Slashdot Mirror
Opera 9.0 Released
Nurgled writes "After teasing us for months with betas and snapshots, Opera Software have finally released version 9.0 of their web browser. The new version features correct ACID2 rendering, native support for the SVG Basic profile, a built-in BitTorrent client, support for Microsoft's designmode and contenteditable extensions, per-site configuration, Atom support, Web Forms 2.0 support, Canvas support (and some Opera-specific extensions), NTLM authentication, some support of parts of CSS3 and lots more. The full changelog is available."
p14nd4 adds "And for you *nix users, it hasn't hit their .deb repository quite yet, but there are regular installers available for the major players, including a fixed Ubuntu installer and an x86 Solaris version."
I'm glad they finally released; I'm looking forward to it.
However, I am weary of all these new features; it seems like it is possible they could turn Opera into a bigger resource hog.
I didn't want to bloat my summary by going into too much detail about that, but to be specific they've created a new rendering context for canvas which is designed to make it easier to create 2D games by giving more raw access to the framebuffer. It is using the designed-in extensibility for canvas (which was, of course, a Safari extension to HTML in the first place!) and Opera is working with other browser manufacturers on a 3D rendering context for canvas which will allow full hardware-accelerated 3D when it's done.
It's becoming increasingly vaugue these days what constitutes a "standard" in the web sphere. Various other organisations are springing up outside of the W3C and proposing their own extensions and new specs, and I for one am quite enjoying the new stuff we're seeing as a result of this "competition". Other such third-party "extensions" include XMLHttpRequest (Microsoft), canvas (Apple), opera-2dgame (Opera), Web Forms 2.0 (WHATWG) and probably other stuff I'm forgetting. Opera supports all this stuff and also supports several W3C standards to boot!
Right click, select "Block content..." click on what you want to go away, and that's about it.
Easy.
Emerald Astrology
The only problem with it would be if it automatically (not overridable in settings) used its built in when ever you click a torrent file. Though I understand a half decent built in client would be nicer.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html# top
;)
Open in Opera, then in Firefox. I don't know how to answer you better.
Oh, don't even bother with MSIE...
> Maybe the correct approach is NOT to browse the sites that bother you with ads. Otherwise, it's like going to the movies but not paying for it.
Do you consider switching channels when commercials come on as stealing as well ?
Insightful? Good god. Opera may well be closed source but it's a far better browser than Firefox which still suffers from memory issues and runs like a pig if you happen to hit the wrong website with the wrong combination of plugins installed.
Firefox has been getting better of late it's true, but it still suffers from the common Open Source Project issue that the sexy visible eye-candy stuff gets priority over unexiting but essential background code.
Which is not to say I don't like and use Open Source software, indeed given the choice between equal programs one Open Source and the other not then Open Source usually gets my vote. However to roll out closed source as if it's some fundemental problem with a truly excellent browser smacks of RMS zealotry.
"Sounds like"...? Have you actually tried it?
I am an avid Firefox user but I have always been impressed with the speedy interface Opera offers, despite all the extra features they put in. And from release to release, they manage to simplify the interface more and more. The options menu is no longer the scary mess it used to be, I suppose they are learning from Firefox's success. They may be adding a lot of stuff in that people would consider bloatware, but they manage to add it in a way that the browser doesn't seem to be suffering from it one bit. Take into consideration the constant advancement of the rendering engine and the unusually wide spectrum of platforms it supports and you've got quite a good browser.
I'd also like to hear your reasoning for complaining about the built-in BitTorrent client. After all, downloading is one basic feature of a browser, so why not jump in at exactly that point and help advance the system to a more server-friendly standard. Most common users don't know about Azureus and uTorrent and whatnot, so I think it's a good way to introduce the protocol to a wider audience.
parasight.de
Ah, I see they fixed some stability issues. That's pretty much the only problem I had with Opera 9 Beta 1, though even when it crashed, it wasn't an issue, because Opera simply let me continue my last session from before the crash. Bless the hearts of those Opera developers. :)
Most people seem to take your comment as "I wanna block ads", while it's one purpose of extensions in firefox, there are so many other great ones, like the web developper toolbar and such.
I really love opera, and it's really innovative and advanced (you don't see features like xhtml + voice in most browsers, it's pretty cool stuff), very standard compliant, lightweight, fast, etc. But the thing that keeps me primarily on firefox is the extensions (even though it pretty much always takes over 500MB of RAM even with tweaks, and crashes every couple of days).
The day Opera gets extensions I'm definitely switching - instantly. I'd even pay good money for it. I think they'd increase their market share significantly - much more than by adding a BT client really.
///<sig
if everybody blocked Google ads, Google would die
True. However, if everyone blocked popups and Flash banners that play music then these forms of advertising would die and be replaced with things that don't get blocked, such as Google's text-only ads. This is a Good Thing.
So to reiterate: blocking all adds - bad, blocking only excessively annoying ads - good.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
However those who actually pay for the site aren't people who view the ads but ignore them anyhow. The people who pay for the site are the small fraction who actually go and buy whatever it is being shown. Without that fraction, advertisers see no return on their investment in ads, and would stop funding sites anyhow.
So a logical extension is that we all must buy junk we see advertised to support our favorite sites? Well, in that case, why don't we just give the site the money directly. It may feel weird to financially support a free website but its certainly a better way to do it than to pay some other company so that they keep funding the site via advertisement.
Of course, its not that everyone has to pay in either model. In the advertisement model, you're basically feeding off of those who either have enough money they can toss it at random things at a whim (i.e. just based on seeing some banner ad deciding to spend $50 or so) or who are very gullible or easily manipulated (the same people who purchase things they get spam for).
So to make the analogy go over, what most sites need is a way to get donations from the idle rich and the gullible. They need hooks, gags, things which make no difference to the average site user but which someone with money to burn can donate to get special priveleges. The same sort of stuff that leads people to buy cellphone ringtones and screensavers and the like. Like letting their posts use some special inline images or whatever.