it unusable for browsing. I don't want to wait 2 seconds for it to load a new tab and I certainly don't want the whole browser to halt while a page is being loaded and rendered in the background. I also felt the lag when I was writing into a form--I like they letters to come up immediately without feeling any lag when I type.
Another thing that is importart for me is that when the browser has to be closed or crashes, that I can restore my previous session. I tried extensions for firefox to do this but they usually didn't work or the extension was made for some other version of the browser and it just turned out to be a mess. Likewise for mouse gestures, you have to hunt down and find the best extension that does what you want rather than have a consistant implementation built in.
Well I'm sure there are things that are better in firefox but I'm not covering them here because I think most people here know more about firefox than opera.
With free software I am a user, the software a tool. My data and programs are my own to do with as I please.
With proprietary software I must prove myself to not be a criminal before I can use the program, the software is a locked down box which prevents me from having full control over my system. Should I unwittingly violate a draconian contract, my copy is as legit as a copy found off a P2P network. My data and programs are in the hands of another company, held to their whims.
EULAs generally restrict my ability to use my system in any way I choose, even if I am paying for each and every program on the machine. Should one of my employees get pissed at me, he or she can call the BSA and they'll send some nice armed marshals to my door to audit every nook and cranny of my system.
When I have a need, I like to scratch it. With free software, if program X doesn't have a functionality I need then I can have it modified. If proprietary program Y doesn't have a functionality that I need, then the only thing I can do is beg and plead for them to add it. (And don't even get me started with support running out when a program becomes "obsolete".)
When I use free software, I download, compile, and run. Boom, done, simple. With proprietary software, I must enter activation numbers, pray a dongle works, and/or call up the parent company and say "Can I please have the ability to use this software that I paid some damn good money for?"
Proprietary software does not fit my needs. Free software does.
Since Safari was launched I have not looked back. When my bank did not support Safari... I changed banks. Go... Bank of America!
Your logic is so flawed in so many ways. By that rationale MSIE is the best broswer ever, Budweiser is the best beer, MacDonalds is the best restaurant in the world, etc.
Seriously, think about what you've written before you hit the "Submit" button next time. You're either trolling or very, very stupid. I'll leave it to others to decide which of the two applies.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Opera was my primary browser for quite a while, and it is faster/slicker with a better features set (especially MDI tabbing).
But once you escape the comparison on pages that work, the stark reality is that many pages don't work.
I switched to firefox a few months back and while not as slick as Opera, it is good enough, and for the pages I visit gives me the better experience. So I can do my banking for instance.
Since switching to Firefox, I seldom have to call up an IE session anymore.
Also plugins offer fucntionality I can't live without, like selective flash blocking.
Pre-empting those who say it is the fault of poor web coding and not Opera, in that some pages block or serve poor code to Opera.
Yes that is correct, But it just doesn't matter! It doesn't matter where you point the finger, the result is an inferior browsing experience.
I'll try Opera again (if ever) when they get better spoofing modes, better flash blocking.
I disagree.
The extensions can be written by anyone, so it means a greater amount of freedom and flexibility for Firefox. For example, there is a FarkIt! Extension which makes easy quoting on Fark.com. And then there's a Bible quoting extension which allows you to quickly reference biblical references.
Now, I'm a Fark.com lover and an Athiest. Having the ability to choose which extensions I want allows me to select FarkIt! and Adblock without having to get Biblemania.
So I'm happy, the bible thumpers are happy, and if anyone else has an idea for a firefox feature they want to write, they can write their own extension and be happy... it works well.
Tepp
The Ethiopian food example is incredibly biased. People need food. People don't need software.
A better analogy: People who refuse to use closed-source software are like those who refuse to buy products from companies that damage the environment/run sweatshops/ban unions/etc.
Even if a product is better from a functional standpoint, a consumer may not consider it better than another product for a variety of other reasons. For instance, a friend won't use Quicken. The product may be best of class but when he considers Intuit's EULA and privacy concerns, he'd rather go to a lesser functional product.
Considering whether or not a product is OSS is one way to say "I like a future where a majority of software is OSS and I want to help make that happen". It's standing up for a principle you believe in, even if you may have to suffer a bit (using beta-quality software or software with fewer features).
Not trying to be snarky, this is a serious question: How is IE cross-platform? Are you considering 95/98/ME/XP/NT/2003 to be different platforms?
However,
...opera is off the table because it costs money. :P
Considering just how much money keeping "legal" with software sucks out of the company budget on a yearly basis (it used to be bi-yearly, but now Big Apps are shifting to variants on the subscription model...), more paperwork and POs for a web browser - when all the machines already have one - just can't be justified.
hmmmm...
.. 7.0 (IIRC) will _ONLY_ be available for XP. So as far as I am concerned, Internet Explorer is NOT cross platform and not even cross-Windows version compatible.
Microsoft: No new versions of IE for Mac - June 2003
As far as Win95/98/Me/2k/XP support
Extensions, Extensions, Extensions. Why doesn't someone make some of these features part of the main suite? Many extensions don't mesh 100% with other ones. Extensions are a great idea, don't get me wrong. But I run FF on multiple computers - I do not want to re-download and set up 5-10 extensions on every box, but that's what's needed. Opera offers many of these features out of the box. Is there some kind of Überextension pack that I can just install - or, even better, one Überextension?
With free software I am a user, the software a tool. My data and programs are my own to do with as I please.
This just isn't true. Your data may be your own, but you still do not own the program or its source code. There's no difference here between proprietary software and free software. The author of the software is the copyright holder on the source code as an incident of authorship, and this has been the law since 1978. Unless that person specifically, in writing, transfers the copyright to the group of people defined as users of their code, it legally belongs to them, not you. It is not your program any more than Windows is.
This might suck, it might not be fair, it might not be right, but it is how copyright works. The contents of this post are copyrighted to me as an incident of authorship the instant that it's saved in Slashdot's database (unless of course Slashdot's Terms of Use include ownership of user-supplied content, etc).
As for your data, you don't own it only because you're using free software. You own it because your typical free software author does not claim ownership of it as part of the terms of use. There is nothing about the nature of free software that makes the data more yours than proprietary software does, it's the spirit of the userbase that brings this about. Quicken is proprietary software and they don't own my banking records.
What free software typically does give you is more control over where your data goes and how it's used. If you want to define that as ownership, then I am strongly inclined to agree with you on that point. I guess I'm arguing nitpicky linguistic semantics here, so biff me in the head and move on.
With proprietary software I must prove myself to not be a criminal before I can use the program
Bullshit. How so? Because you had to agree to a EULA before you could use it? And free software isn't like that? Then what in the hell is this? A warm hug and a milkshake? It's the content of the license that limits you, not the distribution model of the program. Nothing stops free software from having draconian EULA's, and nothing stops proprietary software from having generous and forgiving EULA's.
EULAs generally restrict my ability to use my system in any way I choose, even if I am paying for each and every program on the machine.
Yes! And any EULA can do that, regardless of whether it's penned by a billionaire in Seattle or a freelance programmer spitting out open source code in caffeine-induced dilerium in his mother's basement.
Should one of my employees get pissed at me, he or she can call the BSA and they'll send some nice armed marshals to my door to audit every nook and cranny of my system.
I heartily agree with you here, and it's incredibly difficult to control your users' systems sufficiently to mitigate this risk without locking them down to the point of being unusable.
With free software, if program X doesn't have a functionality I need then I can have it modified.
By who? The community of authors? You can only do this if either you have the time and technical skill to do it, or you can convince a member of the community of the need.
If proprietary program Y doesn't have a functionality that I need, then the only thing I can do is beg and plead for them to add it.
What's the difference? Other than, "I can code it myself if I want", I don't see any. Every business I've worked for has gotten features added to proprietary software that they wanted/needed. I won't pretend it's as cheap, or as easy, but it's possible. My quarrel here is with the way you paint free software as being a m
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Yes, because we all love vendor lock in. That's like saying "the choice of roads one can drive on SHOULD be a factor in car use." Why not make roads shaped like a puzzle, so only people with a particular brand of tires or cars will be able to ride on it?