Slashdot Mirror


Comparing Firefox 3 With Opera 9.5 On Linux

Joe Barr writes "Mayank Sharma has two recent stories on Linux.com; one evaluating the performance of Firefox 3, and the second comparing it to Opera 9.5. Which is better? For most people, it's probably more a matter of familiarity or personal preference, but these stories provide hard performance data to consider as well. Sharma notes, 'In terms of rendering JavaScript, Firefox 3 had the edge over Opera 9.5 in the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark, which has an error range between +/-0.8% to +/-11.3% depending on the type of test. In the JavScript Engine speed test, Opera 9.5 scores over its peers when it comes to error handling, DOM, and AJAX.'" Slashdot shares a corporate overlord with Linux.com.

489 comments

  1. First post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was using Lynx!

    1. Re:First post... by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      I prefer links :-)

    2. Re:First post... by tristian_was_here · · Score: 4, Funny

      I prefer to waste my time using vi well trying to...

    3. Re:First post... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I was using Lynx!

      I'm using Firefox 2, because 3 contains some rather nasty bugs which make it useless to me. Specifically, in several pages, opening the middle-click menu takes minutes, and search-as-you-type hangs the machine completely.

      Maybe the developers should had concentrated more on fixing bugs and less on "awesome"bar ?

      Anyway, are there any actually reliable open-source browsers out there ? Lynx is out, because it can't display graphics :(.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:First post... by Calinous · · Score: 1

      I guess you might want to use the Firebird browser - I use the 0.6.3 version for things where I don't want to use Firefox (now on version 3.0 both at work and at home)

    5. Re:First post... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the developers should had concentrated more on fixing bugs and less on "awesome"bar Maybe you should concentrate more on reporting bugs and less on complaining about the address bar?

      I don't know what middle-click menu you're talking about, and the find functionality works fine for me, so it may be a bug specific to your system. How are the developers supposed know there's a problem if you don't tell them about it?
    6. Re:First post... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Hah. Having something interpret HTML would've been great. We had to use netcat, and we liked it! Kept the pages simple. But, no, the new-fangled whiz-bang AJAX crap makes it all messy, and now we need to practice being a JavaScript interpreter just to *post* to slashdot...

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    7. Re:First post... by bcore · · Score: 1

      Can you actually provide any examples of this?

    8. Re:First post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Epiphany. Try Konqueror. Try Dillo.
      And also don't be so picky :).

    9. Re:First post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using Firefox 4!

    10. Re:First post... by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

      You had netcat? I had to whistle into a telephone.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
  2. Choice is a Good Thing by ricegf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With four (count'em, four) good browsers competing for user attention, the evil days of monopoly and stagnation are ending at last. The light of the standards-based Internet is dawning, and "works best with Internet Explorer" is becoming the odd anachronism it deserves to be.

    1. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So long as we don't get shafted by the ISPs.

    2. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by jlarocco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To the best of my knowledge there's never been a monopoly on Linux/UNIX web browsers. I think at one point Mozilla dominated, but it's never been like Windows.

      Also: KHTML, Opera, and Firefox/Gecko are only three. Unless you're including ones based on those and/or text only browsers?

    3. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he's counting KHTML and WebKit seperately? Or maybe he's counting Internet Explorer. (snicker)

    4. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by ricegf · · Score: 5, Funny

      The fourth is an underpowered and little used browser called Internet Explorer. I'm not really surprised you haven't heard of it; it's rarely used on Linux at all, for good reasons.

    5. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You said "four GOOD browsers".

      (Slow down, cowboy! It's been twelve hours since you last posted a comment.)

    6. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Funny

      The four GOOD browsers:

      Links, Lynx, wget, curl.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I don't recall any realistic alternatives to Netscape 4, back around '99. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    8. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's also dillo, for use on underpowered old machines which can barely run X. Kinda carved itself a rapidly dying niche though, but as a completely separate rendering engine it's worth a mention at least.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    9. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by amdpox · · Score: 4, Funny

      lynx is bloated. ;)

    10. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by iwein · · Score: 1

      I for one would be interested in seeing them named by the poster. Specifically I would welcome the discussion about if IE should be on the list or Safari. We never really came to a conclusion about that one. *ducks*

      --
      Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
    11. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 3, Informative

      What, no w3m?

      In all seriousness, I've been stuck without X a few times (for several weeks at a time), and w3m blows all other text-based browsers out of the water. I used to like links, but w3m has spoiled me too much...

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    12. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by iwein · · Score: 1

      ah, but they are. If I only cared to read the posts below the radar...

      --
      Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
    13. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the crack that the mods are smoking is good. Troll?

    14. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also dillo, for use on underpowered old machines which can barely run X.


      Did you say you like dildos?

    15. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by yanyan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You forgot netcat. ;-)

    16. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by thecheatah · · Score: 1

      I think I use telnet as a browser more then any of the above mentioned.

    17. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by cerberusss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's also dillo, for use on underpowered old machines which can barely run X. Kinda carved itself a rapidly dying niche though, but as a completely separate rendering engine it's worth a mention at least.
      Well, underpowered doesn't always go hand-in-hand with old -- considering the raft of articles we've seen here on slashdot about small, energy-saving PCs.
      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    18. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by oakgrove · · Score: 1
      I have a little elinks/rtorrent combo on a 600 MHz beater sitting in the corner of my room at the house that I SSH into when I'm on the road for my torrenting pleasures. I have one of those cellular modems from Verizon with the 5GB monthly limit so I can't do a whole lot of downloading with it.

      Do you really think w3m is better than my personal text based browser of choice? I'd be curious as to the reasons why. Elinks is pretty feature filled, highly configurable, and is still lightening fast with the cellular connection.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    19. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      When I'm stuck without X, I like the web browsers, but honestly, what has more often saved me is irssi. This being because when I am stuck without X, usually my first priority is to regain X.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    20. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Funny

      You forgot the best one of all: telnet.

      It's one thing to have it all INTERPRETED for you. It's another thing to see things in native code.

      There's way too much information to decode the Internet. You get used to it, though. Your brain does the translating. I don't even see the code. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead.

      Wait till you actually view your Porn Flash video as an ASCII-presented binary!

      GET /midgetswithwidgets.flv HTTP/1.0\n\n

      Baby! You aren't a natural red-head, are you?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    21. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sadly it actually is. Due to using so much memory it couldn't be directly ported to linux on the Nintendo DS so "retawq" is used instead. With a bit of extra memory you can already use Opera there so lynx is stuck in the limbo between.

    22. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by kipman725 · · Score: 1

      I use dillo and firefox. Dillo is just in need of an addblock plugina and some more acurate rendering and it will be perfect.

    23. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Mobile devices don't have a lot of power either. Dillo on Symbian may fill a gap or two.

    24. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, they should have called it XLynx. Maybe it'll find use as part of a gui for embedded networking gear.

    25. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The light of the standards-based Internet is dawning, and "works best with Internet Explorer" is becoming the odd anachronism it deserves to be.

      Yeah... all thanks to Bill Gates and his lacking competitors.

    26. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by furlongxweek · · Score: 1

      I feel bad using elinks...

    27. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by furlongxweek · · Score: 1

      As a lightweight browser, I think the best is Kazehakase.

    28. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by harry666t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, no, no. You got it all wrong.

      Elinks, elinks, elinks, and...

      python -c "print __import__('urllib2').urlopen('$URL').read()"

    29. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Which one is better for pr0n?

    30. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O.K., Firefox, Seamonkey (partly), Opera, K-Meleon, Konqueror? These quickly come to mind, which four did you mean? Is Flock not good or general enough? Do you count browsers with same engines (in that case, either Fx or Seamonkey or K-Meleon would have to do)? Do you only count standalone browsers and not full suites (in that case, Seamonkey out)? I'm a bit confused about your choice of words...

    31. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by stevey · · Score: 1

      A long time ago there was only one choice - and that was Netscape's Communicator.

      That was the only really useful graphical browser for the first few years when I started using Linux around 94.

      (Binary only; and I'd start it with "-no-java" to avoid the machine stalling for 60+ seconds when it found an applet!)

      I'm hazy on the commercial Unixes, because at that time I wasn't able to use them, but there was a ported version of IE for Solaris which seemed slightly popular, but most of the people I knew that had access to "big boxes" still used Netscape.

      Personally I'm happy with Firefox, but I'm even happier that there are several reasonable choices. It'd suck to move from an IE monopoly to a Firefox-one.

    32. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Sodki · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you left elinks out of that list, considering that elinks is way better than links, with support for mouse, tabs, etc..

    33. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by kjamez · · Score: 0, Troll

      Until Opera gets developer tools AT LEAST on par with Internet Explorer (6), I find it very difficult to support Opera in any complex web interface. It also lacks proper ARIA support, and key handling.

      And unfortunately, having four competing browsers is a slight headache. You have: Internet Explorer 6 and 7, and 8 coming with no hope of an end-of-life for 6 in the foreseeable future, Safari 3, though 2 still has a smidge of market share ... Also, Safari on OSX !== Safari for Windows, so there is also that to consider. Firefox 3, and 2, and really you ought to support anything from 1.5 and on, though the high adoption rate of Firefox and Safari users helps there some, where you are always targeting the 'most current' ... Count Opera 9, and immediately you have ten individual browser test cases, each with their own quirks and pains, some requiring a second (or third) machine (vm) to even test properly. So for each function, feature, and float, one has to load ten browsers. Brings new light to the beauty of unit testing.

      The really brave stay up with Webkit nightly.

      I love the fact stuff is moving so rapidly, but at some point supporting backwards compatibility becomes a burden.

      --
      you can't have everything, where would you put it?
    34. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by ricegf · · Score: 1

      having four competing browsers is a slight headache

      But having one competition-less browser is a huge PITA...

    35. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I haven't made web development for many years, but my understanding is that you have to make two test cases for today's browser market : one for IE, on for standard compliant browser. From what I know, if it works on Konqueror, it works on Firefox. No ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    36. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by maxume · · Score: 1

      The power supply for my laptop, a 20 month old core duo 1.66 GHz, is 65 watts. That means it draws less than that when the screen is on full brightness (otherwise, it would not be able to charge the battery...).

      I guess that could be described as underpowered, or as a high power draw, but it seems kind of silly. It isn't anywhere near as fast as something more recent, but it is still fast enough that 99% of the time, it is idling waiting for me to do something, and 1% of the time I wait for it (and that is really usually disk IO). An $800, 2010 laptop should have that up to 99.9%...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    37. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by kjamez · · Score: 1

      agreed. my biggest complaint, as with everyone in the web dev world, is Internet explorer and the various things wrong with it. (namely having to support 2 "stable" versions and a coming 8, now in beta, which introduces all sorts of fun new quirky IE behaviors)

      --
      you can't have everything, where would you put it?
    38. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by sznupi · · Score: 1

      But unfortunatelly in many cases it's simply replaced with "works best with IE and Firefox"...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    39. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by websitebroke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's just straight HTML, you might get away with just testing with Firefox or just testing with Konqueror. Anything beyond that, and they both have their quirks. ALL browsers have their quirks, it's just that the difference between IE and everything else is so huge, the other quirks aren't as noticeable.

    40. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      It's not much better. It's Internet Explorer and Firefox now instead of just Internet Explorer, but you still don't get to use any standards-compliant browser you want.

    41. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by ricegf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, I'm afraid market share still rules - and Opera still barely moves the needle for reasons unfathomable to me. I used early versions and liked it a lot. I switched to FF only because I have an overwhelmingly strong preference for libre software.

      However, with Apple making significant inroads into the PC marketplace, Safari is slowly becoming a significant player. And if web developers eventually have to code for three browsers, they might as well just go ahead and use the standards - and we all win.

    42. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Roman+Mamedov · · Score: 1

      I believe NetSurf has more modern rendering engine than dillo, while being as light (or lighter).

    43. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by leviramsey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Opera.

      When viewing pictures in an image gallery (warning: rather NSFW... that was the first link on The Hun that was obviously images), the fast-forward button on the toolbar automatically changes to a mode that steps through the images in the gallery one by one. In short: one-handed browsing without having to move the mouse much.

    44. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by kv9 · · Score: 1

      Until Opera gets developer tools AT LEAST on par with Internet Explorer (6), I find it very difficult to support Opera in any complex web interface. It also lacks proper ARIA support, and key handling. I don't know exactly what you mean by "developer tools" but here you go. and one thing I know is how "friendly" IE is with developers. and I dont mean Balmer's "developers".
    45. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Z-MaxX · · Score: 1

      Try Midori (NetKit rendering engine) -- super fast and lean, but the latest builds render most web sites very well.

      --
      Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
    46. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four ? Maybe you mean Five. How about AT&T's Pogo Browser
      Techcrunch is handing out invites to the Beta program.

    47. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Except that I bet you aren't counting the graphical layer required to run Opera. If you want Opera, you have to run X, or similar. If you want to run lynx, you can do it console only.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    48. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by neumayr · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's a problem for both, Opera and Lynx.
      As there's no native textmode on the DS, you'd have to implement an ncurses compatible terminal, or rewrite the display code entirely.
      For Opera, they had to rewrite the display code, which probably wasn't all that hard, given in was a multiplatform (graphical) browser from the very start.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    49. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      s/lynx/telnet/

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    50. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Links2 and edbrowse: the only text-mode browsers with anything like decent JavaScript support. The first is a full-screen console app. The second is perhaps the most unique web browswer I've ever seen, a browser that looks like the venerable Unix editor ed.

    51. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      Telnet? You are spoilt! Telnet automatically converts linefeeds to carriage-return/linefeed combinations. Use netcat if you want the raw stuff.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    52. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You rock.

    53. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Kjella · · Score: 1

      And if web developers eventually have to code for three browsers, they might as well just go ahead and use the standards - and we all win. Absolutely, I've been an Opera fan since version 6 or so and Firefox was one of the best things that happened to Opera (though it probably killed their chance to charge for a decent web browser too, oh well). Which is why I'm hoping for many more Mac users, so the same will happen with application development. Yes, yes you can say some bad things about Apple but you'd be missing the point, the point is that once developers start looking past the Microsoft sphere and say "Hmm what works on Windows AND Mac", Linux will almost certainly get a free boost as cross-platform often means all three. Sure, things are a bit different like the libre and non-libre software has switched places, and it's not one standard but several (not that HTML, CSS, AJAX, plugins etc. are either) but I'm sure the result will be good anyway.
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    54. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by dreddnott · · Score: 1

      One of my favourite Opera features. I use it for jumping to the next page in a really long thread, or an eBay or Google search.

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    55. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This being Slashdot and all, why didn't you link to this gallery? I'm sure your average /. reader would have found this more exciting.

    56. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Remembering (or keeping a text-file on an other screen) with cookies for logins suck though.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    57. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I think you meant WebKit, not NetKit.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    58. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I'm interested in finding a text browser. Why do you like W3M?

    59. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Hatta · · Score: 1

      That's funny, when I'm stuck with X, my first priority is usually to regain irssi.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    60. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big four: Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari.

    61. Re:Choice is a Good Thing by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Sorry for being off-topic, but I wanted to briefly answer another comment you made as a reply to this:

      Well actually Opera *does* have google shoveling them money for every search made from the browser, which was their stated reason for going free-without-ads a few years ago.

      Again you are assuming that this was viable at an earlier stage. That Opera is making money from the free version now doesn't mean that it was possible for them to do so at that point.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  3. Opea is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've used Opera for more than two and half years on Windows and Linux. It is hands down the best browser and the most useful cross platform program available, for a variety of reasons.

    9.5 is fine, once you move the New Tab button back to its rightful place on the LEFT!

    1. Re:Opea is awesome! by mixmatch · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Thank you. You have helped me. Mod parent up!

    2. Re:Opea is awesome! by iwein · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      you wish. Like I ever would get any mod points!

      --
      Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
    3. Re:Opea is awesome! by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      Thank you. You have helped me.

      Mod parent up!

      How is this a troll ?
    4. Re:Opea is awesome! by ya+really · · Score: 1

      Because the parent said opera instead of firefox perhaps? Note to self, check to see if my post is modded to -1 tomorrow sometime.

    5. Re:Opea is awesome! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      New tab? MMB on the tab bar works just fine.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Opea is awesome! by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 1

      New tab button? What useless clutter! I right click and drag my mouse down, or use ctrl + t.

    7. Re:Opea is awesome! by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      I totally agree on both counts...

      Why on earth did they change the keybord shortcuts though ? to piss off their old users ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    8. Re:Opea is awesome! by pilbender · · Score: 1

      Some of the shortcuts changed for sure. The first thing I did was enable single key shortcuts again. Things are mostly the same as 9.2 when you do that. It's not going to fix all you grievances, but it will get some.

      9.5 is a tremendous improvement or 9.2. There are still a few sites which force me to Firefox, but not too many anymore.

      There's also a 9.2 compatibility mode in the shortcuts menu. I didn't fight it and simply learned the new ones.

      Bookmarks sync is cool too. I use it to go between work which is Windows and home which is Linux. I used to use an automatic sync script. This saves me a little effort on my part.

      Of course, it you are worried about privacy, then automatic bookmark syncing is probably not a good idea. It's still a nice feature and my bookmarks aren't too interesting to anyone anyway.

      --
      Fresh horses and more whiskey for my men.
  4. But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by themushroom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The real challenge/merit is whether Opera 9.5 is accepted by webpages as being able to display all the content correctly, rather than insisting a component isn't there and demanding its download only to be told it's still not there.

    That's my complaint about the last version or two of Opera (and I've been using it since 3.5), that I wind up having to break out IE or FF for some pages because just being adherent to the HTML 4 standard isn't enough of a claim anymore.

    1. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by CrashNBrn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Set Browser ID to: Identify as Opera
      RightClick, Edit Site Preferences
      [Network] Tab:
      Browser Identification:
      MASK as FireFox | MASK as Internet Explorer

      Which is different than just "Identify as..."

    2. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by Vectronic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just remember to switch it back when you don't need the option anymore, otherwise you are contributing to the various Browser Market Share/User Share statistics with wrong info.

      I try to avoid using that, because then when some web admin looks at the logs, he'll see a slanted perspective of how many users are using which web browser, and just continuing the problem - "meh, not enough Opera users to really bother fixing it"

    3. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by Fjandr · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can enable it on a per-site basis.

      Honestly, if a site is designed to tell you that it won't allow use of a browser that can render it perfectly, it is one developed by people who obviously didn't even bother to test the functionality of the site under those other browsers. Developers who are that lazy aren't going to look at weblogs and give a damn about removing meaningless browser restrictions.

    4. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      running ubuntu 7.10 and FF sometimes ignores my clicks to open /. comments and it's friggin toolbars take up half the screen. Opera 9.5 can use the WHOLE screen and never ignores my requests. For me Opera is the best browser at the moment...

    5. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by stainlesssteelpat · · Score: 0

      I have a similar issue with opera. It is my browser of choice, although i'm unfortunately on XP rather than Ubuntu or some such. My uni webpage doesn't script properly for opera. When the JAVA is enabled for my MYUNI aplication i just get a the menus and not the content. And clicking menus just leads to further menus. Furthermore MYUNI doesn't work with Firefox, so presently i'm stuck with IE which is just, well unpleasant. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as using multiple browsers just seems illogical to me. Cheers Pat

      --
      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, the lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade.- Shelley
    6. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Can this be set per-site? I know I can do the user-agent per-site, at least, in Konqueror.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    7. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, the key there is "Edit Site Preferences"

    8. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by Yfrwlf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Everyone needs to complain to the corp that runs the site when they find silly pages like that. Something like...

      "My browser is fully capable of displaying your content, but I am unable to do so due to your restricted access. Please tell your overlords to consider using web standards, and checking compatibility at www.w3.org, so that users of all browsers and OSes will have access."

      Except replace "overloards" with whatever term best fits depending on your mood and the site, like monkeys, poopfaces, or ree-rees.

      Or, instead of all that, just tell them to please inform their webmaster that it's no longer 1998.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    9. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by ya+really · · Score: 1

      In my honest opinion, if you support Safari as a webmaster, then you should support Opera as well, due to browser usage being around the same. In my experience, I've had very little problems with firefox or opera, they seem close to the same as long as you're dealing with straight html 4.01, css 2.1 and little to no javascript. Safari gives me some troubles with its selectBox sizes and fonts. However, as far as cross supporting browsers, if you're a webmaster and you don't feel like supporting X browser, please don't put some message that tells me I should switch to Y browser that you happen to like or your company wants to support. That's just being a self-rightous prick and lazy.

    10. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Developers who are that lazy aren't going to look at weblogs and give a damn about removing meaningless browser restrictions.

      No, I have honestly seen people argue that it's not worth supporting anything but Internet Explorer because all of their users use Internet Explorer, when the reason all of their users use Internet Explorer is because the site in question is Internet Explorer-only by design or has massive bugs in other browsers. It's less about a lazy attitude and more about a stupid, head-in-the-sand attitude.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    11. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Send an anonymous email to their overlords claiming you are an visually impaired person using web browser Opera and you can't access their site.

    12. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by adamchou · · Score: 1

      you have clearly not attempted to develop sites for AOL browser. Although its not necessarily an issue with the browser rendering itself, developing a site to work with AOL's browser is a huge pain. Here's a great explanation of the issue http://www.cactusoft.com/blog_38

    13. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Try the IE tab extension.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    14. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I didn't actually say anything about actively supporting other browsers, but rather about intentionally restricting display in other browsers that are otherwise perfectly capable of interacting with the site.

    15. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Developing for other browsers != intentionally denying a browser that is capable of displaying the content perfectly as-written.

      I'm not saying that developers are lazy for not taking other browsers into consideration, I'm saying they're lazy when the only reason a browser doesn't work on their site is the browser check code.

    16. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That can edit a lot of other preferences too BTW, like cookie settings, popups, allowing/disabling flash/javascript/GIF animation, etc. Apparently you can also force an encoding now for those pages that completely fail to set it properly (wasn't available in 9.27 IIRC).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    17. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noone cares if you test your site with Opera, what they care is if you have one of those fucking retarded javascripts that reject users if it doesn't recognize their browser.

    18. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      Wow, I don't like dishonesty but that's a good point, and now both Opera and FF3 have full page zooming, though I'm sure Microsoft is going to try to adopt the same if they haven't already. =/

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    19. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Not run into that one for a long, long time now. I still have some pages that tell me it's not tested on this browser and/or it's not supported, but they let me through. I used to run into that one much more earlier, where each version of IE/Netscape needed their own page and if you didn't recognize it, there was hardly any point in sending the page at all.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    20. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      No, I have honestly seen people argue that it's not worth supporting anything but Internet Explorer because all of their users use Internet Explorer, when the reason all of their users use Internet Explorer is because the site in question is Internet Explorer-only by design or has massive bugs in other browsers. It's less about a lazy attitude and more about a stupid, head-in-the-sand attitude.
      Sadly, it is still a fact of life that the majority of people are using IE on Windows. It's good that the majority is nowhere near the 95%+ or whatever it was a few years ago, but the fact remains that if you code just for IE you'll keep most visitors happy.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Your complaint about Opera is that it's being blocked by some sites? Huh?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  5. load gmail! by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I've never had the chance to use opera, but I'd consider switching if I knew it would load Gmail properly. ARgh! Firefox 3 STILL requires you to occasionally delete all cookies, cache, forms, etc. for gmail to load proper.

    And don't tell me "all you have to do is select 'clear private data' and it loads fine." Sure that works for 2 or 3 days max, then you gmail starts screwing up again. "Just clear your private data" is a temporary fix AT BEST. It's really annoying to have to wait while all my sites re-download cookies, and having re-enter my passwords for the myriad log-in sites I uses.

    There...

    But yeah, does gmail load properly on Opera?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:load gmail! by solanum · · Score: 1

      I've used Gmail (and Google Calendar and reader etc) with Firefox on Linux for some years and never ever had a problem that required what you describe. Perhaps you want to be a bit more specific about the problem or post some links to other reports like it. Otherwise......

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
    2. Re:load gmail! by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      You know, I have a feeling it's "on your end". I can't offer a solution, but I can offer my own anecdotal evidence. I've been using GMail daily (and often several times daily) since the early betas of the service. I have never once had to delete cookies or cache to make GMail load - it's loaded every time for me, just fine.

      Now, my mother (50+ computer luddite) uses GMail as well, and gets the problem "You know, it doesn't come up, and I have to go back and click it again, but usually I have to type in 'gmail' to make it work." So, I have seen the problem.

      So, again, I can't offer you a solution. Perhaps it's profile corruption in firefox? That was something that used to happen to people. You could try a "fresh" profile to see if that helps. Either that, or it could be your internet connection is a bit shaky.

    3. Re:load gmail! by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean by "proper" but ive never had any problems with GMail on Opera.

      (waits for FireFox to load)

      Ok, so the only differences I found were:

      Opera just has the [Loading...] box, whereas FireFox has the username@gmail.com with a progress bar...

      second, the (select all / none / etc) appears above the [Archive/Report Spam/Delete] buttons at the bottom of the page, but Opera has it underneath like it is at the top of the email list...

      FF3 Vs. Opera 9.51

    4. Re:load gmail! by NobodyElse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you're using Windows, and curious about Opera, I'd suggest either OperaUSB ( http://www.opera-usb.com/ ) or Portable Opera ( http://www.kejut.com/operaportable ). Both are portable versions of Opera, and as portable software they leave no trace on the host system, something that can be very convenient for testing a piece of software. Furthermore, I don't know what you're talking about with Gmail problem, either Opera rendering issues OR Firefox 'clear private data' issues. I've used both Opera and Firefox for years, on at least 3 different PCs that I've owned, and I've never had any such issue whatsoever! I'm not sure what in the world you're talking about, and certainly not with any new versions!

    5. Re:load gmail! by at_slashdot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Opera loads old version of GMail and that works fine, if you want the new version you need to navigate to this link: https://mail.google.com/mail/?nocheckbrowser (which also works fine in Opera)

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    6. Re:load gmail! by omeomi · · Score: 1

      ARgh! Firefox 3 STILL requires you to occasionally delete all cookies, cache, forms, etc. for gmail to load proper.

      What are you talking about? I've been using Gmail with Firefox for years without ever having a problem that sounds even remotely like what you're describing...

    7. Re:load gmail! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Gmail specifically targets browsers -- it "compiles" different versions of the page (and the javascript) from the original Java source in a different way for each supported browser, and then the proper "compiled" version is selected based on user-agent.

      Given that, unless Opera is explicitly targeted by Google, good luck. Despite Safari being more or less supported, I believe Konqueror does best when identifying as Firefox... weird.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    8. Re:load gmail! by comm2k · · Score: 1

      Seamonkey uses the same rendering engine doesn't it? I've never had a single problem with Seamonkey / GMail.

    9. Re:load gmail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not got a clue what you're talking about.

      I've used gMail with Firefox almost daily since before it finished beta and I've never had any problems like you describe.

      Do you have any scripts or userChrome mods that would affect gmail?

    10. Re:load gmail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disable mail.google.com in your html validator/tidy add-on, that worked for me, no more crashes.

    11. Re:load gmail! by maxume · · Score: 1

      Next time it doesn't load, try hitting Ctrl-F5, that's the command for reloading the page and the cache, instead of just reloading the page. It essentially ignores any cached information, and a partial download of the page is almost certainly your issue.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:load gmail! by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 1

      (which also works fine in Opera) Well, unless you want to use the chat feature built in to the Gmail interface. That's still pretty sketchy in Opera with the new Gmail interface.
    13. Re:load gmail! by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that actually sounds like something real information

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    14. Re:load gmail! by globaljustin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      i thought i'd reply to you, since you were the biggest asshole with your response.

      since you use gmail so much, you should know that it's most recent versions have a 'standard' view that displays your chat and all kinds of widgets, and the "html" view.

      when i would log in, i would get the status bar "loading gmail"...it would stop about 75% of the way through, then after awhile an error message would occur saying something to the effect of "there was an error loading gmail...load the 'html' basic view, or go to the 'help' page"

      at the help page, it tells you basically it is either alot of web traffic or your cookies and cache that are causing gmail not to load in 'standard' mode. its solution is to use the 'html' version or "go to tools>options>clear private data>" including cache and cookies...i tried just manually deleting my cache and only google's cookies but it didn't work

      yes, many, many people have this problem but the only fix offered is 'clear private data' fix offered up by gmail's help page.

      So, you still want to be an asshole? is that enough fscking information for you, you fscking know-it-all douchebag? fsck! I didn't even ask for "help" in my original post, i just asked if Opera loaded Gmail better...

      For someone who likes to come off like you know so much more than me about the internet, you should at least be aware that gmail had these loading problems on FF 2+...I hate how people like you power trip

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    15. Re:load gmail! by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Fuck you, buddy. My post was intended to be helpful. I was never an asshole at all. You're just projecting your own values onto my post, because you're frustrated. Being on Slashdot I (incorrectly) assumed you wanted more ideas to help troubleshoot the problem. I let you know that it's been working fine for me in firefox. That should be a pretty clear indicator it's on your end. Yes, many people may have this problem, and as I said in my post, my own mother has it when she uses GMail. But no, instead of thanking someone who offers help (and let me tell you this, since you insist on it - it loads IDENTICALLY WELL in Opera and Firefox - in other words, it loads just fine) you decide to go on a hissy-fit because you THOUGHT I was being an asshole. Grow up, take a deep breath, and try to imagine that people just might be trying to genuinely help you instead of going "HA HA, GMAIL SUCKS FOR YOU. GET A NEW COMPUTER, FAGGOT". Seriously. If you don't like people with this supposed "know-it-all attitude" (read: projection), you'd better get the hell off of Slashdot.

    16. Re:load gmail! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I've never had the chance to use opera, but I'd consider switching if I knew it would load Gmail properly. ARgh! Firefox 3 STILL requires you to occasionally delete all cookies, cache, forms, etc. for gmail to load proper.

      And don't tell me "all you have to do is select 'clear private data' and it loads fine." Sure that works for 2 or 3 days max, then you gmail starts screwing up again. "Just clear your private data" is a temporary fix AT BEST. It's really annoying to have to wait while all my sites re-download cookies, and having re-enter my passwords for the myriad log-in sites I uses.

      There...

      But yeah, does gmail load properly on Opera?

      Yes it does. Opera occasionally screws up when you use Google's RichEdit mode for email - pressing delete makes the cursor jump to the end of the mail for mail from a Taiwanese webmail service one of my friends uses. So I need to select Plan Text mode before I start typing. Other than that it works fine.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    17. Re:load gmail! by PFAK · · Score: 1

      Java is Java, JavaScript is JavaScript. No part of Gmail uses Java.

      --

      Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
    18. Re:load gmail! by maxume · · Score: 1

      Do you work at Google building Gmail?

      I though gmail used the Google Web Toolkit:

      http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/

      If it does, then it really is written in java...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:load gmail! by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      in your response, you said

      Now, my mother (50+ computer luddite) uses GMail as well, and gets the problem "You know, it doesn't come up, and I have to go back and click it again, but usually I have to type in 'gmail' to make it work." So, I have seen the problem.

      There at the end..."So, I have seen the problem." You described a virtually computer illiterate person who doesn't know how to enter a web address into an address bar, and in say that I have the same problem she has.

      That was you being an asshole.

      Just because you followed it up with some half-assed advice that had nothing to do with what I asked in my post doesn't make your post any less troll/flamebait know-it-all douchebaggery.

      Here is what legit, non-douchebag responses to my post looks like

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    20. Re:load gmail! by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      There at the end..."So, I have seen the problem." You described a virtually computer illiterate person who doesn't know how to enter a web address into an address bar, and in say that I have the same problem she has.
      Well fine, next time I won't include funny anecdotes. I found the way she described it to be humorous. Apparently, you like to take things personally, so it was insulting. My intent was not to be a douchebag, but yours was in all your responses.

      And yes, my advice actually IS helpful and relevant. I've seen many things happen to other people, the least of which is AJAX-heavy sites not loading, due to Firefox Profile corruption. Happened a lot during 2.0, and can carry over to 3.0 if the profile isn't fixed properly. But apparently it's just half-assed advice and I don't know anything. Just because you don't like the sound of advice doesn't mean it's worthless. And didn't have anything to do with your post? It had EVERYTHING to do with your post. I offered advice and a possible solution to a problem that didn't involve switching browsers. But no, you've already gotten it through your head, "It can't be my fault, it can't be malware (ooh, there's another thing it could be, but I guess I'm a douchebag for suggesting it!), it can't be any kind of corruption on my box, it MUST be MOZILLA's fault. Maybe Opera will be better. Better ask Slashdot instead of spending 10 seconds downloading it and trying myself! I couldn't be more lazy!"

      You sound like a cripple just fallen out of his chair. I offer my hand, and you snarl and say "I DON'T NEED HELP FROM PEOPLE WHO CAN WALK." In the end, you're the douchebag who can't walk, had to suffer to get back into the chair, and I'm confused as to why you'd feel that way.

    21. Re:load gmail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a cripple just fallen out of his chair. I offer my hand, and you snarl and say "I DON'T NEED HELP FROM PEOPLE WHO CAN WALK." In the end, you're the douchebag who can't walk, had to suffer to get back into the chair, and I'm confused as to why you'd feel that way.

      Koiu Lpoi... WHY!!!!!!!!! Now you never get good job!

    22. Re:load gmail! by francisstp · · Score: 1

      1. Gmail loads perfectly with Opera on my machine (SUSE 10.1).

      2. You can select which data to clear in the "delete private data" options. E.G. you can choose to keep your wand passwords but delete your cookies and history.

    23. Re:load gmail! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Java is Java, JavaScript is JavaScript. Believe me, I know. I've worked with JavaScript for years, and thankfully, I no longer have to touch Java. I realize JavaScript is really more of a LISP dialect with a C-like syntax.

      No part of Gmail uses Java. If by "no part" you mean "pretty much every part", you're right. Gmail was built with the Google Web Toolkit, which allows you to write the whole app in Java. It then takes certain classes, written in Java, and "compiles" them to JavaScript.
      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  6. awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the lack of ability for the user to revert the behavior to the tried, true, expected behavior of FF1.0, FF1.5, FF1.8, and FF2.0 is ridiculous and will hamper the adoption of 3.0

    absolutely stupid, just like IE7's totally unnecessary changes to its GUI

    let's call a spade a spade and dish criticism to Mozilla just like we dish it to Microsoft

    unnecessary and unrevertible changes to GUIs are MONUMENTALLY STUPID AND ANNOYING

    1. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Quarters · · Score: 1, Informative
    2. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cue mountains of posts pointing out, yet again that oldbar doesn't make it exactly like it used to be, just close.

    3. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Am I the only one who thinks of this picture every time I hear "Awesome Bar"? It just seems like one of those things that was a placeholder name that never got changed.

      Dev 1: Man, what should we call the new multifunction search-address bar?
      Dev 2: I dunno, I've been calling it the "awesome bar" in the code.
      Dev 1: Damn that's stupid.
      Dev 2: Yeah I know, but I can't think of anything better.
      Dev 1: Me either, just leave it for now.

      And then, over time, everyone just got used to calling it that, and it ended up released that way.

    4. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by smussman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      unnecessary and unrevertible changes to GUIs are MONUMENTALLY STUPID AND ANNOYING

      I initially read this as momentarily. Perhaps this is more accurate?

    5. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by joocemann · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Dude.. it only looks slightly different and puts things from your bookmarks below your address bar as you type.

      I dunno wtf you're talking about. I use the internet all the time, probably 2-3 hours a day of web-browsing alone in that time... I use firefox from 1 through 3, and I've hardly noticed a difference.

      Sounds more like a whining point than something substantially flawed. Just my 2 cents.

    6. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 0, Troll

      The fact that you have to download a third-party add-on to even resemble the original functionality shows how little respect the Mozilla Corporation has for its users.

      Firefox without extensions is ridiculously barebones. I'm glad I'm an Opera user.

      Speaking of stuff that's not in stock Firefox, one of the things about Opera I almost can't do without is Tools->Quick Preferences->Edit Site Preferences. So bloody useful. Oh, and the Cookie Manager in the regular preferences dialog is pretty awesome too.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    7. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by superash · · Score: 1

      The one in Opera rocks! and FYI, Opera betas had the same feature much before Firefox announced the "awesome bar".

    8. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, I hope you get that GED. You're good enough, you're almost smart enough, and doggone it people find your anecdotal empty posts that totally disregard the complaints of the parent poster humorous.

      thanks for your post about how you haven't had a problem. Maybe you'd like to follow up on every FF bugzilla bug with a quick "I haven't experience a problem"

      STFU jackarse

    9. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Am I the only one who thinks of this picture every time I hear "Awesome Bar"? It just seems like one of those things that was a placeholder name that never got changed.

      Reminds me of 'OS/2 Warp'. Ugh. I'm not sure which company was more stupid - IBM not knowing what to do with OS/2, or Commodore not knowing what to do with the Amiga. *sigh*

    10. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by ilikepi314 · · Score: 1

      No kidding. I keep wondering if I missed some secret feature of the address bar in firefox < 3.0. As I recall, all it did was display previously-typed addresses. Now it displays previously-typed addresses AND bookmarked addresses in a little popup. How is that an absolutely stupid unnecessary change? I actually find it rather convenient, but maybe that's because I keep a lot of bookmarks.

      If someone can explain what behavior I've been missing over the years that is now suddenly unusable, I'd really appreciate it; in fact, I'll join you in complaining. But until then, it just sounds like being afraid of any and all change.

    11. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by SilentChasm · · Score: 2, Informative

      The fact that you have to download a third-party add-on to even resemble the original functionality shows how little respect the Mozilla Corporation has for its users.

      Firefox without extensions is ridiculously barebones. I'm glad I'm an Opera user.

      Speaking of stuff that's not in stock Firefox, one of the things about Opera I almost can't do without is Tools->Quick Preferences->Edit Site Preferences. So bloody useful. Oh, and the Cookie Manager in the regular preferences dialog is pretty awesome too.

      You can open the Quick Preferences with F12.
      That way it's just Quick Preferences->Edit Site Preferences
      That way you don't have to navigate through so many menus.

      I rarely ever use the menu as the panel or various shortcuts provide the same function (Ctrl-F12 for Preferences, Shift-F12 for Appearance, etc).

      Nice thing is that I can completely eliminate the menubar from the application, saving even more space vs Firefox. All I have currently is the tab bar and the URL bar.

    12. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Dhalka226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that you have to download a third-party add-on to even resemble the original functionality shows how little respect the Mozilla Corporation has for its users.

      Replacing old features with new ones has nothing to do with lacking respect for users, it's about trying to improve the user experience. Not everybody is going to like them, sure; that's true of just about any change you make. The fact that it's possible to download an extension and get pretty close to the behavior people complain they no longer have isn't a strike against Firefox, it's a sign of the robustness of the extensions and community. Apparently extensions aren't permitted to drill so deeply into the core browser that they can change how things are looked up--at least I assume that's why the extension isn't quite the old behavior. That may be good or bad depending on your perspective, but it's certainly safer.

      More to the point, most of the posts seem to be: "I just downloaded Firefox and I fucking hate this new address bar!@" I thought we were supposed to be reasonable people here? What happened to giving something a chance before you spit on it and declare Mozilla to be disrespectful of its users for ever having implemented it? For that matter, if these people ever bother to actually give details about what they don't like about it it seems to be basically the order it's returning the results. For example, lots of people complain that typing "en" is no longer bringing up "en.wikipedia.org" as their first result. For one thing, this behavior can be mirror even more closely with a configuration option. It's not in the GUI; bitch about that if you want, but it's there. Beyond that, it's simply more proof that they haven't bothered to give it a chance. The search results are adaptive. The more you type "en" and select "en.wikipedia.org," the more it learns that's what you want. Sounds like a feature to me. All it takes is patience, but clearly most people have none and would prefer to rant about it on forums like this one.

      Firefox without extensions is ridiculously barebones.

      Or bloated, depending on who around here you ask. That alone should clue you in that it's nothing more than a matter of perspective. But let's play along and say you're right. All that goes to show is that there are two camps with regard to things like this: One who believes the best stuff should be merged in or included by default with the browser, and one that believes the browser core should stay as lean as possible and let this functionality be done with add-ons. Opera tends to the former, and Firefox is a bit of a hybrid but tends to the latter. So what? If you really can't be bothered to customize things to your liking, that's fine--use Opera or whatever else you find that suits you. That's really what it's all about in the end. That doesn't mean that the alternate perspective is wrong, though.

      I'm glad I'm an Opera user.

      Well, you're certainly free to use whichever browser you prefer for whatever reasons you prefer it--I just hope you have better reasons than "default Firefox is barebones," which seems to be all you said here. That smells a bit too much of zealotry to me. At the end of the day I guess it doesn't even matter what it is. *shrugs*

    13. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If I type "c" guess how many sites Awesomebar shows that begins with "c"?

      If you guessed "none", then you're correct! It does match ".com" a ton.

      "CN" comes up with a ton of URLs that are apparently what Google does when it redirects you to your final search result.

      Once I type "CNN" it finally realizes that, hey, "cnn.com" just MIGHT be what I'm going for. Given that it, like, it's the only URL that starts with "CN".

      "Sla" comes up with Doonesbury. See, it's hosted at "Slate.com" - even though the URL doesn't contain "slate" anywhere in it.

      "Slashdot" comes up with the Slashdot story on the Debian SSL key fiasco. I guess I visited that story a bunch while trying to figure out exactly how vulnerable our systems are and now it's considered more correct than slashdot.org, despite the fact that the URL starts with "it" since it's a story from the IT section.

      I'm sure I can come up with more examples, there are 26 letters in the alphabet, after all. And this is ignoring the fact that the autocomplete list is now three times larger than it needs to be. At least you can fix that with extensions. The brain-dead autocomplete algorithm you can't.

    14. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the best example I can think of for this awesome feature.

      1) Go to this page in a new tab
      2) Now close that tab.
      3) In a new tab start typing "Warlord Tiefling" in the location bar.
      4) Notice how a link is coming up and how it is highlighting the word as you type it. But if you select it and hit enter, you'll see that the words "Tiefling Warlord" do not appear in the URL.

      This is the awesomeness of the awesome bar. It doesn't just search the URL of your history and bookmarks, it searches the page title as well! So while trying to remember the URL for the Warlord Tiefling page would be impossible, the awesome bar means you don't have to.

    15. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ugh. I'm not sure which company was more stupid - IBM not knowing what to do with OS/2, or Commodore not knowing what to do with the Amiga. *sigh*


      I say you're the most stupid, for not knowing how to let go of the past.

    16. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by SilentChasm · · Score: 1

      Turns out it's gotten easier than when I last looked through all the menus a few months ago.
      Apparently you can just right click in a page now and "Edit Site Preferences..."

      Sorry for my longer method then.

    17. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Actually I pretty much hated awesome bar as soon as I installed FF3 beta. It has, however, grown on me and I quite like it now. Yes, it was annoying at first, but it's not as bad as it first seems

    18. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If I wanted to search for page titles, I'd either search through my history or more likely use the search bar that's next to the URL bar.

      When I type in URLs into the URL bar, I expect the damned thing to search for URLs and not page titles!

    19. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they didn't, Firefox has had it for longer. And I've been using Firefox 3 since before Alpha 1.

    20. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by joocemann · · Score: 0, Troll

      Here's the best example I can think of for this awesome feature.

      1) Go to this page in a new tab
      2) Now close that tab.
      3) In a new tab start typing "Warlord Tiefling" in the location bar.
      4) Notice how a link is coming up and how it is highlighting the word as you type it. But if you select it and hit enter, you'll see that the words "Tiefling Warlord" do not appear in the URL.

      This is the awesomeness of the awesome bar. It doesn't just search the URL of your history and bookmarks, it searches the page title as well! So while trying to remember the URL for the Warlord Tiefling page would be impossible, the awesome bar means you don't have to.

      Well put. But that doesn't give these guys something new to whine about, does it? Instead, they are overly encumbered by the extra suggestions it provides, suggestions that they themselves bookmarked. Hell, if they don't like the link, delete the bookmark.

      But then again, there's a lotta these anonymous cowards whining about insubstantial things like this address bar. Maybe there's a few bugs, maybe it still has a memory leak. Who knows. If you don't like the program, uninstall. Its that simple.

      One thing i can almost bet on is that despite all the bitching, they did their posting in FF3. Lol. The irony, the apathy, the whiny. I guess if it wasn't FF3, they'd be wining about having to clean their toenail clippers after each use instead of it doing it automatically.... Negative Nancy needs a cookie.

    21. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well sometmes new features ARE a PITA, regardless of perspective. It's like a manufacturer saying that their new machine that explodes after 3 uses has a new feature. Sure, the feature may be entertaining, but at the end of the day it sux.

      That address bar shit that FF3 does is one such feature.

    22. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Panseh · · Score: 1

      ... For example, lots of people complain that typing "en" is no longer bringing up "en.wikipedia.org" as their first result. ...

      At least for searches like Wiki, people should learn how to use Smart Keywords.
    23. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by indi0144 · · Score: 0

      hum, no, when I type a word in the url bar I expect the damned thing to offer me the easiest and fastest way to get where I want to go. I didn't liked the Awesome bar at first... but now when I use FF2 I miss it. It's really not that bad. btw FF3 have a tag feature, just tag what you access most... you can even bookmark your tentacle prOn site of choice and tag it like "Vatican".. whammy!

    24. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Opera's awesome bar goes a step further, not only does it search the URLs and the titles of your history, but also the content. If I type Warlord Tiefling in Opera 9.5's address bar, I get this page as one of the results, because you motioned it, aussie_a.

    25. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best thing is, even if the title didn't have Warlord or Tiefling in it, you can always bookmark the site and add them as tags, achieving the same effect!

    26. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I never wrote anything about the awesome bar before, let alone ranted. But why would I have to be patient, when the previous product (2.x) works just great for me, and enables me to be productive, while the new one hinders me?I thought software is supposed to makes the user's life easier, not to fight with him/her.

      Why not at least make it an option?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    27. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats Awesome!! (and a good demonstration of its powers of awesomeness)

    28. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      But you are not allowed to criticize Firefox on here! You will get the coward's mod: "Overrated".

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    29. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the lack of ability for the user to revert the behavior to the tried, true, expected behavior of FF1.0, FF1.5, FF1.8, and FF2.0 is ridiculous and will hamper the adoption of 3.0

      absolutely stupid, just like IE7's totally unnecessary changes to its GUI

      Which is what Opera has always been doing.

      The default GUI in Opera 5 is different then the one in Opera 6, which again is different in Opera 7 which again is diffirent in Opera 8 and again is different in Opera 9.

      That's the main reason why I do not ever upgrade my browser. I simply do not want to redo all my customisation (which would easily take a day).

    30. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      oldbar doesnt even make it close, it just polishes the turd to make it *look* like the old bar.

    31. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Bogtha · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Am I the only one who thinks of this picture every time I hear "Awesome Bar"?

      Personally, I think of this picture [NSFW], mainly because the users got shafted too.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    32. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Nullav · · Score: 1

      This is why I prefer Opera 9.5. It has a new URL bar too, but URLs usually go up top, unless you're clearly searching titles/content. Oh, and it's only huge when it needs to be. There's still the 'com' problem, but it doesn't stand out nearly as much as in FF.

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
    33. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by harry666t · · Score: 1

      I agree that the lack of choice between standard and "awesome" address bars isn't a good thing, and surely there will soon be extensions that disable the new behavior.

      BTW, the awesome bar works pretty good for me. Kudos to FF dev team. I'd love to have a whole desktop environment based around such thing, like the Mac and Spotlight.

    34. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is: With the old bar, it was completely automatic and all I had to do was remember the first two letters or so. Having to manually add a smart keyword ahead of time is significantly less smooth.

      And before you say that it's already in there, I don't just use the English wikipedia. ;)

    35. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Kattspya · · Score: 1

      If I type "c" guess how many sites Awesomebar shows that begins with "c"? I get criticker which is a site I've visited four or five times since I got FF3. Strangely enough it appears that the awesome bar learns your behaviour and places the more clicked on results first.

      "Slashdot" comes up with the Slashdot story on the Debian SSL key fiasco. I guess I visited that story a bunch while trying to figure out exactly how vulnerable our systems are and now it's considered more correct than slashdot.org, despite the fact that the URL starts with "it" since it's a story from the IT section. S gives me the root of slashdot. The first time i fired up FF3 it only gave me the subdomains. But since then it has learned that s means slashdot.

      Have you tried using FF3 more than once for each of your regular sites?
    36. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      When I type in URLs into the URL bar, I expect the damned thing to search for URLs and not page titles!
      What "URL bar"? Firefox 3 doesn't have a URL bar. It has a location bar.

      If I wanted to search for page titles, I'd either search through my history
      That's exactly what the smart location bar does.

      or more likely use the search bar that's next to the URL bar.
      Huh? Most people use that to search for page contents, not page titles.
    37. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, that's a nice feature, if only Internet Explorer did something like this. Oh wait...it does...

    38. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Which version of IE are you using? Because I just tried in 7.0 and it didn't work.

    39. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh woe, OH WOE! You need to type the first three letters of a three letters long domain before it realizes where you want to go. You might lose one (or even two, if you have visited no other C starting domains at all) characters worth of writing compared to the old address.

      Know what? I rather lose the benefit in 3 letters long addresseses and gain the speed in longer ones than the other way around.

      For example, I am a web developer and currently design a new outlook to existing one. It is at www.longish-domain.com/new

      With the old bar, I would have had to type www.longish-domain.com/n before it would have realized where I want to go, now I just need to type new. Losing a bit on short addresses to win a lot on long ones is a very good deal.

      And take advantage of the bar. If it doesn't bring slashdot up when writing "sla" buth you instead need to write "slas" (still, it's four letters. You lose one or two keystrokes on these), try targetting one of the words in title like "nerds". For me, "ner" brings up slashdot as the first one.

      While I agree that it would have been nice of them to add the option to customize it (choose the old one or customize the new one to forget bookmarks, forget titles or something like that) the reasons you stated are quite insignificant and seem like opposing the change for the sake of opposing the change.

    40. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the way the bar behaves does not retain very good backwards compatibility. That is, it doesn't give priority to urls (afaict from using it for like five minutes).

      Opera does the full page history text search, and also still works well the old way.

    41. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lose. Opera will actually search the content of the pages. To test this just go to any webpage with some text. Close the page, now type some text that was on the page. You will see that address bar will filter down, listing the page that contains the text. Now that is awesome.

    42. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by ArAgost · · Score: 1

      This is the awesomeness of the awesome bar. It doesn't just search the URL of your history and bookmarks, it searches the page title as well! So while trying to remember the URL for the Warlord Tiefling page would be impossible, the awesome bar means you don't have to.

      ...or, if are using Mac OS, Safari history is indexed by Spotlight, you can find it even when your browser is closed, and the url bar stays for the urls.
    43. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by WolverineOfLove · · Score: 1

      If you notice though, it still works with URLs! What a surprise!

    44. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a sword? LUXURY!

    45. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Mattsson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Simple way to disable the horrible "awesome bar"

      about:config
      browser.urlbar.maxRichResults = 0

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    46. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      about:config
      browser.urlbar.maxRichResults = 0

      Turns of the "awesome bar"
      But they should have that option in the options!
      Hiding something important like that in a non-obvious place is stupid.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    47. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera 9.5 searches the page text in the address bar. I actually brought up /this/ page as an option with it.

    48. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by monkeyman_67156 · · Score: 1

      WTF is FF 1.8?

    49. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by daffmeister · · Score: 1

      I don't get this. I never had a moments mis-step moving from FF2 to 3. What is it about the new address bar that makes things difficult?

      (genuinely curious)

    50. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Theres this code out somewhere that shows exactly how oldbar used to behave and this new code that could be modified to behave exactly like it used to either by
      1) copy and paste of old code and bug fixing
      2) rebuilding old code into new code and less bug fixing
      3) building an extension to do this

      so why don't you all STFU and do it?
      hell you might not even have to go to firefox2 some of the early 3 alphas probably still had the old code in there.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    51. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      urls start with "protocol://". if you type "http://i.am.a" into the "url bar" (as you insist on calling it) ff3 will correctly find "http://i.am.a.whiny.know.nothing.bitch.org" from your history, just as you'd expect. what you're complaining about is typing keywords into the awesome bar/location bar and having it find pages based on titles/bookmarks instead of purely on urls. oh noes!!!1!! they made keywords more powerful! however will I cope?

    52. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Oh right you lost one argument because you prefer to use meaninless units when the world of science has moved on, and now your going to troll all of this guys post.

      Good luck with life, you'll need it.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    53. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      No its not some, if not most people i know like the address bar, so it is a feature (to some)

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    54. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      with new bar all you have to do is remember select the most apropriet site a few times and then forever more its stored as automatic, its much more flexible than oldbar and thus servers alot more peole

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    55. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      How is this flamebait? for any user that deletes history every shutdown oldbar was useless.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    56. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Why dont YOU make it an option. for 90% of people the awsome bar will increase productivity, and the other 10% are on sites like slashdot and will bitch about anything anyway so nobody cares what they say anymore

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    57. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Search WTF are you talking about, when i fire up phoenix and type URLs in the URL bar I expect to get to the URL I typed to anything else is just bloat.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    58. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      But we are agreed that this is the way to go for awesome/opera bar?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    59. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Actually I pretty much hated awesome bar as soon as I installed FF3 beta. It has, however, grown on me and I quite like it now. Yes, it was annoying at first, but it's not as bad as it first seems People say that about Vista.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    60. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >so why don't you all STFU and do it?

      Because he doesn't know how? Most of the "nerds" here these days are little more than users.

    61. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by shish · · Score: 1

      I think of this...

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    62. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by neumayr · · Score: 1

      Hold on, didn't IE7 introduce tabs?
      I'm not very familiar with that app, but to me, it makes sense to have an UI change when there's such a fundamental change in functionality.
      I couldn't imagine tabs in IE6's GUI...

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    63. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I think it's 10/90, actually. And the 10% who like Awesome Bar are berating everyone else on sites like Slashdot.

      Anyhow, my numbers are as good as yours.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    64. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      I think of it as "Wunderbar", only less chocolatey and more chewy.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    65. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by ReK_42 · · Score: 1

      not that this helps the thread at all, but opera has had that feature since well before 9.5

      screeny

    66. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      But why would I have to be patient, when the previous product (2.x) works just great for me, and enables me to be productive, while the new one hinders me?

      Then use Firefox 2.x and STFU and leave the rest of us alone. It's not like 2.x stopped working the instant 3 was released, you know.

    67. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Kjella · · Score: 1

      IBM, but long before the Warp days.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    68. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you used to be so cool! There is no troll. And no the argument is easily won. Some people have no idea how common non-metric units are in US science. If only I can get kung pawh to cough up some money on a bet. Not likely, but it is fun trying.

    69. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Funny how this "call to reason" never gets applied to MS products around here.

    70. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I say you're the most stupid

      I say you're the most stupid, for not knowing how to read someone's post, and instead make up a straw man. Perhaps you should direct your comment at the moderator who modded you insightful - he's the one who obviously has an axe to grind against older operating systems. In fact, I suspect you do too.

    71. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Hatta · · Score: 1

      More to the point, most of the posts seem to be: "I just downloaded Firefox and I fucking hate this new address bar!@" I thought we were supposed to be reasonable people here? What happened to giving something a chance before you spit on it and declare Mozilla to be disrespectful of its users for ever having implemented it?

      You don't have to eat a shit pie to know you won't like it.

      In FF2 I can hit 's' in the address bar, and slashdot.org comes right to the top. The other entries are science.slashdot.org, softhome.net, etc. All things I have actually typed into the address bar in the past.

      Now, in FF3, if I type 's' into the address bar, who the hell knows what's going to come up? Will I get urls to Sex or Sluts or something else? I don't need to get used to the awesome bar to know that that is bad.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    72. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Cyvros · · Score: 1

      That is actually incredibly incorrect. Every time I see a mention of the awesomebar online, it's in a geek forum or on /. where someone's bitching about it. In real life? People I know like it. They're used to it. I know people who have used the awesomebar and don't want to go back to Firefox 2 because the oldbar doesn't have the same functionality. I'm not talking about people who obsessively refresh /. to see if a new comment has come through, I'm talking about normal people who have lives and just want tech that works. And the awesomebar just works.

      If anything, the ones who like the awesomebar are not talking about it on sites like /. because they don't know /. exists and wouldn't post here if they did. Maybe this 10% is just 10% of geeks who are stuck in their ways ("WTF do you use a GUI? Everyone knows the CLI is more efficient!") and assume that they're better than end users, therefore all end users must have their exact same feelings, only amplified because that's what end users are like, right?

      Half the time, I see someone saying "Awesomebar is sh*t" and about ten other people come up saying that they like it. But the person doesn't listen despite the fact that he's only used it once because he knows everything and can speak for every other end user out there. (This comes from reading continual rants over the past week written by a select few people about how awesomebar sucks, etc. while others say they've had experiences to the contrary.)

      As for my own experience, I've been using Firefox since 0.9 and been using nightlies and stables since 1.5 - the awesomebar is the best feature I've found in Fx 3. Why? I don't keep history. I'm a paranoid bastard. I don't keep history and I clear whatever history's left upon close. But when I find something I like, I bookmark it (another thing of Fx 3 is the quick-arse bookmarking star) - the awesomebar, unlike the oldbar, searches bookmarks. Before Fx 3, I turned the urlbar auto-complete functionality off. Now I actually use it.

      And if keystroke efficiency is what you're after, try using keywords with your bookmarks. I've configed mine to have "/." take me here, "gm" to Gmail, "w" searches Wikipedia, "sg" searches the Stargate wiki, "p" takes me to Penny Arcade, etc. Now isn't that efficient?

      (Yes, I know, I came late to the conversation. I also realise I'm ranting, so I offer my apologies in that respect.)

    73. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Cyvros · · Score: 1

      But why would I have to be patient, when the previous product (2.x) works just great for me, and enables me to be productive, while the new one hinders me?

      Then use Firefox 2.x and STFU and leave the rest of us alone. It's not like 2.x stopped working the instant 3 was released, you know.

      It will in December, and then there'll be complaints about why they stopped support Fx 2. And then the whingers will say that Fx 3 sucks and they shouldn't be forced to upgrade. And then... whoa, XP vs. Vista flashback.
    74. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Cyvros · · Score: 1

      I probably also shouldn't have started with that sentence. My further apologies for that.

    75. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by elcid73 · · Score: 1

      right- I never get caught up in the "they stole X from Opera..." or "they stole Y from Firefox." But I've finally managed to get my feathers ruffled about this whole "awesome bar" nonsense. Opera does it a step better than Firefox. Plus, the address bar star icon to bookmark *used* to be in Opera before the community thought it shouldn't be (I advocated it however).. it feels like "sloppy seconds" when I see it in Firefox.

      Anyway, maybe it's just the term "awesome" being used that irks me. I'll leave the slashdot crew with the following: "use whatever browser works best for you, and go in peace to love and surf the web."

    76. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by elcid73 · · Score: 1

      That's fine. (and well, you do get URLs, but I get your point) ...But what if it's not a "URL" bar anymore. What if the majority of users want an "awesome bar" -or a universal bar. I like it because it's the same keyboard shortcut to pull up *anything* I browsed before. I execute the same action, and no matter what's rolling around in my head (URL, history, page title..) I can just start typing and find it.

      It may not match your expectations, and I don't blame you for wanting a URL only bar, but I'm done thinking about URLs. I rarely think about web content as only a URL, so this matches my expectations.

    77. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just seems like one of those things that was a placeholder name

      That's exactly what it is. That's just what some developers were calling it, and everyone trying to be hep cats want to use the same lingo. Its official name is not the awesome bar, it's the smart location bar. Why should it even have a product name anyway? It's the address bar. It's not a new component; generic terminology will do.
    78. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      And if keystroke efficiency is what you're after, try using keywords with your bookmarks. I've configed mine to have "/." take me here, "gm" to Gmail, "w" searches Wikipedia, "sg" searches the Stargate wiki, "p" takes me to Penny Arcade, etc. Now isn't that efficient? Well, that's exactly the functionality I have with oldbar, except it's better because I don't need to memorize any new shortcuts, just type the first few letters of the url. I realize that for the examples you noted (except "/.", which I think is harder to type than "sl") there isn't a huge difference, but anyhow, with the oldbar I didn't even have to create any keywords with bookmarks, or maintain bookmarks, for that matter.
      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    79. Re:awesome bar = f u bar by Cyvros · · Score: 1

      I can see where the situation is completely different for us. I maintain bookmarks because I don't keep history. Incredibly, I actually don't find /. any harder to type than sl. Possibly because of the specific keyboard I use - I just use my ring and pinky fingers to reach down to it. I can see where you're coming from, though.

  7. Font rendering by RichPowers · · Score: 0, Troll

    Firefox 3 on Ubuntu 8.04 looks like ass. Apparently subpixel hinting for LCD monitors isn't compiled correctly in the Ubuntu package. Most of the posts online are over a month old and, as far as I know, this hasn't been patched yet. Apparently I'm not the only one with this problem:

    Here

    Here

    "I have found the solution to this problem. The reason you have no subpixel hinting is that Fx3 uses the in-tree cairo library, which has no LCD-filtering patches applied. You, or your distro's package maintainer, will have to compile it with following option in .mozconfig: -enable-system-cairo. You'll also need to use this command: export LDFLAGS='-lX11 -lXrender' "

    And here

    The fonts are so blurry and unreadable that I get a headache just browsing Google News. Until this is resolved, Firefox 3 will remain unusable for me in Hardy Heron.

    1. Re:Font rendering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put it simply: I have subpixel hinting working just fine in Ubuntu 8.04 with Firefox 3 and I haven't tweaked a thing. During pre-release Ubuntu 8.04, Firefox did had some font issues for a version or two.

    2. Re:Font rendering by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      What version are you using? I'm using it right now on an Ubuntu 8.04 laptop with absolutely no issues.

    3. Re:Font rendering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The fonts in (and outside of) Firefox 3.0 are clear and crisp as can be on my Ubuntu 8.04 install.

      This is using a TFT screen though.

    4. Re:Font rendering by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      Might be screen resolution-specific?

  8. Easy. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They're similarly capable, but Firefox is FOSS. Win.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Easy. by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Frankly, with as many features Firefox has copied from Opera, it'd better be good. Don't get me wrong here, I love FF, but there's no denying that some of their "latest greatest" features are ripped straight from Opera.

      If Opera was FOSS, the Firefox team wouldn't have had to write nearly as much code. (insert smiley for people who will inevitably think this is completely serious)

    2. Re:Easy. by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      Opera loads faster, GUI is more responsive, many people don't care about the license... for them Opera is a better choice.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    3. Re:Easy. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't get me wrong here, I love FF, but there's no denying that some of their "latest greatest" features are ripped straight from Opera. So what you're saying is that the Firefox devs are keen observers of what constitutes good interface design and cool features, and add any such things that they see in other products to Firefox, while the Opera devs just turn up their noses at any feature they didn't come up with? That's fucking stupid. "Copying" is how all the best stuff from everyone gets put together into better and better products. Opera devs might do well to learn that. I tried opera once two or three versions ago. I was annoyed that I couldn't cram the Home-Reload-Back buttons, URL bar, and google search box onto the same line with the "File Edit View ... Help" menus. This is a very useful capability on older laptops with small screens. I just now installed 9.5, and guess what: you still can't use that dead space between "Help" and the right edge of the screen. IE was the first to allow that. Firefox wisely "copied" IE to allow the same. What did the Opera guys do? Nothing. They apparently don't like anything they didn't come up with. Fuck them. Fuck bitch-whining about "copying". Give us the fucking features and make the product better.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Easy. by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Most people also don't care about security. I do, so I use Firefox with NoScript.

    5. Re:Easy. by at_slashdot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Opera can disable scripts per page or globally, and you don't need a plugin to do that.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    6. Re:Easy. by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Can you tell me how or link to a page that does? Last time I asked I was recommended I use some proxy software which was anything but as easy as NoScript.

    7. Re:Easy. by NouberNou · · Score: 1

      while the Opera devs just turn up their noses at any feature they didn't come up with? That's fucking stupid. I dont think anyone said that... if I had mod points I'd mod you as a troll but cest la vie... :( Also just because it doesnt have your one pet feature is no need to throw a hissy fit about it. If your monitor/screen is too small to have a forward and back button comfortably fit then maybe you should think about moving out of the world of 640x480 and get something a little bit bigger?

      Fuck them. Fuck bitch-whining about "copying". Give us the fucking features and make the product better. Quit whining about your small... screen.
    8. Re:Easy. by NouberNou · · Score: 1

      Press F-12 the uncheck enable javascript... that has been around since at least version 5 (when I started using Opera).

    9. Re:Easy. by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      True. Very True.
      Opera 9.5 is the fastest browser i have seen.
      Firefox has features, but speed belongs to Opera.
      Plus Opera never crashes.
      Firefox 3.0 crashed two times in two days,

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    10. Re:Easy. by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      And unless something has significantly changed, Firefox can't put TabBars on the left or Right. Which is a much more relevant issue than that small bit of blank space on the Menu bar. All monitors have more Width space than Height. The IE/Firefox restriction of Tabs only on the top or bottom is a serious annoyance.
      http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4903/operascreenlg5.jpg

    11. Re:Easy. by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They're similarly capable, but Firefox is FOSS

      So? Opera has been free (as in beer) for a long time now, and the guys developing it actually made an excellent work of porting it to several OSs/architectures; it works as good and snappy on Windows, Linux and MacOS. It's small, very fast, rock stable and packed with a lot of useful features (a.k.a, not bloat). FF3 is very nice on its own too, yes, but the more competition the merrier. What's not to like?

      People dissing Opera because it's not FOSS are missing on a great browser, and perhaps the best UI available on this kind of software.

    12. Re:Easy. by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's nowhere near the functionality of NoScript. On this page there are 3 JavaScripts that want to run, but I'm only running 1 of them (the slashdot one).

      Also wasn't the awesome bar suppose to be stolen from Opera as well? If so, where is it?

    13. Re:Easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your monitor/screen is too small to have a forward and back button comfortably fit then maybe you should think about moving out of the world of 640x480 and get something a little bit bigger?

      Additionally, the next poster said:

      All monitors have more Width space than Height.

      Remember, window size does not equal screen size. My browser windows are never maximized, but they are restricted to approximately 900 pixels in width (I need the remaining space for other purposes; additionally, line length at 900 pixels is quite optimal with the font sizes I use).

      So, instead of demanding that everybody uses his or her computer as you do, just let us use our computers the optimal way. Good software can adapt to its users.

    14. Re:Easy. by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      Like most things that arent how you like them in firefox, theres addons for that.

      I use Tree Style Tabs, which not only lets you have them in the side but also lets you tree them out based on the criteria of your choice(most useful: spawning window, so if i load slashdot from google reader it goes under google readers tree).

      There is also Vertigo and some other more powerful one I forgot the name of that had serious FF3 issues, but I think tree style tabs links to it.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    15. Re:Easy. by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      While I agree, every time Firefox's slowness annoys me to the point of switching I inevitably switch back when I remember how much slower the web is in general without all of firefox's extensions automating things for me.

      To put it another way, firefox might take an extra 5 seconds to load a page, but opera takes me an extra 30 seconds to browse through all the ads

      (not to mention things like bugmenot, greasemonkey, firebug, etc)

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    16. Re:Easy. by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Well, the last time I checked was version 2. And posted onto the boards. Was advised it wasn't possible due to it requiring changes to the Chrome skin - which extensions could not do.
      I'm happy with my browser, if FF can do that feature now - cool :-) There was a time when Opera was really ticking me off, and the haughtiness of the devs was getting to me. I really wanted to like FF and couldn't heh. Theres too many minor differences (and a few major ones) - that just don't feel "right" - likely why FF users don't quite like Opera (beyond the whole OpenSource jazz).

    17. Re:Easy. by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      I was annoyed that I couldn't cram the Home-Reload-Back buttons, URL bar, and google search box onto the same line with the "File Edit View ... Help" menus. This is a very useful capability on older laptops with small screens. I just now installed 9.5, and guess what: you still can't use that dead space between "Help" and the right edge of the screen. IE was the first to allow that. Firefox wisely "copied" IE to allow the same. What did the Opera guys do? Nothing. They apparently don't like anything they didn't come up with. Fuck them. Bitch much? Turn off the menu bar, replace it with a button, all done. Yes, by default it uses the OS standard menu bar, which doesn't do anything special; didums, it's trivially replacable, and has been for donkeys years. So, no, fuck you.
    18. Re:Easy. by SilentChasm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doesn't the Awesome bar just search the "URLs, page titles, and tags in your bookmarks and history"

      Opera searches the full text of the page as well as all those (well there aren't tags in opera but the description of the page in the bookmarks is searched as well). I can start typing in the text of a slashdot article I've visited a while back and it will display in the dropdown from the address bar. I can also assign certain bookmarks keywords such as slashdot being /. typed into the address bar.

      I do admit that the learning feature that the awesome bar supposedly has (never used it enough to see) seems like it might be nice if it knows that a site you visited once doesn't have the same importance to you as one you've selected from the awesomebar 100 times. I've grown to like learning things like that once you get them trained (such as Launchy). I don't know if Opera does this (again, never used that feature enough to see).

    19. Re:Easy. by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Opera searches the full text of the page as well as all those (well there aren't tags in opera but the description of the page in the bookmarks is searched as well). I can start typing in the text of a slashdot article I've visited a while back and it will display in the dropdown from the address bar. Huh, that's odd. I tried it again and it worked this time.

      I do like the feature of searching a page quite a bit and I'm disappointed Firefox doesn't have it. However I prefer NoScript over the feature.

    20. Re:Easy. by SilentChasm · · Score: 1

      Opera searches the full text of the page as well as all those (well there aren't tags in opera but the description of the page in the bookmarks is searched as well). I can start typing in the text of a slashdot article I've visited a while back and it will display in the dropdown from the address bar. Huh, that's odd. I tried it again and it worked this time.

      I do like the feature of searching a page quite a bit and I'm disappointed Firefox doesn't have it. However I prefer NoScript over the feature.

      Everyone always says you should always have AdBlock and NoScript and a few other extensions in Firefox, but I've never really seen what the point is to NoScript. I've never had problems with Javascript in pages.

      Can someone explain why blocking javascript with that extension vs an option for disabling it completely (like in Opera) is better or even needed?

      Ideally though each browser should copy cool features and compete on standards compliance results until the web works well for everyone. Full text searching of your history would be a nice addition to the awesome bar. Imagine trying to remember parts of a comment someone made on an article and being able to go back to the article it was posted on without having to remember what the article was about, and finding the rest of that comment again (offtopic comments can sometimes be intelligent after all).
    21. Re:Easy. by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain why blocking javascript with that extension vs an option for disabling it completely (like in Opera) is better or even needed? Many websites add extremely useful functionality by using JavaScript (Slashdot is only one example). However many advertisers include scripts on other pages so they can plant you with a cookie and then use that to spy on the websites you visit. If you're willing to tell everyone every website you go to, how often you go and when you go, that's not a problem. But for many, we prefer to keep our privacy.
    22. Re:Easy. by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know if it works exactly as NoScript, but press F12 and de-select "Enable Java", "Enable Plug-ins", "Enable Scripts" according to needs -- that's general setting, for per page setting you can go to "Edit site preferences" from F12 menu and then go to Scripting tab. Hope this helps.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    23. Re:Easy. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Firefox is more customisable, many people don't care about loading time (good old os lever preloading should reduce it significantly) and firefox's GUI is responsive enough... for them, if they dont like opera as it comes, firefox is the better choice

      Care about the license
      Don't Like default opera
      Need security (but also need usability ala noscript)

      Firefox > opera (any of the above)
      Firefox = opera (none of the above)
      Firefox opera (none of the above And care about load time & responsiveness)

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    24. Re:Easy. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      last one is supposed to be firefox less than opera (stupid symbol stripping)

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    25. Re:Easy. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      They're similarly capable, but Firefox is FOSS

      So? Opera has been free (as in beer) for a long time now

      Well azureus, miro, epiphany, wine and countless other programs think that the free as in freedom part of firefox is pretty cool too.

      Everytime you file a bug report against gecko your helping out at least 5 projects instead of 1

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    26. Re:Easy. by NouberNou · · Score: 1

      If I get this right, I might be wrong, the Ad tracking relies on cookies from the same domain it was set at, so that means the same advertisers on those pages that they would be tracking you across.

      Unless you are using a proxy they could glean the same relative information from your IP address...

      Paranoia about cookies is really absurd, and if your actually that scared of them why use NoScript, just have your browser notify you when its setting a cookie and if you want to accept it (and continue accepting it) for that site.

      I assume Firefox has that ability.

    27. Re:Easy. by neumayr · · Score: 1

      Interesting feature.
      But I can't figure out how to turn the menu bar off, can you give a hint?

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    28. Re:Easy. by The+Iso · · Score: 1

      You didn't convince anyone with this post. You just established that you do not value software freedom as much as the parent does.

      If you're selling a product, and the customer asks whether it has a particular feature, the correct answer is not, "who cares?"

      --
      "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan
    29. Re:Easy. by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      See, "don't need a plugin" or "can chose functionality based on installed plugins" are 2 schools of thought. Opera takes the first, Firefox (mostly) takes the second. Personally I'd prefer if they took it even further: URL autocompletion should be an addon, RSS should be an addon, etc, and all enabled and installed by default, in their own section of the add-ons dialogue. I (and several others) would prefer an even less featureful browser with even more addons, just have all new features as installed-by-default addons.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    30. Re:Easy. by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      The buttons there will do it; e.g. "Toggle the Menu & Personal bar on/off AND dropdown the main menu" (I would link it, but the comments system doesn't like them). On Unix you can also use Alt-F11; look in Preferences -> Advanced -> Shortcuts -> Keyboard Setup, search for "Disable Menu". Delete "Platform Unix" and it'll work in other OS's, or make your own keybinding to "Enable Menu Bar | Disable Menu Bar".

      It would be nice if more of these were provided by default, rather than having to go out and find/create buttons yourself.

    31. Re:Easy. by sznupi · · Score: 1

      You mixed up something...

      Opera has BOTH features and speed.

      Firefox has the capability to add features...which makes it even slower/more prone to crashes.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    32. Re:Easy. by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, this is why all Firefox users run it on Linux, and there are no Windows or OS X Firefox users, because they prefer free software. It's also why whenever there's a story about OS X, it's full of people complaining that it isn't free software, so we shouldn't use it.

      Wait, no that's not true at all. In fact, it's not true for any other commercial software company. It's only Opera that seems to have the long queue of people whining that it isn't open source.

    33. Re:Easy. by sznupi · · Score: 1

      For me - avoiding websides that mostly just want to shovel commercialls at me works fine. And I absolutelly can't live without one that does this, content blocking function in Opera suffices.

      BTW, you do know that Opera has greasemonkey functionality also built in? Adn there's supposedly some nice developer tool out with 9.5...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    34. Re:Easy. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      You didn't convince anyone with this post. You just established that you do not value software freedom as much as the parent does.

      Oh for Gods sake. It's not a pissing competition. Ask yourself this: why does valuing software freedom means you can't touch closed source software with a 10 foot pole?

    35. Re:Easy. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      So? You can't use both?

    36. Re:Easy. by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      And if they don't like Firefox as it comes, Opera is the better choice...

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  9. Would that be more of an OS function? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I ask because I honestly don't know, but in Windows, Firefox uses the same font settings as the system. If I change the Windows' option, everything changes with it, including Firefox. This is because, near as I can tell, Windows is giving all the fonts to FF anyhow. It looks ever so slightly different on Vista, as does everything since Vista has a slightly tweaked font anti-aliasing engine.

    Is that not how it works on Linux?

    1. Re:Would that be more of an OS function? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a word: yes.

      But it's an issue caused by Firefox in this case.

  10. Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Informative

    The first thing you notice when you launch Opera 9.5 is that it occupies less desktop real estate than Firefox 3, with less toolbar space and smaller borders, giving you more room to view pages. The thing I like about Firefox is how changeable it is: Screenshot

    I've been organizing the bars like that since I started using FF, and I find it makes for much better use of that space than just a gray, blank area.
    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    1. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Airw0lf · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing I like about Firefox is how changeable it is: Screenshot I've been organizing the bars like that since I started using FF, and I find it makes for much better use of that space than just a gray, blank area. Opera's interface is every bit as customisable if not more so. Right click on any toolbar and click "Customize." The "Toolbars" tab will let you play with which toolbars you want to show, and where you want them. The "Buttons" tab will allow you to place just about any button anywhere you want. Finally, you can even make your own buttons. See the Opera wiki for more information: http://operawiki.info/CustomButtons
    2. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by strabes · · Score: 1

      Nice to find someone who does this also. I did this for several years up until I bought a mac a few weeks ago. The only difference for me was that the navigation buttons were directly to the left of the address bar instead of to the right of the search bar.

      --
      Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
    3. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Tangent128 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can set up Opera that way, but it involves a lot of obscure setting-tweaking for the menu-bar-on-one-line effect.

      So I have to grant a small point to Firefox for UI configurability. I still prefer Opera's look overall, though.

      Tip for you to save more space, though- get rid of the Google bar and just set up a search shortcut.

    4. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

      So is Opera.

      I've gotten used to Opera's changeability so much that I can't stand using a browser where the tabs are on top. The bottom is a _much_ better place for the tab bar. Opera lets me do that. Firefox doesn't.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    5. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Vectronic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Excluding the Menu Bar (Opera uses the standard/forced top one) Opera can do that aswell, you can drag/drop any button/checkbox/dropdown/etc to any other bar (excluding the main side panel buttons)

      You can also quicky drag a webpage, or an image onto a toolbar, to create a temporary "favorite" of sorts... its not particularily useful, but ive used it, mainly so i dont accidentally close the tab.

    6. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Airw0lf · · Score: 1

      I've gotten used to Opera's changeability so much that I can't stand using a browser where the tabs are on top. The bottom is a _much_ better place for the tab bar. Opera lets me do that. Firefox doesn't. In fact when I installed FF 2.0 I had play around userChrome.css to change the tab placement! (After spending som time googling.) In Opera you can do this in a few button clicks.
    7. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Dun+Malg · · Score: 0

      The first thing you notice when you launch Opera 9.5 is that it occupies less desktop real estate than Firefox 3, with less toolbar space and smaller borders, giving you more room to view pages. The thing I like about Firefox is how changeable it is: Screenshot I've been organizing the bars like that since I started using FF, and I find it makes for much better use of that space than just a gray, blank area. I was doing that with IE before I discovered Firefox, and was overjoyed when firefox decided to add that feature. A friend of mine suggested Opera a few years ago, and I was highly annoyed at how it made no provision for using that "dead space" after Help. I see they still don't allow it. The Opera devs apparently don't like any idea they didn't come up with themselves. And that quote above? What a crock! What idiot uses the toolbar layout as it comes out of the installer? Anyone with half a brain CUSTOMIZES.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    8. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Opera's interface is every bit as customisable if not more so. False. I challenge you to put a "back" button next to the Help menu on the menu bar, then. You can do it in IE. You can do it in Firefox. Opera forces that space after Help to be waste.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    9. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Tip for you to save more space, though- get rid of the Google bar and just set up a search shortcut. That wouldn't "save space", as there'd still be just the one bar before and after. Getting rid of the google search box would only "make more room". He has plenty of room for the search box, and made no claims of needing any additional room. Your suggestion is pointless.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    10. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by SilentChasm · · Score: 1

      http://operawiki.info/CustomButtons#menu

      You can toggle the menu bar with a button from that site in Opera to get rid of it if you really want to. I currently have the button in the view toolbar (hidden by default) that Opera has, with a non-toggle menu button on the far left of the tab bar (where the panel toggle would be by default) acting as the main menu. I rarely ever use the menu anyways; the panel has all the mail client and bookmarks access I need.

    11. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      I have mine almost exactly the same (forward/back, reload and stop are on the left of the location bar with home removed completely while I have kept my bookmarks bar below it). I sometimes forget this isn't the default GUI for Firefox.

    12. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Oh I know, already have my own custom version, plus I have the Main menu under the right-click Context menu...

      But I didn't wanna have to explain all that to someone who isn't even familiar with the basics of the Opera layout.

      And now with 9.5x I can do away with an entire toolbar by just moving a few things to the status bar since stuff gets scaled to 80% there, instead of increasing the status bar size to encompass the added button/item...

    13. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow I never even though about reorganizing the tool bars like that.

      Thanks!

      captcha honest

    14. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by c2thunes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Try Alt-F11. Toggles the menubar in Opera.

    15. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      At lot of people think I said "Firefox can do this, Opera can't", but I didn't. (I think 8/10 of the replies remind me Opera can do this too)

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    16. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't want to accidentally close a tab, an easier way is to just right click on the tab and lock it.

    17. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      The thing I like about Firefox is how changeable it is:
      Screenshot

      I've been organizing the bars like that since I started using FF, and I find it makes for much better use of that space than just a gray, blank area.

      Agreed, I hate wasted screen real estate:
      http://www.dotancohen.com/images/examples/firefox.png

      Notice that the File | Edit menu has been collapsed into a single root menu on the right (My language goes from right to left, sorry). The Google search box is gone (I can google directly from the aweso^W location bar) and the tabs are on the side. Perfect for making use of this widescreen monitor's unusual geometry, which means that half the horizontal space usually goes to waste yet there is never enough vertical space.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    18. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can recover closed tabs from the trash icon.

    19. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You should look into Personalize Menu, or if someone has updated it for FF3, "Tiny Menu".

      Both of these collapse that large list of menu entries into one icon that then has File Edit View etc as submenus.

      Personalize Menu even lets you configure the menu so you can put the things you actually use where you'll get to them easily.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    20. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by SilentChasm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Opera's interface is every bit as customisable if not more so. False. I challenge you to put a "back" button next to the Help menu on the menu bar, then. You can do it in IE. You can do it in Firefox. Opera forces that space after Help to be waste. Here it is:Screenshot :P

      There's a back button, forward button and an addressbar next to help. Not technically what you said but close enough that it shouldn't matter. Probably technically cheating aswell as it's not the 'real' menu bar.

      You're right that you can't put stuff in the menu bar in Opera though, and you should be able to. It is a waste of screen space. In order to make that screenshot (without manipulation), I used the custom buttons page on http://operawiki.info/CustomButtons to add each of those menu items to the "Main Bar" (after clearing it), then I added the back button and decided to go a step further and add the address bar and forward. I had already used the toggle menu bar custom button to hide the actual "Menu Bar" (I normally don't have a menu bar even, the panel is enough).

      If you look closely I have the entire main menu as a button in the tab bar (labeled "Menu" with a black arrow next to it). If I click that I'll get a menu with all the main menu bar items in it. Over on the right I have a view button which will display the "view bar" where I've hidden the menu toggle button.

      I could have combined everything on the menu into the tab bar instead but it wouldn't have looked like the main menu colorwise. I could have everything in one bar like the great-grandparent has in their firefox screenshot. Less than their screenshot even if I put everything in the tab bar instead of a seperate one.

      Also there is a panel toggle on the left of the screen. I typically don't use the main menu except for the File-> Import/Export menu options so hiding the entire thing makes sense since all bookmarks, history, widgets, mail and newsfeeds are available in the side panel and most settings are accessible via keyboard the shortcuts F12+none, ctrl, shift.

      If you really want to get bitchy about wasted space you could put all the menu options, the addressbar and everything normally in a toolbar into a custom panel and get rid of every bar (even the tab bar if you want) and just have the panel toggle at the edge of the screen. Hide it when you don't need it. You can't get much less wasted space unless you changed the theme for your desktop to use less space for the window decorations (I think that would be going a little far). The entire window would be space for the page except for the small scrollbar on one side and the panel toggle on the other (not necessary with keyboard shortcuts).
    21. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Excluding the Menu Bar (Opera uses the standard/forced top one) Including it. It's certainly not "forced"; I have it disabled, with a Menu, Feeds, Bookmarks and Closed buttons and the status bar where the menu used to be.
    22. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by glitch23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can also quicky drag a webpage, or an image onto a toolbar, to create a temporary "favorite" of sorts... its not particularily useful, but ive used it, mainly so i dont accidentally close the tab.

      I don't know about an extension for Firefox being available that can do this but Opera will let you undo the closing of a tab. It is the only browser I know of that allows that and it has saved me a few times where I clicked the X on one tab while meaning to click on the tab next to it to make it the active one. The Undo brings the tab back to the position it was in and on the page you last left it. I know Firefox doesn't do this "out of the box" but there may be an extension for it. Bottom line: don't worry about closing tabs by accident in Opera. They got you covered.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    23. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Actually, I like tabs on top better than the ones at the bottom.

      What I like even more is the Tree Style Tab extension.
      Now all my tabs are sorted hierarchically, I can find my way around easily even with dozens of tabs open... The only downside is that auto-hide doesn't work all that well, so I lose some screen estate. Oh, and I lost the Showcase and New tab buttons, but even that should be ironed out in the near future.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    24. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just add "hide menu" addon if I use Firefox. I dont need menu for daily basis.

      I use konqueror (currently webkit engine) and it just blows away opera and firefox. Only thing what I want is addons like Firefox. And konqueror support normal ctrl+m shortcut for hiding menu, so I get all the space for buttons and address path to one bar.

      I tested the new Opera and for me, it was just copy of other browsers, altought it has few nice ideas like the first button to show/hide sidepanels. I want browser to be browser and customize it as I like, so I take Firefox for windows and konqueror for GNU/Linux.

    25. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Firefox has been able to do this for ages. In fact it gives you a menu with all the recently closed tabs and you can pick which one you want to restore.

    26. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Niten · · Score: 1

      Opera's interface is every bit as customisable if not more so.

      Not even remotely. Wake me up with Opera's interface can be extended with XUL.

      There are some things that I like about Opera, but in terms of the extent to which its user interface can be customized, it's got nothing on Firefox.

    27. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you should say that about reducing the size of window decorations. My colleagues think I'm strange because I run the Windows 2000 classic theme on my Windows XP machines. It gets me an extra line of code on screen in Visual Studio!

    28. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still has wasted space with the visible window chrome/frame at the top. Though you could Autohide it.

    29. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      copied from opera....

    30. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I did run without the window frames for some time, but decided to reinstate them. You will see that they are less than 20px high, however, any smaller and it was annoying. I would very much like to identify what I like about them, other than habit, so that I could preserve what it is that attracts me without sacrificing the screen space. As I am a heavy keyboard user, it is not the buttons.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    31. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by kilthas · · Score: 1

      I believe Opera had this on release of version 8 (4/2005?), and of course betas before that. That's what the trashcan at the upper right is in Opera screenshots. Does Firefox keep the tab's history intact when restoring, like Opera? Just curious.

    32. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Of course, the same can be done in Opera. One could even have the tabs on the same row as the menu/address bar for ultimate real estate economy!

      Browser flamewars are more awesome than the awesome bar.

    33. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      No flamewar. I'm not married to any particular browser and I'll happily use the best tool for the job. When I can get tabs on the side and repagination (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2099) I'll consider switching.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    34. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      I can do that in firefox WITHOUT having to code anything, plus how exactly do i get fusion as purely an interface customisation?
      smallfox
      I mean i think i could shave a few more pixels of with some smart userchrome code or a nice theme but tbh it's small enough for me and all i had to do was install 2/3 extentions and add some simple lines to userchrome.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    35. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      bah noobs with inactive buttons try this next time

      ~profiledir/chrome/userchrome.css
      @namespace url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul"); /* set default namespace to XUL */

      #back-button[disabled="true"],
      #forward-button[disabled="true"],
      #stop-button[disabled="true"],
      #back-forward-dropmarker, .autocomplete-history-dropmarker, .searchbar-dropmarker-image, .toolbarbutton-menu-dropmarker, .toolbarbutton-menubutton-dropmarker, .search-go-button
      {display: none !important; }

      also browser.tabs.closeButtons 2-hide them, 0-active tab only 3-on left
      the fusion extension will also remove the need for a status bar
      and as Tangent said removing the search box and using keywords will save even more space

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    36. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      tiny menu
      compact menu 2 is also firefox 3a0.5 compatible and slightly smaller.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    37. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The menu bar is a waste of space. You can make a custom button that allows the menu to be safely tucked away: http://i25.tinypic.com/nff5v.png

    38. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Moocow660 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And where do you think they got it from... There's a small rubbish bin icon at the end of the Opera tab bar. Also, you can just hit ctrl-z to undo closing a tab. It even loads that tab's full history!

    39. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've no idea how many people use widescreen monitors these days, but most pages are not designed for such screens and have space at the side or just look unnaturally wide when viewed with the browser maximised. Because of this I just leave the panels open at the side.

      By the way, Opera can open any tab in the Opera window and will never open windows to the task bar if you don't choose to open pages in a new window, so in that respect it uses less space than FF. You can also cascade and tile tabs you have open if you want to view multiple documents at the same time (for some reason :)

      Opera does need to add a customiseable/hideable main menu to the next version. Like the parent I rarely touch it and agree that it's a waste of space.

    40. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A feature Opera had before firefox :)

      It's a great feature though, and regardless of which browser had it first it's good that both of them have it.

    41. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um.

      Opera can put the tab bar top, bottom, left, or right. Pretty much since I've ever used it (5.X).

      I see what the repagination does, but I get a similar effect by just hitting fast forward (standard forward shortcut if you've not gone backward).

    42. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      Tabs on the side? Just a couple clicks away.

      Only repagination is missing then. (And I believe somebody can do it with a little JavaScript magic)

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    43. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Tabs on the side? Just a couple clicks away.

      Only repagination is missing then. (And I believe somebody can do it with a little JavaScript magic)

      Actually, I'm thinking of implementing it in HTML on my server and passing it through, to save myself an extension.
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    44. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to FUD. I like how you used the psychological technique of reiterating the statement to try to make it set in. As others have mentioned, despite what you say, Firefox can do this out of the box.

      As for the others, the fanatics who, when it is pointed out that that is in fact not the case, resort to "stole it from Opera!" that shit's annoying as fuck. It's moot now. Regardless of which browser had it first, even if it was Firefox that had some feature, and Opera copied it, or Konqueror had some feature, and both Firefox and Opera implemented it later, it doesn't matter. But just because those kinds of comments are what you guys are made of, and so I can slap down your haughty indignance, there have been dozens of extensions serving that purpose, not only before it was added in Firefox 2, but predating Firefox itself, manifested within extensions for Mozilla Application Suite. But guess what? It doesn't fucking matter. It's not a non-obvious feature, and hundreds of people have independently sparked a desire for that feature. So get off your high horses and shut the hell up.

    45. Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please explain me how did you hide Menu bar and probably how to Âunhide it â" it disappeared someway in my browser and I miss it a lot.

  11. Lies, Dammed Lies and Performance Benchmarks by iwein · · Score: 1

    That's all I have to say about that.

    --
    Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
  12. Vista 64bit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    The SunSpider bencharks reveal that the 64bit IE vs 32bit IE is 18.7% faster in Vista 64. I'm willing to bet the ratio is the same with XP 64bit too.

    Anyone know when there will be a 64bit Flash plugin?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Vista 64bit by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Why wait for the 64 bit plugin? Just apply a drop of tobasco sauce to each nostil and inhale sharply for that missing flash headache.

      Flash - because the BLINK tag and pop-up ads were not annoying enough.

  13. Re:Opera is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    New tab button...who needs that? The tabs also belong at the bottom and there shouldn't be an X on each one. Ya, I've been using Opera for far too long. But I still love it. I tried Firefox 3 but they STILL won't let you put the tab bar on the bottom (must be hidden somewhere if the option exists.)

    I'm very happy with 9.5. The whole experience is just a tad bit better because I no longer have a few minor bugs to deal with from 9.2. FF3 finally feels like a finished product but doesn't seem as customizeable as I would expect from FOSS (without having to use extensions.)

  14. Re:who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh lol

  15. Re:Opera is awesome! by od05 · · Score: 1

    Who uses the new tab button?

    Command + t is much faster

  16. Easy Install by blibbler · · Score: 0

    From the article:
    "When you install Firefox 3, which is as simple as downloading and extracting the tarball someplace like /opt and running the ./firefox script"

    This is slightly off topic, and maybe I've been using a mac too long, but this sounds anything but an easy install. Surely installing something as basic as a web browser has been simplified by now.

    1. Re:Easy Install by aussie_a · · Score: 1, Informative

      The easiest thing to do is to use the Ubuntu software repository, but its only as up-to-date as the people who update it, which can be slower then the people who update the actual software.

    2. Re:Easy Install by IBBoard · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not easy? Okay, so it has "extract" in there, but it's basically the same as a Mac:

      Mac: dump application file in location, run application.
      Firefox/Linux (since they mention tarball): extract application in location, run application.

      Okay, so they used a couple of techie words, but it's not exactly rocket-science (or even make scripts) to use it.

    3. Re:Easy Install by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1

      Indeed since when the fuck did people start complaining about these things. Extracting an archive. Double clicking a file. Running an installer. WHAT THE FUCK! Are you safe to use a computer? Do you want the computer to read your mind and know what you want installed and then magically install it for you - but then how are you going to run the program? You'll have to either choose it from a menu or , shock, double click. aww diddums.

    4. Re:Easy Install by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      You don't even need everything you mentioned, which was my point. If you download the official build of Firefox for Linux (which "downloading the tarball" implies, since Linux is the main OS to use tarballs) then there isn't even an installer. It's "Extract...run...browse" in Linux, where as Mac has "Drag-drop install thing that Macs do...run...browse".

      Okay, so that method won't install a menu item because it doesn't have an installer, but even that's hardly rocket science and I don't know how Mac would create menu/dock items without you telling it to.

    5. Re:Easy Install by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1

      Yeah - it's called using a computer - to do a slashdot car analogy, it's like complaining that you have to actually press the gas pedal to go. Or that every so often one must fill up with fuel. These are the same people that 'don't know where their word doc is, and can't find it in the file browser, becuase it begins with 'M' and there window is displaying A-L , still not twigging that it's alphabetical and this means the same as when one os NOT talking about computers...

    6. Re:Easy Install by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      From the article: "When you install Firefox 3, which is as simple as downloading and extracting the tarball someplace like /opt and running the ./firefox script"

      This is slightly off topic, and maybe I've been using a mac too long, but this sounds anything but an easy install. Surely installing something as basic as a web browser has been simplified by now.

      You'd think so, wouldn't you. To challenge the MS monopoly, you have to appeal to masses of users who don't know the difference between hard disk capacity and RAM and, in serious cases, can only copy a file by opening it in office and doing "save as".

      Sadly, a lot of techie types are solipsists who can't comprehend the idea that something which is obvious and trivial to them may be unfamiliar and baffling to others, which is something that has really crippled Linux.

      Before I get flamed: most modern Linux distros are linked to a substantial and well-maintained online repository of packages that have been correctly compiled and configured, and it is usually point-and-click easy to add/remove/upgrade these applications: in the fullness of time, Firefox 3 will probably be available through this route in the fullness of time. What's lacking is a single, consistent way of running/installing other packages - either through Windows-style installers or a Mac-style .app directory (for self-contained applications). Well, there is, and its called the source tarball - trouble is, that's not for everyone.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    7. Re:Easy Install by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Dear 15793

              im afraid because your comment is so retarded (see replies above) on behalf of slashdot i ask that you leave and never return. Please leave any geek cards/mod points/computers at the door as your to brain dead to extract a file and click run. If at some point in the future somebody is to offer you an electronic device more complicated than a wristwatch, you may wish to seek medical advice before using it as all that button clicking may cause you head to explode.

      In closing i ask you how you managed to pretend to be a geek for long enough to get a slashdot ID so much lower than mine?

                  your sincerely 1228016

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    8. Re:Easy Install by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Firefox 3 will probably be available through this route in the fullness of time. Firefox3 is already in most repos (Well its in ubuntu ones at least Im fairly sure it will be in the rest of the 'bleeding edge' (a.k.a not debian/cent os) distros)

      What's lacking is a single, consistent way of running/installing other packages If you cant figure out how to install non-repo software you probably shouldn't be doing it anyway, but
      there are curently 4 formats which are fairly easy to install on a ubuntu/debian system .deb (double click)
      scripted binary tarball (extract (GUI) then run ./install (CLI))
      unscripted binary tarball (extract and move to /opt, then install menus (all GUI, but you need a clue) .rpm (run alien (CLI, for now), click on deb)

      If your on an RPM based system then i assume you can just double click an rpm and run unalien on a deb.

      there are also source tarballs but that is normally for software thats unfinished and defiantly should not be installed if you don't have a clue)

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    9. Re:Easy Install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >your to brain dead

      That's funny.

      You don't appear to be the brightest bulb in the batch yourself, Sparky.

    10. Re:Easy Install by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      since when did you have to spell to be a geek? bash has auto completion now!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    11. Re:Easy Install by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      there are curently 4 formats which are fairly easy to install on a ubuntu/debian system .deb (double click) scripted binary tarball (extract (GUI) then run ./install (CLI)) unscripted binary tarball (extract and move to /opt, then install menus (all GUI, but you need a clue) .rpm (run alien (CLI, for now), click on deb)

      If your on an RPM based system then i assume you can just double click an rpm and run unalien on a deb.

      So that's 4 different ways of doing it on just one "family" of distros, 2 of which require a CLI and one "a clue" as you put it.

      QED.

      (Will now go and see if FF3 is in the repo for Hardy Heron, yet).

      PS: don't get me wrong, I like Linux - I wouldn't run a webserver on anything else and it runs my home EMAIL system and my MythTV PVR and the desktop distros have made impressive progress, but to really compete they need to kick sand in the face of Mac and Windows to dispel the meme that "linux is for techies".

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    12. Re:Easy Install by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      (Will now go and see if FF3 is in the repo for Hardy Heron, yet).

      It is...

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  17. Pretty good by Eil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I gave Opera 9.5 a whirl last week and was highly impressed. It's packed with nice features (Where do you think Firefox and IE get most of their ideas?) but still pretty fast and light. Other versions of Opera never did much for me, but this is the first proprietary application that I've run across in a long time that I would seriously consider using on a daily basis. The only areas where it's really lacking are modularity (extensions, instead of everything being built-in to the browser) and of course the fact that it's not free software.

    1. Re:Pretty good by xrooles · · Score: 1

      I gave Opera 9.5 a whirl last week and was highly impressed. It's packed with nice features (Where do you think Firefox and IE get most of their ideas?) but still pretty fast and light. Other versions of Opera never did much for me, but this is the first proprietary application that I've run across in a long time that I would seriously consider using on a daily basis. The only areas where it's really lacking are modularity (extensions, instead of everything being built-in to the browser) and of course the fact that it's not free software.

      is is not free now? It used to be shareware, but it is free now. Yes, it is not open source, but it is free and I truely love it.. I think it was the first browser with tabbed browsing and integrating google or infact any search bar. keyboard shortcuts and search bars existed since 2000 atleast.
    2. Re:Pretty good by luckymutt · · Score: 1

      Look into Oper's "Widgets" for additional, modular features.

    3. Re:Pretty good by Eil · · Score: 1

      is is not free now? It used to be shareware, but it is free now.

      Free as in beer, yes. Free as in open source, no.

    4. Re:Pretty good by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Every time you hear the term "free software" you should think at GPL, BSD or similar licenses - under which you have access to the source code. That is, "free software" comes with source code, while freeware is fully functional software for which you don't have to pay money.

    5. Re:Pretty good by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yes, when it comes down to the basic difference in philosophy with Opera vs Firefox, it's really about Opera giving you what they think you'll need/want from a good browser in a package, while Mozilla relies on a shorter feature list and extensions. I can see some wanting Firefox for the far more advanced feature set customization, and some preferring Opera because of not having to get Adblock, Chatzilla, or what have you, after downloading the browser.

      I have to wonder if Opera 10 won't feature an Extension API as one of the new major features though. It has to be among their most requested features at least. What they have is good though, it's pretty amazing how Opera fit an as modern browser as Opera 9.5 with IRC, BitTorrent, mail, and Usenet support in around 4-5 MB after install (excluding unnecessary localization and the plugin folder for third-party components like Flash here).

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:Pretty good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is free. You don't have to pay for it, at least on the desktop.

    7. Re:Pretty good by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Every time you hear the term "free software" you should think at GPL, BSD or similar licenses - under which you have access to the source code. That is, "free software" comes with source code, while freeware is fully functional software for which you don't have to pay money.

      That's what I think of when I think of "open software;" Software I can open it up and look inside. As opposed to free software that I don't have to pay money for.
      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    8. Re:Pretty good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The only areas where it's really lacking are modularity (extensions, instead of everything being built-in to the browser) and of course the fact that it's not free software." - by Eil (82413) on Saturday June 21, @01:36AM (#23882607) SOME "FYI"/NewsFlash:

      OPERA IS, & has been since the late 6.x series build iirc, TOTALLY 100% FREE - & yes, Opera DOES HAVE addons (called "widgets" as well, that extend it!)

      APK

      P.S.=> It also has ZERO known unpatched vulnerabilities, per SECUNIA data, whereas FF &/or IE have (last time I looked) 16% & 32%, respectively unpatched vs. known securty issues they have... FF3 turned one up, just hours after its release by the way (another NEW security vulnerability in it)... apk

    9. Re:Pretty good by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      free software is software you don't have to pay for. Free Software is software with a GPL or compatible license. Open Source is open-source, such as much BSD licensed software or other gpl-incompatible stuff. Free Software is a FSF term.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    10. Re:Pretty good by ShatteredArm · · Score: 1

      The OP used the term "free software," not "Free Software (TM)." While the FSF can label things as they want, they don't have control over semantics, and the term "free software" is nothing more than the noun "software" modified by the adjective "free." While "free" may mean "liberated" to some people, for most it probably means "without cost." Until the term becomes widely used enough to actually register a certain meaning with society at large, it remains ambiguous, and a slightly less ambiguous term--"open software" for example--should probably be used. I've made a similar argument when it comes to "open source" and "Open Source," where one literally means the source code is available, and one allows for actual editing and redistributing of source code.

      In short, I propose we use the term "open software" when licensing is implied, "free software" when free as in beer is applied, and "open source" when source code is provided (independent of licensing). We can't have any more of this ambiguity!

    11. Re:Pretty good by darthflo · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder if Opera 10 won't feature an Extension API as one of the new major features though.
      I'd hope not. Remember all the problems with MSIE+ActiveX? Bound to repeat itself with Fx+XPI ;)
  18. My priority is not speed by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Interesting
    In Firefox, my priority is not speed. I am happy with the status quo. While I love the new product, I was dismayed and disappointed to say the least when I was locked out of my favorite sites which support the Firefox 2.0 series, but do not support Firefox 3.0! I had to re-install the earlier version, which I had to "dig" out of the Mozilla site.

    The fact that most of my extensions are un-installable in the latest version did not help matters.

    This made me wonder...Why haven't the coders ported these extensions to Firefox 3.0 if it has been in development for a long time?

    I also thought I would be in position to play live CNN streams but I was wrong! Firefox plays the commercial OK but will display a balck screen with sound when it comes to the actual content! Not good enough.

    1. Re:My priority is not speed by BZ · · Score: 1

      Did you let your favorite site authors know that they're driving away business by restricting he browsers people can use to access their sites?

    2. Re:My priority is not speed by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why haven't the coders ported these extensions to Firefox 3.0 if it has been in development for a long time?

      That's an elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to talk about. If you are praising extensions, then apparently it's a huge advantage Firefox has over other browsers, but if you are complaining about extensions, then they are all third-party developers that have nothing to do with Firefox. It's a win-win for Mozilla - all of the credit, none of the blame.

      This is never more apparent than when a new major version of Firefox is released. Mozilla break compatibility and wash their hands of the mess, and if the extensions you use aren't maintained any more, then, well, tough.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    3. Re: My priority is not speed by gabrieltss · · Score: 1

      I'm still using FF1.5 - why? I hate what they did to the "interface" for FF2.0 and FF3.0. I much prefer where they have the menu options set up in FF1.5 - and my plugins work in it.

      --
      The Truth is a Virus!!!
    4. Re:My priority is not speed by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      What complete bollocks.

      Mozilla never pretend that extensions magically never have to be maintained to stay working. Maybe a few people on Slashdot do. I'm an editor on addons.mozilla.org, and there are a huge number of updates sitting in the queue right now to be reviewed. Maybe not all extensions get maintained, but most do. Whatsmore, AMO is very reasonable. If an extension isn't maintained and you really like it, learn some XUL, and Javascript, grab its sourcecode (most don't have binary components and are released under some kind of OSS licence), and maintain it yourself under a different name, giving credit to the original author.

      But don't whinge about people's free work you're using not being maintained for you as if you were paying for it.

    5. Re:My priority is not speed by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      Mozilla never pretend that extensions magically never have to be maintained to stay working.

      I never said they did. My point was that Mozilla are more than happy to take credit for the functionality provided by extensions, and tout it as an advantage they have over other browsers, yet leave users who depend on that functionality high and dry when it suits them.

      learn some XUL, and Javascript [...] and maintain it yourself

      How user friendly. Do you mention this when talking about how useful Firefox extensions are? That if you don't want the functionality going away in future versions, you should learn to code and do it yourself?

      There are positive points and negative points to a community-centred extension feature. Choices like breaking compatibility exacerbate the negative points and Mozilla don't seem to do anything to mitigate that while simultaneously shouting the positive points from the rooftops. Pointing that out isn't "whinging".

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    6. Re:My priority is not speed by Joelfabulous · · Score: 1

      You can use sites like OldVersion to save yourself the hassle of attempting to find any old version of FF, etc. off any company website... I use it whenever reinstalling to only use an app with the functionality and lower memory footprint (usually) that I need.

      www.oldversion.com

      That said, I'm still using FF v. 1.5.whatever, and I've been on FF v. 1 for about four or five years now? However long it's been, not long after it initially came out I think. I need my extensions to function as they actually define my ideal browsing experience... hence why I've never touched Opera or anything else, and try to get FF installed with a few extensions at minimum on most every computer I use regularly that I have permission to do so.

      --
      Sometimes I wonder if I think too much.
    7. Re:My priority is not speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Why haven't the coders ported these extensions to Firefox 3.0 if it has been in development for a long time?

      They were waiting for you to do it because they were tired of you being a leech and a whiner.

    8. Re:My priority is not speed by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I never said they did. My point was that Mozilla are more than happy to take credit for the functionality provided by extensions,

      They do? Huh. Weird, because when I look at the Firefox website, I don't see them taking credit for anything provided as part of an extension. Perhaps you could indicate parts of the website where they make such claims?

  19. "copying" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're implying that Firefox is somehow inferior to Opera (or that their devs are somehow inferior to Opera's devs) because they "copied" features from them. I'm really tired of that sentiment.

    If fridge manufacturer A came up with this revolutionary technology ("not only can it make ice, it can make iced COFFEE!" or some other stupid idea like that), and if fridge manufacturer B likes the idea and puts it into their own fridges (let's put patents aside for the moment), is it still inferior?

    This applies not only to Firefox v. Opera, but Windows v. OSX v. Linux, etc. I'm not advocating code "theft"*, but if some software devs implement a feature without stealing any code, are they still inferior?

    Remember that the Wright Brothers didn't invent the airplane, and that Henry Ford didn't invent the car. Are they inferior to the original airplane/car inventors?

    TL;DR Version: In the end, it's not who does it first, it's who does it better (in most cases, anyway). Of course, if some people "copy" the feature and still end up short of the original, feel free to laugh at them.

    * Could you really call it that in the case of open source software?

    1. Re:"copying" by NouberNou · · Score: 1

      Remember that the Wright Brothers didn't invent the airplane, and that Henry Ford didn't invent the car. Are they inferior to the original airplane/car inventors?

      Actually I think the Wright Brothers did invent the first airplane (at least the first powered one)...

      I don't think he was saying FF was worse because they copied... he just said give credit where credit is due.

      <fanboi>Also Opera's "cool bar" is better than firefoxs </fanboi>
    2. Re:"copying" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I think the Wright Brothers did invent the first airplane (at least the first powered one)...

      Not that simple.

    3. Re:"copying" by mischi_amnesiac · · Score: 1

      You are right. Just look at human development and how much we have copied from the nature. The helicopter? Just a copy of the hummingbird. I could go on and on with examples. Just because you copy it doesn't mean you are inferior to anything else. In fact, I even would call it superior, because you have the power to adapt and improve.

      --
      "Die endgueltige Teilung Deutschlands - das ist unser Auftrag." - Chlodwig Poth
    4. Re:"copying" by paving-slab · · Score: 1

      Actually I think the Wright Brothers did invent the first airplane (at least the first powered one)...

      And yet they didn't. They 'just' had the first successful recorded flight of a powered aeroplane.

      Efforts to tackle the engineering problems associated with powered flight began well before the Wright brothers' famous trials at Kitty Hawk.

    5. Re:"copying" by neumayr · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't be annoyed if you came up with some cool feature, implemented it in your app, and someone making a similar app reimplemented "your" idea in that "competing" application and thus got all the credit?
      Imagine you're sitting in a bar with a friend, and somehow you start talking about some girl you noticed. You somehow figure out something about her that makes a nice pickup line.
      And then some guy sitting close to you, who has overheard you talking, approaches her using exactly that information and picks her up.
      Sucks, eh?

      BTW., code theft is code theft, regardless of license. Almost every license at least requires credit to be given. Oh, and Opera's not open source.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    6. Re:"copying" by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I think that parent poster frustration comes mostly from the thing that a lot of people give credit for those features to Firefox. And its PR machine doesn't exactly clear this thing up.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  20. The most useful JavaScript performance parameter by jandersen · · Score: 1

    I didn't see anything about the one JavaScript feature I use more than anything else in Firefox: the ability to turn it off selectively (via the noScript extension, so one could argue that it isn't in Firefox at all, of course). Useful as JavaScript is, the way it is used to sneak adverts and other unwanted stuff on to your browser can sometimes make a website useless - at least to me.

    I wouldn't be on the Web at all without it. I wonder how many depend on it the same way.

  21. Re:God dammit.. by pdusen · · Score: 1

    It's a matter of transparency. People frequently use a web browser to transmit sensitive information, such as banking and tax information. As long as the source code is open, it is subject to scrutiny, and therefore far less likely to do suspicious things with your personal information.

    I myself doubt that any browser behaves that way, but there are a lot of people who are paranoid about the internet, and I don't see their concerns as particularly invalid.

  22. Sounds good but how about actual usage by definate · · Score: 1, Troll

    I run both Opera and FireFox however Opera never FEELS faster to me. Perhaps it is the default settings, or perhaps the sites I go to Gmail, Gcal, Slashdot, etc, all feel a lot faster in FireFox.

    Also, FireFox feels easier to use.

    And then, FireFox has all of the plugins I now love, and can't get rid of.

    Opera is doing good, but they need to focus on their target markets needs over their speed or standards compliance.

    --
    This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Sounds good but how about actual usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Due to all the people banging on about how much faster and leaner Opera is, I tried Opera 9.5 recently. Firefox was definitely faster for the sites I visit (possibly due to Adblock and NoScript). So though Opera is still installed, I'm only pull it out for testing.

    2. Re:Sounds good but how about actual usage by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      And then, FireFox has all of the plugins I now love, and can't get rid of. It sounds like you're more used to Firefox since you've grown accustomed to your extensions. Could this be why you feel it's easier to use? I'm a pretty long time Opera user knowing keyboard shortcuts like '.' to avoid the Ctrl+F search dialog and e.g. Ctrl+Enter to use the wand tool (try to only have one correct password for a domain to avoid the dialog box popping up there), and I think it's really about what you're more used to. I don't see many things in Opera being hard to work with.

      IE 7 on the other hand, with their peculiar internet zone hierarchies with dozens of techie security settings within (due to their inclusion of inherently insecure technologies), and radically different new uncustomizable user interface...

      Yes, Firefox is also pretty user friendly IMHO, but I don't see Opera being that much worse. It's different, sure, but not bad enough that I see its interface coming in the way.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Sounds good but how about actual usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange.. I've used both and Firefox never FEELS as fast as Opera :)

      And I don't get this FF plugins-fetish as Opera has virtually anything you need built in it.

    4. Re:Sounds good but how about actual usage by sznupi · · Score: 1

      From what I see it's mostly because "works best in IE" was replaced by "in IE & Firefox"... :/

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  23. mis-match by luckymutt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From TFA:

    But Opera 9.5 is no less revolutionary than Firefox, matching its open source rival feature for feature,

    That should be:

    But Firefox is no less revolutionary than Opera, matching its proprietary rival feature for feature

    Do we really need to break out the list of things that Opera developed that are now taken for granted by other browsers?

    1. Re:mis-match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes

      tabs? maybe mouse gestures?

      Really, I don't know :|

    2. Re:mis-match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do we really need to break out the list of things that Opera developed that are now taken for granted by other browsers? Yes, please do so. Because even though I like Opera and use it on occasion, I can't think of a single one.
    3. Re:mis-match by iwein · · Score: 1

      You make a logical error. If Opera matches FF it (Opera) could also be better (because more features for example). If FF matches Opera that implies Opera is not better than FF.

      --
      Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
    4. Re:mis-match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA:


      But Opera 9.5 is no less revolutionary than Firefox, matching its open source rival feature for feature,

      That should be:

      But Firefox is no less revolutionary than Opera, matching its proprietary rival feature for feature

      Do we really need to break out the list of things that Opera developed that are now taken for granted by other browsers?

      Uh, trust me on this one... you DON'T WANT to compare your list with all innovations introduced by mozilla browsers...
    5. Re:mis-match by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      please do...

      NOT tabs, that was done by some obscure apple browser IRRC
      NOT mouse gestures (maybe mouse gestures for browsers but i prefer them at OS level anyway)
      cool/awsome bar maybe, but both have different implementations and designs (so only the concept is stolen if anything) and people tend to bitch about it alot

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    6. Re:mis-match by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Firefox [matching] Opera [...] feature for feature
      Yeah, right. Looking forward to built-in mail, IRC, decent feed reader, mouse gestures, mobile device preview, widget engine, speed dial, content blocking, in-place source editing, previews on tabs and ctrl-tab menu (and, talking about it: a decent ctrl-tab menu) user javascript and both incremental and non-incremental and in-page link search. Also: an awesome bar that actually delivers.
    7. Re:mis-match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah why not... Fire away

    8. Re:mis-match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do.

  24. Opera 9.5 is a good browser by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative
    Ibook 500 mHz, 320 ram so it was quite a nice machine SEVEN years ago.

    Yet Opera 6.5 runs GOOD, whether Firefox 3 won't run or just takes ages to start. Only/main advantage of FF is that it's customisable, with all the addons to 'improve the browsing-experience'.

    I really appreciate OSS but at the moment Opera is the best browser for my older machines. My 2 cents.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    1. Re:Opera 9.5 is a good browser by MisterBlueSky · · Score: 1

      Thats how I switched from FF to Opera. I have been a long time FF-user (writing my own plugins, etc), but one time I found myself only having access to an old unused PC for 2 days or so (500 Mhz. 64 Mb ram!). When FF turned out to be unusable, I decided to try Opera, which I never used before. The latest version of Opera didn't only work on those specs, it also suprised me. After using Opera for 1 or 2 days, I didn't want to go back to FF. The main reason why I always stuck with FF before that, was because I was sure I couldn't do without my favorite plugins. Luckily, I was wrong about that. Almost all functionality from the plugins I used is available in Opera (including those from Firebug, since Opera 9.5). I plan on giving FF3 a good try one of these days. But I doubt I will be going back to FF, even if turns out the performance problems of FF2 are fixed.

    2. Re:Opera 9.5 is a good browser by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Opera 9.5, did you try it? The performance increase on Qt, the framework of Opera is huge compared to pre 4.x versions.

      Of course, backup everything related to Opera before trying it.

    3. Re:Opera 9.5 is a good browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Only/main advantage of FF is that it's customisable, with all the addons to 'improve the browsing-experience'" - by Jerry Smith (806480) on Saturday June 21, @02:26AM (#23882789) Homepage Opera has addons, for customization, called "widgets", so you know... not that you need any (many etc.), because most of the features & niceties Opera has built-in natively are ONLY POSSIBLE on FF via .xpi extensions for FF, & are often copies of Opera's already native features!

      APK

    4. Re:Opera 9.5 is a good browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's the fastest browser at the moment compared to the capabilities. Safari is faster, but is a bit limited AND because I'm hardware-limited I can't run the latest (cause I'm still under 10.3.9). So I'm stuck with a javascript world leak (same goes for Vienna, my rss-reader of choice) in WebKit. Meaning that every moderation or reply-submit on Slashdot results in an unexpected quit. Well, unexpected...

      Opera is the allover winner, this summer. Too bad a bit neglected in the press.

    5. Re:Opera 9.5 is a good browser by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      Yet Opera 6.5 runs GOOD Erm.. did you mean 9.5? Because 6.x is very old can undoubtly run on that hardware. I can even run (barely) on a Pentium1 machine! (I have tried it :-P)
    6. Re:Opera 9.5 is a good browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet Opera 6.5 runs GOOD Erm.. did you mean 9.5? Because 6.x is very old can undoubtly run on that hardware. I can even run (barely) on a Pentium1 machine! (I have tried it :-P) Erm, yes. 9.5 as it says in the title. Sorry.
  25. The one thing that gets me... by actionbastard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    about this release is the huge bug with the network home folders not working. I mean, come on guys, is it really that hard to test something like this in a Lin/Mac/Win environment that exists in virtually all of the corporate/academic world to see if this works. Granted the javascript performance is two to three times faster than v2, but if you release it in a state where I can't deploy it because you missed a bug in some library, it's a really hard sell to the PHB if the new whiz-bang version is fuxored.

    --
    Sig this!
    1. Re:The one thing that gets me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it was in public beta for god knows how long so that anybody - including yourself - could test it...

  26. same goes for Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as a long time user of Opera (exclusively, stubbornly, if I need to look at a page that doesn't display I'll go into the source and MAKE it display) I'm displeased to see yet another round of random interface changes. Changing the icon graphics on the toolbars is not a huge deal but... back in Opera 7.x there was a useful menu item "reload all" that would update all open tabs. That disappeared from Opera 9, at which time I learned that I would have to press ctrl+f5 instead. In 7.x I could press f8 to get to the address bar and press the down arrow to run through the list of recently typed URLs. I was seriously annoyed when this stopped working in 9.x.

    Well, I downloaded 9.5 the other day and it's FUBAR. Not only ctrl+f5 doesn't work, but no two-button forward and backward navigation?? Plus pages were simply coming up blank, until I pressed stop/reload. It's unusable. Did my installation go awry?

    1. Re:same goes for Opera by satoshi1 · · Score: 1

      What? I can press F8 and go to the address bar. I honestly don't know if down will let me access previous URLs because I turn that off. Two button forward backward? You mean like Right Mouse then Left Mouse to go back and opposite to go forward? That's still in. Just tested it. I'm running Opera 9.50 build 2042 on linux.

    2. Re:same goes for Opera by BKX · · Score: 1

      You should be using mouse gestures anyway.

    3. Re:same goes for Opera by Hatta · · Score: 1

      as a long time user of Opera (exclusively, stubbornly, if I need to look at a page that doesn't display I'll go into the source and MAKE it display)

      Where did you get the source code for Opera?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:same goes for Opera by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      He's probably referring to the feature where you can edit the cached page and then make Opera reload from cache instead of from the online version of the site.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  27. operaajax!faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm on WinXP, and I've got ff3 and Opera 9.5. On my work's sites, ff3 beats the shit out of Opera with regards to Ajax and DOM speed. An Ajax call and DOM node insertion (with the contents of the Ajax call) that takes 2.5-3 seconds in Opera takes less than 1/2 of a second in ff3. Maybe linux vs Windows is a huge difference, or maybe the benchmarks are just not representative of real-world applications.

    1. Re:operaajax!faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      500 ms lag? How can you play with that?!

  28. Re:Opera is awesome! by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who uses the new tab button? Who uses more than 640k of memory?
    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  29. Anyone who's done any work with end-users.. by msimm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    knows they'll cry bloody murder with ANY change (and the loudest are the easiest to hear!). It can be ridiculous, stifling real development and useful enhancements.

    That said, if you throw in too many of these you can simply kiss your user base good-bye..

    I'll keeps on trying to get used to the awesome (??!) bar but I'm sure as I type this SOMEONE is creating a brand new shiny add-on to *truly* revert the behavior for those who feel the need it (oss, beauty eh?)..

    I applaud the developers for the innovating work that they've done and wish them luck in their continuing success in finding the right balance between innovation and usability.

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Anyone who's done any work with end-users.. by thealsir · · Score: 1

      I've been using Firefox since it was called Firebird. I've used the 2.x branch extensively, and had no problems adapting to the "awesome" bar when I installed FF3 RC2.

      I don't know why people hate it so much. It shows history, titles and favicons next to the sites, as opposed to just a list. And it'll even sort them for you.

      In my opinion it's better, but to each his own I guess.

      --
      Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
    2. Re:Anyone who's done any work with end-users.. by AmaranthineNight · · Score: 1

      I've had almost the same experience as you, and I can't quite figure out what on earth peoples' problem is here. If somebody could explain just exactly what it is in their normal way of doing things that has been broken by the AwesomeBar, I'd love to hear it, because up to now I've just seen a lot of bitching and little explanation.

  30. Re:The most useful JavaScript performance paramete by WK2 · · Score: 1

    I love NoScript. Browsing without it is painful. That being said, if it (and everything like it) didn't exist, I would still browse the web. But I wouldn't have flash installed.

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
  31. Firefox 1.8???? by feranick · · Score: 1

    Interesting, I wasn't aware of the existence of Firefox 1.8.....

  32. They are close enough in speed... by BlueTemplar · · Score: 0

    Here's a link to a (detailed) comparaison that is more interesting due to it's broad point of view: http://anotherguy.co.cc/2008/06/the-great-battle-opera-95-vs-firefox-30/

  33. Opera, as closed, is a non-contender by Werrismys · · Score: 0

    Safari, Konqueror and Firefox are the alternatives. On mobile devices Opera wins, but even this is changing. Nokia N810 uses a mozilla-derivative browser with gecko engine!

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    1. Re:Opera, as closed, is a non-contender by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Wait, wait, so beeing closed is OK in case of Safari but not with Opera? (yes, yes, Webkit is open - but Safari itself isn't so you're not shure what it's doing under the hood anyway + runs only on proprietary OSes)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  34. Hah by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 1

    When I'm stuck without a screen, I use morse code. There is so much of asciipr0n to browse, I never get enough. Or any.

    --
    Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
  35. Re:Opera is awesome! by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who uses the new tab button? Who uses more than 640k of memory?

    Both Firefox and Opera?

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  36. architecture by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know what kind of architecture-changes the developers have made (since the previous major releases) to achieve this level of performance?

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  37. Why is the bar for IE so low? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    I am no statistician, but I kinda assumed that the 'Total Duration" group in the Javascript Engine Speed test was a sum of the previous bars. Assuming that is true, why is the bar in that group for IE 7 so short? http://www.linux.com/var/uploads/Image/articles/139212-3.png

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  38. more than four by tonytraductor · · Score: 1

    Konqueror is a great browser, even if I no longer use KDE (using fluxbox). For some reason, on my system, FF can't find my JRE...I've followed all the instructions on the moz forums, etc. (neither can Seamonkey, which is also, otherwise, a good browser). Opera, which found and ran java fine, can't play mpg video and other stuff mozplugger handles in moz/ff, etc., besides, as mentioned, it's not FREE. Konqueror has no problem with either of these things. There is also Galeon, Hv3 (written in tcl/tk), and a gaggle of other browser options out there. All the same, FF is still my default browser...but, I do like Konqueror.

  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Opera 9.5 + Suse 9.3 = SLOW by wikes82 · · Score: 1

    I tried opera 9.5 on a P4 3GHz 2Gigs, SuSE 9.3 and it's damn slow. Specially when opening flash based sites, like youtube.

  41. Re:Opera is awesome! by dotancohen · · Score: 0

    It's a Bill Gates quote. Google "640k".

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  42. Re:Opera is awesome! by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

    Whooooshhhh!

    --
    I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
  43. Re:Opera is awesome! by joto · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's called humor. See this and this for an explanation.

  44. Re:Opera is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe OSS has wised up and realize that 3 loudmouths bitching on the internet is not a mass-movement.

    I'd bet if you surveyed the substantial Firefox userbase, 99% of them don't use any extensions. The popular benefits of having a clean/simple UI outweigh the flexibility found in extensions or plugins.

  45. Looks like it only afflicted OSX AFP shares by Sits · · Score: 1

    The bug you pointed to only mentions AFP (and in fact I've run Firefox3 without the behaviour described in that bug on NFS shares for months without observing this problem). You aren't going to catch an issue like that when testing on Linux or Windows environments as they very rarely use AFP for file shares. This is only going to show up in certain OSX environments (and not all of them as some will be using NFS/Samba/Local filesystems for home directories).

    I can well believe that this could be a showstopper but if you want to know that this stuff to work well in your environment it really pays to test it and report the issues early on (there have been Firefox 3 nightlies for over a year) so they can be fixed well before release. As it is, it sounds like the bug you linked to won't be fixed until a Firefox 3 update...

  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  47. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  48. both are fantastic browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've always been a massive fan of Opera, but now I've tried out both Opera 9.5 and Firefox 3.0 on my Windows machine, I have to admit that Firefox has really caught up to the speed and responsiveness of Opera and still beats it a touch in rendering accuracy (though whether this is the fault of Opera or web developers I don't know).

    The "awesome bar" is nice, and I'm not sure what the complaints are about. Search anywhere and the enhanced page zoom are also great, but this is stuff Opera has had for ages and now Opera has full history search, which also searches page text, not just the title and url, and seems just as fast as the awesome bar.

    I'm starting to see why so many people praise the add-on support Firefox has, as ad-block plugin in particular is fantastic; it blocks just about every ad, collapses empty elements and I never have to touch it. Opera has a pretty decent content blocker, but it's spoiled by being entirely manual.

    It's an absolute joke how badly IE fares next to either Opera or Firefox in terms of features, standards compliance, and (on my machine at least) speed. I've also got Safari installed, but it seems like another case of Apple software that's great on Mac but crap on Windows.

  49. Re:Opera is awesome! by dotancohen · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm being wooshed?!? Whoosh the idiots who modded my joke offtopic! (not that I really give a fuck about my karma)

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  50. Webkit forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait for webkit, performances are much higher than opera and firefox.

  51. Re:Opera is awesome! by BKX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    BAH! Who uses the keyboard anymore? It's hold right-click, move down, let-go. Mouse gestures all the way, baby!!!

  52. Opera and speed with slashdot.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the sites I regularry take a look at - slashdot runs worst in opera. Displaying more than 100 comments was nearly unusable with 9.5 and with the current release it got a bit better, but its still horrible slow (compared to iceweasel or konqueror). Makes me wonder why noone else here complains about it.

  53. I am tired of all these irrelevant tests... by hyperz69 · · Score: 1

    I just want to know, which browser downloads my porn fastest. A 15 minuet break can just fly right by and every second counts.

    Deadlines people... deadlines.

  54. Re:Domestic tranquility by 10bellies · · Score: 1

    Because she can run faster than I do.

  55. Re:Domestic tranquility by 10bellies · · Score: 1

    That should, of course, have quoted the following..

  56. Re:Not open source by Calinous · · Score: 1

    Freeness and open sourceness indeed is not a measure of quality. On the other hand, cost and closed sourceness is not a measure of quality either.
          This is a personal choice - like buying american cars over imports (if you are an american), or buying from one shop instead of another. While you might pay more for less (all the time, sometime or never), it's a choice you're making above a pure cost/efficiency analysis.

  57. Some stuff improved, some got worse by GenSec · · Score: 1

    Usability-wise there wasn't much difference from 9.23 to 9.50 for me. Got a few minor surprises, but didn't really care, since it worked mostly the same.

    What did improve is that automatic proxy config finally works, also with passwords. On the downside, some installations eat up CPU and leak memory like Niagara Falls. Curiously, with the same stuff loaded, other installations don't.

  58. Why the 'open source' criterion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are people so obsessed about using software that's 'open source'? Sure, it's a nice aspect, but unless you actively change or use the source, using 'is it open source?' as a criterion in choosing software is stupid. It's like blindly voting democrat or republican without evaluating the candidates' standpoints.

    You should use software on the basis of usage -- responsiveness, speed, efficiency, UI, etc. -- not on the distribution philosophies of the developers. (naturally this would be different if people actually took advantage of it being 'open source', but I suspect there are very few who actually do)

  59. Re:Opera is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But did you get cp.tar's joke?

  60. Re:God dammit.. by smellotron · · Score: 1

    You could always strace the executable, or run some sort of persistent netstat in the background. You don't need access to the source to detect if an application is making unexpected network connections.

  61. Re:Domestic tranquility by alx5000 · · Score: 1

    Cause it's Saturday, and I hate to stray from my daily routine.

    --
    My 0.02 cents
  62. Firefox == Mozilla == Netscape == the original .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your comment is a ridiculous rewriting of history beyond belief. Firefox has been a bit slower than Opera recently in feature releases, but in essence, it's history dates back to the 1994 release of Netscape. Netscape was the browser probably most famous for introducing new ideas to the web (from display of partially downloaded pages through to the tag :-). Opera, although an independent code line, is in many ways just a derivative of these ideas. Yes, recently Opera started to provide some features that other browsers hadn't pioneered, but claiming that everything in Firefox came from Opera is just typical of the history rewriting so many proprietary software companies go into. Don't fall for it. Most new ideas in software come from free software and/or from academia and then are copied and plagiarised into proprietary software

  63. Re:Opera is awesome! by dotancohen · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Actually, no, I though that he was serious. Er, I don't get it. Will somebody enlighten me?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  64. Misc thoughts on Firefox 3 and Opera by Tronster · · Score: 1

    It was interesting to learn that recently Google was stopping it's browser sync support. It was one the one feature that had kept me on Firefox until I switch to Opera 9.5 beta last year.

    I need to give Firefox 3 a whirl, having been a user since it's inception, but currently Opera is my default.

    IE is off my radar, IMHO it's playing catch-up to both. Having two quality browsers in the market can only be good for consumers. It will be interesting to see who innovates quicker... FF (open source) or O (closed source).

  65. Re:The most useful JavaScript performance paramete by MisterBlueSky · · Score: 1

    With Opera you can disable plugins (flash etc.) and/or javascript selectively for sites. You can also allow or disallow cookies, redirection, referrer, popups, java, animated images, frames and change your useragent on site-per-site basis.

  66. Re:Not open source by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    When will people realise that Freeness and open-sourceness is not a measure of quality. How many people use Gobuntu and can seriously say it's better than Ubuntu?

    Being free and open is a feature, from the perspective of the end user. It provides a small amount of future proofing for the software, allows users to fix bugs or customize things or audit for security holes if they have the skill or money, and it prevents the popularity of a given package being leveraged by the developer to hurt end users. As such, being free and open is a measure of quality, just as much as the inclusion of any other feature is.

    Now for some people being free and open is a very important feature (like enterprises looking to do a widespread deployment of some new application). or other people, it is not a very important feature at all. And for still others, it is an important feature, but they don't understand why that is or by what mechanism it brings benefits. "Better" is a very relative term depending upon your needs and wants.

  67. Re:Opera is awesome! by traycerb · · Score: 1

    New tab button...who needs that? The tabs also belong at the bottom and there shouldn't be an X on each one. Ya, I've been using Opera for far too long. But I still love it. I tried Firefox 3 but they STILL won't let you put the tab bar on the bottom (must be hidden somewhere if the option exists.)


    unless you're absolutely on principle opposed to extensions, the add-on tab mix plus (TMP) includes all your feature requests. it lets you put the tab-bar on the bottom (and has allowed doing so for ages), allows removal of the "X" on individual tabs (though i can't remember if that's a TMP feature or just an FF one), and the "new tab" button is made superfluous since double-clicking in any empty space in the tab-bar opens a new tab.


    the above is exactly how i run FF: i use middle-click to close a tab, and scroll-wheel or ctrl-tab to traverse between tabs. for new tabs, you can use ctrl-t, but if you're only using the mouse, this requires switching contexts (or adding one, by keeping one hand on the kbd and one on the mouse), so i typically use the double-click method above.

    one complication: TMP isn't listed as compatible with the release version of ff3 on mozilla's main addon site, though it works with the betas. This can easily be gotten around with the dev build found here: http://tmp.garyr.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7031

    --
    Relax. Have a muffin. Enjoy the show. --Slick, Sept 13th, 2007.
  68. Opera's keyboard navigation is vastly superior by QCompson · · Score: 1

    Easy keyboard webpage navigation is one feature that Opera has that Firefox does not (afaik, not even an extension is available). You can hold down the shift key in Opera and using the numberpad easily navigate between links on a page. In Firefox you have to try tabbing around hoping you might eventually reach the link you want.

  69. Opera mem leaks when you use flash =/ by pbaer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I've been an Opera fan since they took out the ads. Anyways Opera 9.5 with flash on linux plays youtube videos somewhat stuttery and if a tab with a flash video is left open for a few hours the browser mem leaks and begins hogging all the CPU. I'm pretty disappointed because before this Opera has never mem leaked, never crashed, it was an extremely stable browser. One time I accidentally opened 100+ tabs simultaneously, and it did fine.

    And yes I will be filing a bug report.

    --
    There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
  70. Re:God dammit.. by pdusen · · Score: 1

    Perhaps not, but it certainly couldn't hurt to know that the application's inner workings are publicly available.

  71. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  72. Opera 9.5 Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    opera 9.5 java on Linux doesn't crash regularly anymore!
    Wow!!!!

  73. To test Firefox 3 vs. Opera 9.5 by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Firefox 3 shouldn't be "naked" without plugins, extensions and even IRC client. Thunderbird should be running too.

    You need
    1) Gestures extension
    2) Speed Dial Extension
    3) IRC Extension
    4) A Sync extension
    5) Thunderbird setup and running

    That will be Firefox 3 having features like Opera 9.5.

    Opera is a complete internet suite compared to Firefox or Safari.

    1. Re:To test Firefox 3 vs. Opera 9.5 by spyowl · · Score: 0, Troll

      You missed something - how about loading the comparable XML/XSLT/SVG rendering engine in Opera? What you say? Aww darn... that doesn't even exist, and whatever miniscule implementation exists is not even in the same ballpark as what Gecko provides.

    2. Re:To test Firefox 3 vs. Opera 9.5 by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, in my unmodified install of Opera's current stable version, an svg example renders just as well as the WoW Armory in it's full XMLy glory ("Mask as Fx", checked the source to make sure there was no XHTML ;)). Having said that, I'd like you to have sexual intercourse somewhere else (i.e. "fuck off").

    3. Re:To test Firefox 3 vs. Opera 9.5 by spyowl · · Score: 1

      Haha! Opera can render a rectangle described in SVG! So can a middle school programming class project of the month. However, feel free to check back when SVG 1.1 Full is implemented to any meaningful extent.

      Also, both Microsoft's and Mozilla's XSLT implementations are vastly superior to Opera's. Just because virtually nobody cares about Opera and XSLT doesn't mean the claim on their website of XSLT 1.0 support doesn't border false advertizing. I guess given that it's "free" doesn't hurt either.

    4. Re:To test Firefox 3 vs. Opera 9.5 by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Would you mind basing your claims on something? I have just tried about a quarter of the w3c's SVG 1.1 Full test suite and got perfect results (as far as I can tell), in Opera. Please supply a counter-example, would you?
      The same goes for XSLT/XML. Please pardon my ignorance as I'm only aware of two examples of proper XSLT used "in the wild": Blizzard's WoWArmory and FeedBurner's feeds. Both work perfectly in Opera 9.5, though the former requires "Mask as Firefox" so it's not delivered in plain-old XHTML.
      Anyways, I did put up with enough examples. Please follow suit or shut up.

  74. Re:Opera is awesome! by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

    Really? i use extentions to achive a clean/simpler UI (for me) than i would want to give to your average user:
    compact/mini menu
    fusion (windows users would be lost without the tab bar as would many who use lots of extensions)
    menu editor (some people like having cut/copy/paste & others in their menus & a help menu)
    Tab clicking options ( try and get everybody to agree what alt/ctrl/shift + click should do)
    custom toolbar buttons (packing an extra 30-40 buttons is just going to confuse most people)
    Scroll search engines (was actually a feature in one of the betas but confused too many people)
    Dom inspector ( most people don't need this one)

    extensions allow me to use the browser how I want without
    a) coding the thing myself
    b) coding a whole load of userchrome/usercss edits myself

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  75. Re:Opera is awesome! by kv9 · · Score: 1

    I have no mouse you insensitive clod!

  76. Re:The most useful JavaScript performance paramete by Ksevio · · Score: 1

    That's possible in Opera too, just turn javascript off in the site preferences

  77. Screensize by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

    I ran into that bug since using the ubuntu build but with a profile ive been using since 3b2, a new profile without any incompatible extentions sorted that out.

    firefox3 = 3/4 bars (menu, status, nav, bookmarks (most people either use or disable this))
    firefox3 ( + extentions) = 1 (tiny menu, fusion)
    opera9.5 = 3 bars (menu, status, nav)
    opera9.5 (+ w/e you can do in userchrome) = 1 bar

    my point is both browser take up exatly the same amount of screenspace, which can be just 1 bar (hell with other extentions or better userchrome hacking it could be 0) if you could be botherd to change a few settings instead of crying on slashdot

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  78. Re:FOSS RULEZ! HEIL HITLER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a note for those who were confused like me: the ID is too high and your name is spelled wrong to be willyhill. So this is probably twitter. He seems to be devolving though from a paranoid schizophrenic into just a blathering idiot.

  79. Re:Opera is awesome! by sasdrtx · · Score: 1

    You missed the point. Read the rest of your parent's post. I.E. the second of two lines, twitchy.

    --
    Most people don't even think inside the box.
  80. Re:Firefox == Mozilla == Netscape == the original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Netscape was the browser probably most famous for introducing new ideas to the web

    Most new ideas in software come from free software and/or from academia and then are copied and plagiarised into proprietary software But Netscape was proprietary when it did innovative things.
  81. I tried opera by lubricated · · Score: 1

    There are a few features in firefox that made me stay using firefox over opera even on my slow computer.

    First it's the way firefox remembers your passwords. If you have trouble remembering passwords then it doesn't make sense to ask you if you want to remember the password before you logged in. Firefox (as far as I know) is the only browser right now that doesn't have that brain dead behavior. Firefox lets you log in, see if you logged in correctly and then you can tell it to remember.

    Second when using find. Firefox doesn't popup a big ass dialog in front of the web page you are trying to find stuff in. Safari also does a good job with this. Opera pops up a big ass dialog.

    The extensions keep me using firefox everywhere. I like noscript, especially for a slower computer, I don't care if another browser can do javascript faster if I can disable all the shitty javascript. Ad block plus is also nice. Weave is starting to get good. Google toolbar is nice for filling in forms. And download status bar keeps another window out of the way.

    If opera could implement those first two features, come with a better adblocking list and I could get over the busy interface I would switch. It is a faster cleaner browser. For now, it's firefox 3.0 bliss.

    --
    It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    1. Re:I tried opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First it's the way firefox remembers your passwords. If you have trouble remembering passwords then it doesn't make sense to ask you if you want to remember the password before you logged in. Firefox (as far as I know) is the only browser right now that doesn't have that brain dead behavior. Firefox lets you log in, see if you logged in correctly and then you can tell it to remember.

      Actually, Opera has had this feature for ages (iirc, before Firefox).
    2. Re:I tried opera by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      Second when using find. Firefox doesn't popup a big ass dialog in front of the web page you are trying to find stuff in. Safari also does a good job with this. Opera pops up a big ass dialog.
      Type "." (period) for searching text and "," for links. Again, Opera had this feature for ages before Firefox introduced the pop-up-at-the-bottom search form.
    3. Re:I tried opera by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Have fun switching. All your issues, solved:
      Logins: The dialog isn't blocking the page load, so just wait two seconds before clicking any of it's buttons and see if you entered the correct info.
      Search: Ctrl+F opens a dialog for non-incremental searching, great for huge documents on old computers. . or / open a small search prompt at the bottom of the page, for incremental search. , opens the same prompt, searching for links.
      NoScript: Press F12, check or uncheck "Enable JavaScript" to whatever suits your situation. Rinse and repeat for animated gifs, Java, Flash ("Plug-Ins") or sound.
      Adblock list: Opera Software, ASA is a business, so them providing (and even worse: activating) an adblocking list with their browser would probably get them into deep shit with lots of advertisers. Lawsuit-type shit. There are unofficial lists, though ;)

  82. Re:Opera is awesome! by dotancohen · · Score: 1

    I must be denser that I thought. Are you referring to the "cmd-T" line?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  83. TFA left out my favorite feature by ShatteredArm · · Score: 1

    ...Opera search configuration, and searching with the address bar.

    All I do is click the address bar, type "g whatever i want to google", and it's googled. I can use a different keyword at the beginning to search a different site, ex. "y whatever i want to search on yahoo," or even add MY OWN, like "z book on amazon" or "gm address on google maps", "gi image in google images," etc. I can search Merriam-Websters, AllRecipes.com, etc. simply by typing in the address bar.

    Between this, the integrated RSS feeds, the download manager, integrated email, wand, and speed dial, it's tough for me to use any other browser anymore. ...and no, I don't have any stake in Opera.

    1. Re:TFA left out my favorite feature by theCoder · · Score: 1

      It's great that Opera works for you, but I've been doing this in Firefox for years. All you have to do is setup a bookmark with a URL like:

      http://www.google.com/search?q=%25s&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
      (Note: slashcode changed "%s" into "%25s" in the URL-- replace that with a just "%s")

      Then put "g" in the keyword box. You can search Google by typing "g whatever i want to google" in the URL bar. The one I really like is my "w" one for Wikipedia:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/%25s
      Works great for looking something up there.
      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    2. Re:TFA left out my favorite feature by ShatteredArm · · Score: 1

      I have the same one for Wikipedia actually.

      Sounds like it's the exact same feature. I guess I never knew about it because it does it through the bookmarks dialog rather than a search engines dialog (a little more intuitive I think).

  84. Complex script support by garfield78 · · Score: 1

    Firefox 3.0 still wins on complex script support on Linux (due to better integration with pango than Firefox 2.0?). I don't know about other complex scripts, but for Devanagari (variants of this script are used for almost all north Indian languages, e.g., Hindi) Opera 9.5 fail to render ligatures on Linux correctly. I submitted a bug report way back when it was in beta, still not fixed in the final release. Come on, it is 2008 and a browser cannot render scripts used by 1 billion+ people.

  85. No difference there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I'll have to reply "Opera has been able to do this for ages." It also stores recently closed tabs.

  86. Re:Not open source by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    I think Opera vs Firefox is a bit like Apple vs Linux.

    Opera is less open that Firefox - I can't download the source code and I can't install extensions. But like Apple, it Just Works out of the box.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  87. Re:Opera is awesome! by phyrestang · · Score: 1

    Took the words right out of my mouth. I don't know how I ever lived without mouse gestures. I've got nothing against Firefox, but it's Opera all the way for me. I've been using Opera for 6-7 years now I think and find myself trying to do mouse gestures in Windows and when I'm forced to use IE (when working on a users PC).

  88. cntrl + shift + t EOM by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  89. Re:Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Richard Stallman? Is that you?

  90. Re:God dammit.. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

    Or if you use one of the many programs that take advantage of gecko.
    azureus, miro, etc

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  91. Re:Not open source by Calinous · · Score: 1

    The extensions are by design - it might have been the reverse (Opera with extensions, even GPL extensions, and Firefox without them) and this won't make Firefox without extensions less open than Opera with open source extensions.
          It's like Windows being less open than Solaris, even though you can run the same "extensions" (in this case programs) in both

  92. I switched to Opera a few weeks ago by klapaucjusz · · Score: 1

    A few weeks ago, I had almost managed to eliminate all the non-Free software that I use. I then tried out a beta of FF 3, and realised that it doesn't fix any of the annoyanced I had with FF 2, and adds new ones.

    I've now switched to using Opera. After a couple days of customisation (including learning to design my own buttons), I'm quite happy with it, except for a few minor nits:

    • it's not Free software. You may not care, but I do.
    • there's nothing remotely like NoScript.
    • Flash doesn't work on AMD64.
    1. Re:I switched to Opera a few weeks ago by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      I'm using the AMD64 version of Opera, and Flash works fine (uses the same nspluginwrapper thing as Firefox). I can't get Java working, though; the only browser on my computer that works with both Flash and Java now is Konqueror :(

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    2. Re:I switched to Opera a few weeks ago by Muffinmasher · · Score: 1

      Opera 9.5 comes with a built in script blocker, which in my opinion is alot more robust and useful than the firefox plugin.

      --
      Schrödinger's download is slow.
    3. Re:I switched to Opera a few weeks ago by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Opera has site specific settings, which basically means that you can do what NoScipt can.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  93. Re:Opera is awesome! by neumayr · · Score: 1

    Doesn't it suck Firefox's mouse gesture addon uses that gesture for new window, and the "up" gesture to open new tabs?
    Very annoying when switching between browsers :(

    --
    Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
  94. Re:Not open source by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    That's true. But I also think that software can hide behind being extensible and customisable. E.g. with Firefox I needed to fiddle around customising it for ages and installing extensions to make it usable. It's the same with Linux - very extensible but not really usable out of the box.

    With Opera, I download it and it works the way I want. It's faster too, and it doesn't leak memory. Now I've never really used Macs but people that do tell me that it's the same there, not very customisable but you don't need to because it just works in a consistent way by default. Once you know what that way is, it all makes sense. But Linux doesn't have a way, or rather it's a miss mash of lots of ways.

    It's like the differnce between buying a meal in restaurant you like and cooking yourself. Saying the restaurant doesn't offer as much choice misses the point. Or buying The Economist vs reading a bunch of RSS feeds. In some ways it's what choice the Economist leaves out that makes it a good read. Essentially open source, community generated stuff doesn't have an author or an editorial policy. Commercial stuff does.

    Ok, I suppose you could say that Linux does have an author and an editorial policy on the importance of being GPL. But when you use a Linux machine it can have one of a dozen window managers chosen by the user. Every GUI app has its own user interface chosen by the developer. Macs and Windows are much more consistent since there is one UI and one set of rules, chosen by Apple or Microsoft. Once again it's an editorial policy as to what goes in and what stays out.

    I feel the same way with Opera vs. Firefox.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  95. Re:who gives a fuck? by Rhapsody+Scarlet · · Score: 1

    No, no, Linux users can't get girlfriends. Please note this for future trolling.

  96. Re:God dammit.. by Rhapsody+Scarlet · · Score: 1

    and WTF is with "if it was open source", how does this make any difference unless you are a hardcode programmer and are dieing to contribute to the codebase? Frankly, I've given up using any other excuse and just take the rms angle. I believe proprietary software to generally be unethical. Mock me if you like, but that's one of the criteria I consider when looking at what software to use.
  97. Re:Opera is awesome! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

    Who uses more than 640k of memory? Well I certainly d
    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  98. Oh behalf of everybody, I'd just like to say... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    Who gives a shit?

  99. Re:filthy faggot linux fags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stfu Mac fanboy

  100. elinks ftw by hitech69 · · Score: 1

    My favorite browser on Linux is elinks. Mouse integration with the correct shell is awesome, not to mention site rendering.

    Although, for GUI based browsers, Opera is starting to gain my attention, but the mirrors to download it suck. I just downloaded it today to try it out and took forever. I downloaded FF3 on release record day and got it quicker.

    http://wstearns.com/blog/2008/06/21/opera-linux-really-fast/

  101. Re:FOSS RULEZ! HEIL HITLER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you like your mods so far today? More to come.

    - JM

  102. Re:God dammit.. by sznupi · · Score: 1

    Thing I don't understand is...many people praising openess of Firefox are using it...on Windows.

    Plus: seeing that Opera browser is the ONLY product of Opera inc., they can't afford loosing any trust.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  103. Re:Opera is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, those X's shouldn't be on every tab because I keep clicking them by accident, then I have to undo. I've been unhappy with many of Opera's design changes for a while now, they've really tried to imitate firefox to appease the complaints of opera haters who I think can't really be appeased totally, in fact I expect them to be chiming in right about now, but it's still the best browser and has always been.

  104. Re:Opera is awesome! by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

    I prefer cat gestures. They not only pass acid they exceed usability guidelines.

  105. Re:Freedom by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    Richard Stallman? Is that you? No, but I agree with him to a large extent, as do many Slashdotters, I believe.
    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  106. Re:Opera is awesome! by fbjon · · Score: 1

    Yes really. Only a savvy user gives extensions a try, the rest use Firefox as Geeks created it.

    --
    True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  107. Opera not that useable by woodycat · · Score: 1

    Opera has great features and is a fast browser but no matter what I have do can't get it to log in to my blogger/google account so Firefox for me. The mail feature has never worked and I can't be bothered working out why. It's all over. Got stuff to do.

  108. Re:Opera is awesome! by wolftone · · Score: 1

    I can't echo that enough. Maybe I'm less man than most. Maybe more.

  109. it was stated already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think it was stated already..
    most of the web browser features and things comes down to personal preference. they can all do practically 100% identical things some might take a bit more work to get there but some might not and the more work it takes is also dependent on what you're used to originally anyways. i prefer opera but i use firefox a lot too. i have yet to try out both O9.5 and ff3 but i will probably do that as soon as i get home and post my experiences on my blog..
    either way they both work better than most other browsers if you need all the features so a comparison is nice but lets not go overboard and have a war here..

  110. s/NetKit/WebKit/ by Z-MaxX · · Score: 1

    You are right. I meant WebKit, not NetKit.

    --
    Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
  111. Why the hype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Installed FF3.0 on Linux:
    - No sound from Flash plugin (works in FF2)
    - Slower scrolling than FF2 (on few random sites I visited)
    - Ugly artwork (old fashioned, IMHO).

    Don't understand the hype...

  112. Re:God dammit.. by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

    So "people" can inspect the code for themselves? Can you?

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  113. Re:Firefox == Mozilla == Netscape == the original by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

    Netscape might have introduced many features, but so has Opera. For example, the search field Firefox is making a killing from by sending searches to Google was invented by Opera. Today, browsers take this invention for granted. Firefox has borrowed heavily from Opera. And yes, as someone pointed out, NS was proprietary.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.