Slashdot Mirror


Opera 10.0 Released, With Integrated Web Server Functionality

sherl0k writes "Opera 10.0, dubbed Opera Unite, has been released. Built into the Web browser is a full-fledged Web server, complete with nifty little gadgets such as a 'fridge' that people can post notes onto, a chat room, a widget to stream your music library anywhere, and a built-in file-sharing mechanism. It also scores 100/100 on the Acid3 test." Readers fudreporter and TLS point to The Register's report on the new release and a 5-minute video demo, respectively. Update: 06/16 15:18 GMT by T: Roar Lauritzsen of Opera Software writes to point out that "release" isn't quite the right word here; though you can download it, version 10.0 is still in beta, and the version with Unite is a labs (experimental) release.

437 comments

  1. What? by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    No kitchen sink?

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      The sink will be available as an Opera Widget.

    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone else seeing graphics appearing midcomment on about 1/4 of the comments?

    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm seeing them on almost all of the comments. It's incredibly annoying. (running kubuntu9.04 firefocks3.0.11)

    4. Re:What? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      The kitchen sink server will be released soon, as part of their client software, Cup 1.0.

    5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no

    6. Re:What? by nametaken · · Score: 1

      But it does come complete with a clear violation of your ISP's ToS.

    7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh no! not opera too!

      I for one am disappointed in firefox for massive memory consumption and feature bloat, whatever happend to the idea that you use an application for a specific task? wasn't firefox supposed to be a lean browser at one point? not having all the bloat of mozilla?

      Firefox wouldn't be quite so bad if they used "libexec style" bloat (for example, the config, bookmark and RSS mgr as a separate process) so that you didn't have to load the whole thing into memory just to look at websites.

      I hope opera at least has a separate process for the web server so we don't have to drag it along every time we visit slashdot.

      Heh, and we used to complain about emacs..

    8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can't I just get a simple web browser that looks good and doesn't come with the latest FOTM Twitter bullshit?

      Why would a want a "Fridge" in my Browser instead of features that help me, you know, browse the internet?

    9. Re:What? by ipb · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've been seeing them for about a week or so.
      Firefox 3.0.11
      Konqueror 3.5.9

      Very annoying

    10. Re:What? by sopssa · · Score: 5, Informative

      On every aspect the title and summary is just so wrong.

      To begin with, Opera 10 has not been released. Its in Beta.
      Opera Unite is not Opera 10, its a feature in Opera 10.
      Opera Unite is not a webserver, its a system where functionality is provided by widgets and other users can access those aswell (kinda like Google Wave)
      Opera provided some widgets to begin with, like File Sharing, Web Server, Media Player, Photo Sharing, The Lounge (chat), Fridge (post-a-note wall)
      All of these can be separately enabled or disabled.
      Atleast in the Opera 10 Beta, Unite and all the widgets were disabled by default.
      It makes direct connections when possible, and if user is behind NAT Opera proxy servers will route it (afaik)

      Its a great thing for an user who doesn't care or know how to install webservers, dont want to upload their private photos to imageshack or the like or chat via servers. The thing here is that instead of using websites, you can connect to your friends directly. Widgets provide the functionality then (theres API developers can use to make them)

      Hopefully that clarifies some about that incredibly bad summary.

    11. Re:What? by rs79 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "No kitchen sink?"

      No, that's a widget that you have to download separately.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    12. Re:What? by AaxelB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's see, three things:

      1. It looks like the latest version of Emacs is more than 3 times the size of this latest Opera snapshot, web server and everything! So, you know, Emacs is still worth complaining about. (I know, source code vs. compiled binary isn't fair, but I was just making a joke, and Emacs is still fat.)

      2. Opera has always been a web suite, for longer than Firefox has even existed, and it's always come with an insane number of features out of the box, and yet it's also always been fast and nimble and light on memory. I think if anyone can keep these new features from acting as a ball and chain on your computer, Opera can.

      3. Um... I forget number three. But you're supposed to do things in threes, so here you go.

    13. Re:What? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Would the file sharing widget essentially set up a p2p network? One user would be connecting directly to the other user, correct, possibly going through one of Opera's proxies?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    14. Re:What? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      Would the file sharing widget essentially set up a p2p network? One user would be connecting directly to the other user, correct, possibly going through one of Opera's proxies?

      Yes, though you have to explicitly decide who you're connecting to, so it's not P2P in the way it came to be understood for file sharing. Now if someone writes an indexing service...

    15. Re:What? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Right, there's no searching (AFAIK), but if you know that user XYZ has a file you're looking for, you can connect to them and download it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    16. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So the phrase "Opera Unite: a Web server on the Web browser" in big text on the page doesn't really mean it's a web server. Gotcha.

    17. Re:What? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      So have I. Firefox 3.0.11, but I'm on Windows XP.

      The "Friends" dots appear in the middle of articles, and there's some sort of unresponsive grey boxes that look like they should expand or scroll when clicked that are scattered through, overlapping, the text of almost every comment. I know this is unrelated to the article, but I'm not sure how else to let Slashdot know their site is slowly becoming more and more broken.

    18. Re:What? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Same here, affecting Opera 9.64, Firefox 3.0.11, and Epiphany 2.26.1 on Ubuntu Jaunty 64 bit.
      At least the blank subject lines were fixed in creating this particular bug in slashdot.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    19. Re:What? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Its a great thing for an user who doesn't care or know how to install webservers,

      I'd say it is a BAD THING when someone who doesn't care or know how to install a web server winds up installing a web server just because it is part of his web browser. I'd say it is a massive hole through which bad guys can poke at someone's system without the victim knowing that he's installed it.

      No, "Unite" isn't the only thing that does this; it's sometimes instructive to do a "netstat -na" on your system to see just what ports are open, and then 'lsof' to see who is running them.

      Personally, I don't want my VNC server also running an http demon to distribute widgets to anyone who comes by. I don't want my web browser doing the same thing.

      The thing here is that instead of using websites, you can connect to your friends directly.

      As long as your friends are explicit in wanting you to be able to this, ok. If that were true, it's trivial to set up a real webserver to provide exactly what you want them to get, instead of it being a side-effect of browsing the morning's ration of pr0n.

    20. Re:What? by sopssa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd say it is a BAD THING when someone who doesn't care or know how to install a web server winds up installing a web server just because it is part of his web browser. I'd say it is a massive hole through which bad guys can poke at someone's system without the victim knowing that he's installed it.

      Why is it a massive hole? You know, its not apache or anything complicated. It doesn't run php scripts. It serves files and only does that. Seeing how secure Opera has been compared to IE/FF I'd say they know how to secure it aswell.

      Personally, I don't want my VNC server also running an http demon to distribute widgets to anyone who comes by. I don't want my web browser doing the same thing.

      Nor it does, it has a good access police thats easily noticed by the user. Opera's site has some pics in the press section if you dont want to install it to see.

      As long as your friends are explicit in wanting you to be able to this, ok.

      As said, user access controls and the services/widgets DONT run on by default.

      If that were true, it's trivial to set up a real webserver to provide exactly what you want them to get, instead of it being a side-effect of browsing the morning's ration of pr0n.

      Internet is not just us nerds anymore. Actually, we're quite minority like in teh real world. Not anyone has interest to learn how to install and configure apache and hell, I would be more worried about someone using apache instead of opera's very basic webserver, if they get it working they most likely dont know what they're doing.

    21. Re:What? by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      I'm seeing those on almost all of the comments, and it's been that way for more than a week now. But that's not the most annoying glitch. The most annoying one is to have a comment's text pushed to the right side of its comment box, making it very hard to read.

    22. Re:What? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Is that what those massive grey boxes that shove all the text to the right are? I've been resorting to Ctrl+- to zoom out and fix that. Zooming back in brings it back.

    23. Re:What? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      As said, user access controls and the services/widgets DONT run on by default.

      As I said, if you have to be explicit, fine. But giving someone who doesn't know what he is doing the option of sharing his entire computer is not a good thing. I don't know if ISPs like the cable systems block the standard MS filesharing ports or not (my firewall is there just so I don't have to know) but they should. I don't want them blocking everything because a few users get themselves into trouble by turning on something they don't understand. I'd rather they spend the time learning what they are doing and installing a web server if they really want to provide web services.

      Not anyone has interest to learn how to install and configure apache...

      While us nerds know that apache is the default power server, it isn't the only one. There are others, simpler, less prone to error.

      ... I would be more worried about someone using apache instead of opera's very basic webserver, if they get it working they most likely dont know what they're doing.

      I would be more worried that someone doesn't know what he is doing if he is given a checkbox "share all my crap" instead of needing to explicitly install and start a web server. Even the most "hole-less" code is a security hole when it is installed in a way that it shares every file, and just how many people who are trying to share one thing using Unite are going to wind up sharing it all when they can't figure out how to get it to share just the one thing they want?

      And how many people are going to lulled into complacency when they see whatever "turn on the server" box there is, thinking "it's Opera, it's secure, it must be ok?", without even thinking of the implications?

    24. Re:What? by syousef · · Score: 2, Funny

      On every aspect the title and summary is just so wrong.

      It's getting so that Digg has better, more accurate summaries. Scary.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    25. Re:What? by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, the file sharing is basically like FTP, you pick a folder that has the files you want to share, anyone who browses your files or downloads on, downloads it from you directly. The browsing is some sort of auto-created webpage depending on which section you are sharing under (Images, Music, Generic, Web-Server). If you go offline, or disable it, then that's that no one can connect or download. I would assume the same for The Lounge chatroom although I haven't had a reason to use it, but the Fridge/PostIt note thing might work differently, if you go offline it might keep the messages on one of their servers until you connect again.

      As a side note, I played with it for awhile, photo-sharing was decent, but file and/or music sharing was a huge pain and crashed (well froze for far too long, would take about 15 minutes to load/refresh the pages) a few times. It' doesnt deal with large amounts of files (currently anyways). Sharing about 25 files/tunes... is ok, but thousands, and it craps out. And the URL's are horrible:
      unite://home.%username%.operaunite.com/file_sharing/access/... etc
      But all in all it's promising, and rather useful if you don't have any other alternatives or dedicated applications to do the same things.

      Also, although I have no idea about it's security fundamentally, it allows you to share things with 3 different options:
      Wide Open (anyone who knows the urls, or hunts you down on my.opera can view/use)
      Password Protected
      Only Me

    26. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works great in IE8. Didn't you hear the news? SciFi is going to be SyFy and /. is going to be BINGdot.org soon? ;-)

    27. Re:What? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Good to know, thanks. Here's hoping they improve the performance for the final.

      The note posting is interesting, it would be nice to be in contact with my friends a'la Twitter, but I have no desire to put that in the public.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    28. Re:What? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Works fine in Chrome. But hey, since when has Slashdot gone more than a week without screwing up the layout since the OSDN to Sourceforge change?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    29. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, but theres a fridge for ya, not as awesome, but it'll do.

    30. Re:What? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      I'm seeing it too, running Ubuntu 9.04 / Firefox 3.0.11. I do run adBlock+ but disabling it doesn't help. I don't run NoScript so that isn't the problem.

      Quite frankly, I'm astonished given the high quality markup we've come to expect from /. over the years! ;)

      On the upside, they've fixed the post headings which were white on a white background for a few days.

    31. Re:What? by Inda · · Score: 1

      No. I actually have missing graphics; they've been replaced with an "Alter Relationship" link or a "Friend of a Friend" link.

      Was the old way really that broken?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    32. Re:What? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      As long as your friends are explicit in wanting you to be able to this, ok. If that were true, it's trivial to set up a real webserver to provide exactly what you want them to get ...

      Let's see, install opera, activate file sharing versus, what is it now? A webserver you say.

      User: being savvy, surfs to wikipedia ... "oh right, i need one of those big boxes?" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:My_Opera_Server.jpg )

      Geek: "nope, just software"

      User: searches on yahoo, follows first link that looks like web server software, "so I've got the 'Sun Java System Web Server' what do I do next?" ( http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=webserver )

    33. Re:What? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Just add "|http://c.fsdn.com/sd/cs_sic_controls_new.png?*" to your blocking rules in Adblock Plus, and they are gone forever.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    34. Re:What? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Like I said, if someone is as clueless as you think, they will have no idea what dangers await for making the wrong settings to Unite and probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

    35. Re:What? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Same here on XP X64 with Minefield(native X64 FF3) and it is irritating as hell.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    36. Re:What? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      If you want a fast and non bloated Firefox, get Kmeleon. If you are on Windows you have the choice of Kmeleon proper or Kmeleon CCF ME with built in ABP, and if you are Linux here is a tutorial on how to get Kmeleon going under Wine.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    37. Re:What? by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

      Does it on chrome too. The release anyway, not sure about the beta.

    38. Re:What? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      I don't think you have to be clueless to not be able to install and configure apache's httpd, or dare I say IIS. I don't think the dangers here are any greater than any other filesharing system either, and certainly less than a novice trying to set up their own full blown server.

  2. Excellent! by shadow349 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure all seven Opera users will be thrilled.

    1. Re:Excellent! by gparent · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're all UNITED, though!

    2. Re:Excellent! by sopssa · · Score: 3, Informative

      eh, how wrong is the summary. Opera 10 != Opera Unite. Its just a feature in it. Surprisingly, TechCrunch has a good summary http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/16/that-reinvention-of-the-web-thing-opera-was-talking-about-its-called-opera-unite/

    3. Re:Excellent! by sopssa · · Score: 4, Informative

      âoeCurrently, most of us contribute content to the Web (for example by putting our personal information on social networking sites, uploading photos to Flickr, or maybe publishing blog posts), but we donâ(TM)t contribute to its fabric â" the underlying infrastructure that defines the online landscape that we inhabit.

      Our computers are only dumb terminals connected to other computers (meaning servers) owned by other people â" such as large corporations â" who we depend upon to host our words, thoughts, and images. We depend on them to do it well and with our best interests at heart. We place our trust in these third parties, and we hope for the best, but as long as our own computers are not first class citizens on the Web, we are merely tenants, and hosting companies are the landlords of the Internet.â

      This is more of a way for people to communicate, share and do stuff together rather than using websites. You know, P2P. It has developer API so new stuff can be added, opera's own stuff currently include webserver, chat room, note board, streaming and file sharing.

      Its quite nice system actually, and you dont need to share your stuff to all of the internet or upload your photos to facebook or similar.

    4. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While it is an interesting idea, in the US at least it would run afoul of the TOS most people agreed to when they signed up for their broadband connection. That and bandwidth constraints on the upload side of their connection.

    5. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You must be new here.

    6. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dial down the drama. It is all funneled through Opera's servers, because if the users knew how to forward a port from their router to their computer, then they could have had their own server for ages. With Opera's help, they can now enjoy their new freedom in Opera's walled garden.

    7. Re:Excellent! by Kamokazi · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would be, if it was actually Opera 10 being released today. However that is not the case. They released the Alpha of their new Unite collaboration thingamajig which requires the current BETA of Opera 10. The current version is still 9.64, with 9.7 in beta testing, so it will be some time before 10 comes out.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    8. Re:Excellent! by sopssa · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do actually make a direct connection if its possible. If not, then opera will proxy it so that it works for users behind nat aswell.

    9. Re:Excellent! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I'm sure all seven Opera users will be thrilled.

      It's lonely being part of an elite.

      --
      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;
    10. Re:Excellent! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Slahdot uses charset=iso-8859-1. The page he copied from (probably this one using charset=utf-8) uses smartquotes, emdashes and so on which are mangled when you copy/paste them from a UTF-8 page.

      --
      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;
    11. Re:Excellent! by akorvemaker · · Score: 1

      The current version is still 9.64, with 9.7 in beta testing, so it will be some time before 10 comes out.

      I don't believe there is a 9.7 beta. The Opera 10 beta was released recently, and this builds upon it. They are definitely working towards a v10 release in the relatively near future.

    12. Re:Excellent! by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Its not that difficult to rent a VM somewhere in a datacenter. If there is demand for this, you could easily whip up a hosting plan and a browser plugin that would quickly sync things when you needed to.

      I just don't see the need for a home user to ever serve web content. Binary file sharing, yes, but not web content.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    13. Re:Excellent! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I'm sure all seven Opera users will be thrilled.

      Show a little respect. The seven of us are shaking down features you'll be using on Firefox in three or four years.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    14. Re:Excellent! by Kamokazi · · Score: 1

      My bad, that is the mobile version that has a 9.7 beta.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    15. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use it or the EU will sue your ass for not providing yourself genuine choice.

    16. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent was trying to be funny, I know, but, between Opera for the desktop, Mini, Mobile and (for) Devices there should be some tens of millions of people using a variant of Opera.
      Hard numbers are apparently hard to come by though.

    17. Re:Excellent! by gknoy · · Score: 1

      True, it's not an official release yet. That said, I've been using Opera 10 beta for several months now, and it seems more stable than Opera 9 was. It appears to handle scripting on some websites more properly than 9 did, also. (Some sites wouldn't display right in Opera9; I can't think of any off the top of my head, though.) I am certainly a fan.

      That said, I REALLY dislike having the tab close button on the tab itself, and dislike the new "locked tab" icon's transparency. I normally have Way Too Many tabs open (38, right now), and the tabs are pretty much exactly as wide as their favicon (normally displayed on the tab). Unfortunately, I am still accustomed to being able to click the active tab to put it in the background -- but now, doing so closes the tab. Phoey.

      I still like it better than Firefox, though. I don't think it's even entirely rational: I can't think of features that I like about Opera which Firefox doesn't have (except for its awesome "block content" feature).

    18. Re:Excellent! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Actually once you understand the issue you don't need to preview and edit the bad characters out, you can convert from utf-8 to iso-8859-1 using a tool like this

      http://www.motobit.com/util/charset-codepage-conversion.asp

      Or a decent text editor

      Here's the text he quoted converted from utf-8 to iso-8859-1 :

      Currently, most of us contribute content to the Web (for example by putting our personal information on social networking sites, uploading photos to Flickr, or maybe publishing blog posts), but we don't contribute to its fabric - the underlying infrastructure that defines the online landscape that we inhabit.

      Our computers are only dumb terminals connected to other computers (meaning servers) owned by other people - such as large corporations - who we depend upon to host our words, thoughts, and images. We depend on them to do it well and with our best interests at heart. We place our trust in these third parties, and we hope for the best, but as long as our own computers are not first class citizens on the Web, we are merely tenants, and hosting companies are the landlords of the Internet.

      --
      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;
    19. Re:Excellent! by jank1887 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      geocities2.0

    20. Re:Excellent! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't want my pictures, banking, email (thanks Gmail!), etc to rely on a P2P network of home computers. I want servers doing what they do best, serving data from a facility with backup power, redundant connectivity, and some sort of physical security. And I want my laptop/desktop doing what they do best, fetching info from the rest of the world.

    21. Re:Excellent! by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      Well, *their* version is a walled garden. How soon will Mozilla pick this up and makes it open (and useful)? Like tabs... (and yes, I know that tabs was implemented elsewhere before Opera did it, but you get the point)

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    22. Re:Excellent! by BtEO · · Score: 1

      That said, I REALLY dislike having the tab close button on the tab itself, and dislike the new "locked tab" icon's transparency. I normally have Way Too Many tabs open (38, right now), and the tabs are pretty much exactly as wide as their favicon (normally displayed on the tab). Unfortunately, I am still accustomed to being able to click the active tab to put it in the background -- but now, doing so closes the tab. Phoey.

      You can of course configure Opera not to have close buttons on the tabs.

    23. Re:Excellent! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure all seven Opera users will be thrilled."

      Funny about that. I'm one of them and have used nothing but Opera since version 6 which came out about 7 years ago.

      Did you know slashdot looks like crap in Opera? Given that Opera is the most HTML compliant browser out there what does that tell you?

      I mentioned this to "management" and he said "Most of our poeple use IE so it doesn't matter".

      So, carry on degrading the web and open standards while bleating the opposite.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    24. Re:Excellent! by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      They're all UNITED, though!

      Taking into account spelling errors, some of them are UNTIED.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    25. Re:Excellent! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "I disagree. Its not that difficult to rent a VM somewhere in a datacenter."

      Let me just explain this to Grandma.

      "I just don't see the need for a home user to ever serve web content. Binary file sharing, yes, but not web content."

      And some poeple just couldn't see the need for more than 640K, ever.

      Nothing new and innovative on the net made sense when it first came out. It took from 1999 to 1996 for the web to go from 0 to 500 sites. Brian Reid once sent me a "hyperlink" to "Palo Alto, the first city on the web" in 1993 or 4 and I had to download Mosaic to see it. And I thought it was really stupid and hoped he hadn't spent too much time on this.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    26. Re:Excellent! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Some Opera betas aren't that usable. Like 10-alpha. 10-beta is usable, I tried it meekly, it holds up and I've been using it exclusively ever since it came out. The javascript engine is wicked fast and now things like ebay and fb pages don't take abnormally long to render.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    27. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem no one seem to be mentioning is Opera is putting a web server on everyone's PC. Their Web server. They are one of the biggest companies pushing the EU to force Microsoft to install other browsers as part of the operating system. So if your computer comes with Opera install it comes with a Web server installed. Have we learned nothing from Windows 2000 which had IIS installed by default on millions of desktops? Have we learned nothing about hackers love to just scan port 80 looking for holes and can you imagine them just brute forcing their way in.

      Yeah this is a good idea.

    28. Re:Excellent! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      and yes, I know that tabs was implemented elsewhere before Opera did it

      [citation needed]

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    29. Re:Excellent! by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      I agree overall, although with one exception: Grandma? Are you going to explain to Grandma what P2P is? Or how to server content from her computer? Would that be before or after you explain to her the finer points of the TCP/IP stack?

      Every time someone wants to relay that something is "too geeky for normal people", they bring up Grandma. Leave Grandma alone.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    30. Re:Excellent! by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      While it is an interesting idea, in the US at least it would run afoul of the TOS most people agreed to when they signed up for their broadband connection.

      Most people have lame ISPs.

      That's no reason to punish those who don't.

      (Not that I really want a web server in my browser; its easy enough to get a cheap, low-power, always on system to run a web server if I want to host content.)

      That and bandwidth constraints on the upload side of their connection.

      Most people aren't going to be providing content that enough people will care about to tax the upload bandwidth on their connection.

    31. Re:Excellent! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I concur, 10 alpha was pretty rough. 10 beta is a huge improvement over 9.64.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    32. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah man. leave grandma alone.

    33. Re:Excellent! by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      As long as there is something keeping Grandma from posting/sharing 100MB bit maps (maybe a built in conversion tool that changes the format to a PNG without her seeing it) I really don't see the problem with images. I've already wasted countless hours walking people through flickr and facebook and again through whatever new thing that comes down the pike. If it gets them out of the equation that works for me.

      I can't think of anyone who wants their banking information put on a P2P network.

    34. Re:Excellent! by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      That said, I REALLY dislike having the tab close button on the tab itself ... I am still accustomed to being able to click the active tab to put it in the background -- but now, doing so closes the tab

      Preferences -> Advanced -> Tabs -> Additional tab options. Check "Click on tab to minimise" and uncheck "Show close button on each tab".

      Also, right click on tab bar, Customize -> Appearance, select "Wrap to multiple lines". Now you can see all your many tabs at once. You may also find it useful to have them down the left or right of the window.

    35. Re:Excellent! by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      I have to develop cross-browser apps regularly, so I can attest that Opera is a breath of fresh air in terms of standards/feature support.

      But for the exact reason you cited, I don't use Opera. It's a constant reminder that the web is a complete wreck. I'll often give people examples of how huge websites bite it when you load them on Opera. So in the end what have you gained? Are you suffering for a cause? Do you want to constantly reminded that most "web developers" don't know there is a standard?

      I prefer less pain in all things. I use Firefox for most sites, and sometimes Chrome for sites that I know are highly compliant. I could make things more painful and install one of the many X/HTML validation plugins in Firefox and set it to always sound an alarm when there's a mistake, but this seems counter-productive, when I'm trying to consume content.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    36. Re:Excellent! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly, TechCrunch has a good summary...

      Hey, even a blind squirrel can get a tech story right once in a while.

    37. Re:Excellent! by Alvare · · Score: 1

      I've been using Opera 10 since it is alpha, and I don't thing there is anything better available for the Linux Desktop nowadays. GTK+ is a joke when it comes to speed, Konqueror is even less compatible than Opera, and Links2 doesn't have flash support.

      --
      4 - A robot may not masturbate, except where such action would conflict with the Second Law.
    38. Re:Excellent! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      InternetWorks was the first to have tabbed browsing, in 1994, well before Firefox or Opera ever existed.

      Of course, only those that actually USED the software would know about it.

      Yea, you all think tabbed browsing is hot shit, I've been at it for 15 years. LOL at all of you.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    39. Re:Excellent! by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Firefox users should be thrilled as well, because if it shows up in Opera, it will show up in Firefox a year or two later, and be hailed as revolutionary.

    40. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually once you understand the issue you don't need to preview and edit the bad characters out, you can convert from utf-8 to iso-8859-1 using a tool like this

      No, you twit. Preview is how you find out if anything needs to be converted in the first place. Once you use Preview to ascertain that, you have two options: edit the few characters that don't look right or convert them using the methods you mention. Preview is what the original poster failed to use that would have made him aware of the need to do something about it, whether that something is your preferred option, my preferred option, or some alternative. Like I said, you're like those folks who can hear but don't listen but we love you anyway.

    41. Re:Excellent! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Macs come with a webserver today. You just turn websharing on and you have a webserver. The problem with IIS was that it was insecure.

    42. Re:Excellent! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      What are the big features of Opera you actually find useful?

      (Genuinely asking, not being sarcastic)

    43. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7% Marketshare in Europe (double that of Safari).

      How come all the tools seem to have inhabited Slashdot recently...

    44. Re:Excellent! by rho · · Score: 1

      That said, I've been using Opera 10 beta for several months now, and it seems more stable than Opera 9 was.

      FWIW I downloaded the Mac version of 10, tried to play with the Unity stuff, and Opera crashed within seconds.

      That doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it didn't engender a burning desire in me to sink more time into it, that's for sure. I'll try again when 10 isn't so raw.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    45. Re:Excellent! by Peter+Mork · · Score: 1

      Off the top of my head:

      • Built-in ad-block, no need to add another plugin
      • Speed dial, my favorite websites just a Ctrl-# key away
      • Built-in torrent support, just click on the link and away you go
      • Small memory foot-print
      • Mouse gestures, right-left click to go back, for example.
      • The fast forward button, keyboard shortcut, mouse gesture: sites with a "next" button can be navigated by just clicking fast forward, as can sites with a bunch of images.

      Some of these might be in other browsers, but I gave up on IE (except for filling out my timecard at work) and Firefox (except for SQL injection hacking) because they were memory hogs that were rife with bugs. So, as I said, some of these may not be unique to Opera.

    46. Re:Excellent! by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 1

      I'm sure all seven Opera users will be thrilled.

      I know this is an old joke, but stop it. In some countries, Opera has more market share than Firefox, it's well above 30%.

      http://my.opera.com/dstorey/blog/2009/03/16/a-look-at-desktop-market-share-cis-edition

      Alienate Opera users on your website, and you alienate over a third of internet users from the former USSR... In other words, one hundred million people.

    47. Re:Excellent! by Maniacal · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Actually I switched to Opera about a week ago and so far really love it. So far love the speed dial and small memory foot-print. Didn't know most of the other stuff you mentioned. Thanks for the tips. Firefox just wasn't doing it for me anymore. I tried. Still use it on my windows boxes but for my main system (Fedora) Opera is on the testing block. MG

      --
      MG
    48. Re:Excellent! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      " I agree overall, although with one exception: Grandma? Are you going to explain to Grandma what P2P is? Or how to server content from her computer? Would that be before or after you explain to her the finer points of the TCP/IP stack?"

      She knows all that stuff except the tcp/ip stack stuff which she doesn't need to know. She's not gonna "rent a VM at a datacenter though".

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    49. Re:Excellent! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      " I don't want my pictures, banking, email (thanks Gmail!), etc to rely on a P2P network of home computers. I want servers doing what they do best, serving data from a facility with backup power, redundant connectivity, and some sort of physical security. And I want my laptop/desktop doing what they do best, fetching info from the rest of the world."

      How hard is it to say "Here's your www directory. Stuff you put there, pretend the whole world can look at". All the computers here have a www directory anyway for local home page so this is no great stretch.

      Online banking has very little to do with this.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    50. Re:Excellent! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      " I concur, 10 alpha was pretty rough. 10 beta is a huge improvement over 9.64."

      Opera 10-alpha didn't work at all for me. External source viewers didn't work and I use vi. It crashed every time, was a known bug and is fixed in 10 beta.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    51. Re:Excellent! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "What are the big features of Opera you actually find useful? "

      Couldn't name one in particular. I work at home, on the web. And what I notice is if I try to use any other browser it takes me longer to do everything. Little things like with opera you can "paste and go" a url into the addess bar. With everything else you paste the url then hit enter or click the go button. Little things add up and my gut feel is it'd take me 12 hours to do 10 hours work with anything else. And all things being equal the more fiddly stupid stuff I don't have to do the happier my work day is. Plus I just hate waiting and every other browser seems to keep me waiting more and not let me know what on earth is happening.

      If I couldn't use opera I'd probably go back to the unix shell and find different work. I realize opera may take some getting used to but once you are used to it every other browser seems like its 10 yrs old.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    52. Re:Excellent! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      " But for the exact reason you cited, I don't use Opera. It's a constant reminder that the web is a complete wreck. I'll often give people examples of how huge websites bite it when you load them on Opera. So in the end what have you gained? Are you suffering for a cause? Do you want to constantly reminded that most "web developers" don't know there is a standard?"

      I hear you, and I do the same thing. But I program for opera then hack it to make IE and FF work. I think anybody that makes it work in IE deserves what they get.

      Occasionally I'll have to use IE or FF for some site that dosn't work with Opera, but that's getting less and less often, in fact I don't think it's happened once this year yet.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    53. Re:Excellent! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I understand that the term "well before" is relative, but Opera was released in 1996, Opera Software was founded in 1995.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    54. Re:Excellent! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Informative

      What are the big features of Opera you actually find useful?

      (Genuinely asking, not being sarcastic)

      Happy to oblidge. Before I go into it, though, I'd like to mention that I use three different computers on any given day. Workstation, laptop, desktop. For that reason, I value sync'age and NOT having to reinstall stuff. That's why FireFox is unnatractive to me as a primary browser. I don't like extension hunting and I especially don't like the constant nagging to update them. I can be on a brand new computer, go to Opera.com, and download the browser with everything ready to go.

      Okay, so here's a few things I like about Opera:

      - The UI is really good about letting you drag stuff around and organize it in a meaningful way. Instead of going to the bookmarks pulldown or whatever, I just drag the shortcuts up into the top bar. They're easily rearranged and so on. Plus, you can put folders up there that turn into pulldowns. (Note: FireFox has this now. I don't remember it always having it. I can't put my finger on it but whenever I use FF I feel like it goes more smoothly in Opera. Hardly an objective opinion, though.)

      Opera's nice about letting you turn tabs into windows and vice/versa. In fact, that's one of the reasons FireFox feels clunky to me. I also dig the trash can icon that lets me reopen tabs I've closed. (In the same order they were originally in, to boot!)

      - Bookmark Sync- Opera allows you to create a username and password to store your bookmarks on Opera's server. If I make a bookmark at work, both my desktop and laptop at home will get it. I use this quite a bit when I find stuff on the weekend I really need to examine when I get in on Monday.

      - Speed Dial- When you open a New Tab , but before you've navigated to a page, 9 thumbnails will appear for your favorite bookmarks. Nice and quick for getting to pages you frequent. (And you don't need to hog existing UI space for it!) There are extensions for FF that mimic this functionality. This is syncable, too.

      - Notes- If you highlight some text, right click, and say "Add to Note", then the text you selected will be copied and stored in 'Notes'. When you click that Note, it takes you to the page where it was found. I've found two important uses for this feature. One: Example code. I can see the sample code right there in the Notes. Two: I like to bookmark 'Funny' comments on Slashdot. This way I can just highlight the quote, click, and blam it's noted. (That'd be far more tedious to do in an organized way with Bookmarks.) This is syncable too, so if I find a 'note' at work, I have it at home, too.

      - Transfers Window- I'll skip the Bittorrent bit because, though it works, I prefer an actual BT client. I do like having the Xfers window that shows me what files are there, gives me good info about what's going on with them, and the right-click context menu that matches what Windows does in Explorer.

      - Sessions- You can tell Opera "these are the windows I like to have open". Or you can say "I happen to like these particular windows I have open", and open them later. (I think this is syncable, too. I don't remember, actually.) I use this a lot when I'm digging around for reference photos and a bunch of different sites are helpful.

      - Fast Forward- If there are a bunch of links on a page, like a bunch of images you want to cycle through, just use the Fast Forward button.

      - Popup Blocking- I've never looked into Adblock. I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that what Opera has is the same. I don't know, really. Opera blocks pop-ups rather nicely. Let me put it another way: Opera blocks pop-ups that FireFox does not. For this reason, I've never been interested in NoScript or AdBlock or any of that. It is possible to block Flash, though. Sadly I cannot tell you how. I downloaded a portable version of Opera and it had a neat little button that disables all Flash. Well, I'm not

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    55. Re:Excellent! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      " FWIW I downloaded the Mac version of 10, tried to play with the Unity stuff, and Opera crashed within seconds." "

      I've never had much luck with Opera on macs either, but it's all I use everywhere else.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    56. Re:Excellent! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the detailed response. It would be nice to make an opera note of this under "advantages of opera". I could see how something like devon personal would be very practical using that notes feature

    57. Re:Excellent! by mrbugjacobs · · Score: 0

      I dont know about the other six, but I sure am :-)

    58. Re:Excellent! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      IIS6 and above is not insecure. The problem was the Microsoft was shipping IIS5.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    59. Re:Excellent! by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Dial down the drama. It is all funneled through Opera's servers, because if the users knew how to forward a port from their router to their computer, then they could have had their own server for ages. With Opera's help, they can now enjoy their new freedom in Opera's walled garden.

      Which is hilarious since the Opera Unite video talks about servers having all the power on the Internet now and how it needs to be democratized. Unite claims to do that. Then you try to enable a service and find out that you need to register for an account on their servers first. Meh.

    60. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Opera 10 Beta was only released earlier this month, so how have you been using it for several months?

    61. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say probably most people don't listen to what you say because you're an unpleasant, angry pedant.

      In this economy I'd expect you to end up homeless, drunk and raging at the world. Good luck with that.

    62. Re:Excellent! by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Yes clearly, Slashdotters use what everyone else uses. That's why we all agree that IE is the best browser! I hope you're not one of those 8 Firefox users!

      (Honestly, the two-faced snobbery is getting old - using alternative products to Microsoft is seen as good on the one hand, but if you use the "wrong" choice like Opera, we get looked down upon. Despite the fact that we switched from Microsoft long before it became trendy to do so.)

    63. Re:Excellent! by pbhj · · Score: 1

      Can you really not see a place for this? If you want to share all your computers pics with family members, what's easier sharing ~/Pictures direct from your own box or uploading all the pictures first? There are benefits to a photo-sharing service for sure but unlimited size of photo, unlimited number of photos, candid photos you don't want to put on Flickr, having more that 3 folders of photos.

      If it was just that, photo album / file sharing, then I think it would be worth having.

      Shall we move on to streaming media files next, or perhaps quick notes, ... remember these are just the initial offerings. Anything that can be improved by parallel data transfer being in the control of the user apparently would benefit from Unite.

      It's beyond internet, to me it deserves a new moniker, Peerweb, http://alicious.com/2009/opera-about-to-change-the-world/ .

    64. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our computers as first class citizens: I like that but would this not depend on one's ISP provider? I used to have a first class citizen web server running at home until Comcast started to block all outgoing HTTP traffic. Would that not be the case with Opera P2P?

  3. Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Pretend for a second that I don't know anything about Acid 3. Pretend I'm just a regular Joe-sixpack web user.

    Why should I care that my browser scored 100/100 on the Acid 3 test?

    1. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretend for a second that I don't know anything about Acid 3. Pretend I'm just a regular Joe-sixpack web user.

      Why should I care that my browser scored 100/100 on the Acid 3 test?

      I would pitch Acid 3 compliance in this manner: This web browser is 100% compliant with the proper web rendering standards. The more compliant your web browser is, the less likely your web browser will break. You can take that to the bank. You spend less time with a broken browser, and more time enjoying a cold one.

    2. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because when the IE starts supporting the same standards, the web will get nicer looking/easyer to web design/less cross browser error prone.

    3. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet they still don't support Web Fonts fully & properly; there's lot of bugs in their implementation.

      (Large sizes or Bold Italic for example)

    4. Re:Acid 3 test by Kandenshi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The more compliant your web browser is, the less likely your web browser will break.

      I love webstandards, and wish greatly that all browsers supported them well. But I just don't think that quote is factually true. If your browser adheres to webstandards that IE doesn't then it's quite possible/plausible that your browser will fail to deliver websites that look and function like you and the designer expected it to.

      People "should" code to standards, but I just don't think that it's (yet) true that they DO.

    5. Re:Acid 3 test by Kandenshi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To paraphrase that to fit what Generic Joe will hear:
      "You'll have to grin and bear it as you use an internet that wasn't written to use these standards, BUT, if you and lots of other people start using Opera then those websites will be written to comply with those standards and that'll be great!"

      Not sure that's a terribly compelling argument to Generic Joe. Some will certainly go for it, willing to bite the bullet to advance humanity a little bit, but a lot of people just want to use the internet.

    6. Re:Acid 3 test by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Talking of banks, will it work at https://www.nwolb.com/ or https://www.rbsdigital.com/ ? They are the world's largest bank, and don't have a good reputation for supporting alternative browsers.

    7. Re:Acid 3 test by bigpresh · · Score: 5, Funny

      You spend less time with a broken browser, and more time enjoying a cold one.

      Dude, necrophilia is wrong.

    8. Re:Acid 3 test by Ninjaesque+One · · Score: 1

      Is Joe Sixpack a novice on the methods of drinking beer? I've always wondered about this. May be offtopic. Anyways, I can't see how having a full-featured Web server in your browser can be good for security.

      --
      Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
    9. Re:Acid 3 test by Swizec · · Score: 2, Informative

      The more compliant your web browser is, the less likely your web browser will break.

      I love webstandards, and wish greatly that all browsers supported them well. But I just don't think that quote is factually true. If your browser adheres to webstandards that IE doesn't then it's quite possible/plausible that your browser will fail to deliver websites that look and function like you and the designer expected it to.

      People "should" code to standards, but I just don't think that it's (yet) true that they DO.

      However Opera is known to also be subject to many IE bugs at will. Ever since the latest browser wars began with firefox 1.3 and early webkit Opera was best out there since it both adhered to standards and didn't break badly made websites. I don't know how they manage doing this, but they do.

    10. Re:Acid 3 test by Xest · · Score: 1

      It's an accessibility thing.

      The score refers to how usable a browser is to someone on acid, so 100/100 means someone on acid can use the browser fully. It came about as a realisation that some of the worlds greatest computer scientists were users of acid, particularly at Berkley and hence there was recognition that we needed to ensure that they too can use the internet.

      No, seriously though that's bullshit, it's actually a standards compliance test. If you've used multiple browsers you may have come across some times that just don't look right, where something is out of place or something - this is ever less common now, but it's generally because a browser doesn't properly support the standards that make up web pages - standards such as HTML, XHTML, CSS etc.

      If a browser has 100/100 on the test it means it can correctly render everything that the test consists of as it's supposed to according to the standards.

      Chances are if your browser doesn't score 100/100 in the acid tests there will be some sites that don't look as they should, although you may never even know as some of the things it covers are non-obvious unless you're aware of the issue beforehand.

    11. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talking of banks, will it work at https://www.rbsdigital.com/ ?

      It does, but you have to mask as Firefox or IE. (To mask: right-click on page and choose 'Edit Site Preferences', then go to the 'Network' tab and change the browser ID)

    12. Re:Acid 3 test by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Acid 3 is completely irrelevant to users, it's important for web designers. Each Acid test demonstrates, in an easy-to-test way, a certain subset of web standards. When all of the major browsers pass them, you can safely use that subset of the standards and be sure that your users will see the page you want them to see.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Acid 3 test by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's a matter of perspective. If your browser is 100% compliant and the site looks wrong, the site is broken, not your browser.

      Agreed, that doesn't mean the sites will be fixed. Hopefully people will realize which is broken and appropriately look down upon the site until they get with the program and tell IE6 users to go get a real browser..

    14. Re:Acid 3 test by uiuyhn8i8 · · Score: 0

      >Dude, necrophilia is wrong.

      Tell that to the windows users.

    15. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The acid tests are about as useful as pure-performance benchmarks performed under ideal conditions. They're all fine and good and all that, but they hardly represent the real world. Firefox doesn't pass acid3, yet it renders all standards-compliant pages I've come across (or have designed myself). Sure, Firefox has its quirks. But so do acid3-compliant browsers.

      And when you get browsers/engines that include code such as "If (acid3_test) { do_something_special_so_we_pass() }" ... it pretty much removes any value passing the test may have had anyway. Webkit (I believe) fudged the test in this way once... so that means the acid3 test has no bearing on how Webkit might render anything else (this may have been cleaned up in Webkit by now... I don't know).

    16. Re:Acid 3 test by Amouth · · Score: 1

      why would it be diffrent then running apache.. or the millions of people with XP and iis installed?

      the browser can just allow a simplistic interface for configureation and management to the people whom don't know how to do it other wise

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    17. Re:Acid 3 test by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could say that, but you would be wrong. Getting 100/100 on Acid3 does not in any way prove that you follow the specs 100%. ACID 3 tests a certain portion of the standards that most browsers have trouble with. Personally, I've found that Safari which also has a history of scoring very high on these tests, has many rendering bugs that show up when rendering normal everyday webpages. Scoring 100% ACID 3 only means that you have created a browser than can render ACID 3 correctly, and not that your browser would render any other web page properly when it was trying to read it.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    18. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And teh linux users!1 XDDDDD

      Dipshit.

    19. Re:Acid 3 test by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Why should I care that my browser scored 100/100 on the Acid 3 test?

      In general? Because it means more advanced features, that are fully standards compliant and targetable as a development platform.

      In this case? Because it shows that Opera are working on getting some things right in their browser, even if they haven't managed to stop the thing displaying cached pages from sites that aren't even running any more.

    20. Re:Acid 3 test by Amouth · · Score: 1

      then just tell Joe it will make his porn pages look better

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    21. Re:Acid 3 test by rgviza · · Score: 1

      Conversely, if 90% of people use a broken browser, and your perfectly standards compliant site looks broken to them, then the perception is that your site is broken. The users' perception is your reality since often the person paying you is also a user of the site ;)

      This, is precisely why it's nearly impossible to code a perfectly standards compliant site that is anything but pure html. Mostly because the DOM standard is partially ignored or functionality included in the DOM was implemented by some browsers before the DOM was fully cooked so the browser coders took it upon themselves to invent the missing pieces, each doing it their own way.

      Site coders are left holding the ball because they need to code up a different piece of [anything that uses certain parts of the DOM] a different way for each browser, which, by definition, means either their site is no longer standards compliant or won't be for long.

      Collectively, the cost of this inability to agree to do things the same way by browser coders, has probably reached the trillion dollar mark.

      As time goes on things get unified, but this unification is pretty far away from "cutting edge" so there will always be a compatibility/standards gap.

      -Viz

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    22. Re:Acid 3 test by ca111a · · Score: 1

      just because a girl isn't hot and a bit frosty doesn't mean she is dead

    23. Re:Acid 3 test by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't know why Opera isn't more popular. I've tried IE 3.0-8.0, Netscape, all versions of Firefox since it was released, Maxthon, CrazyBrowser and Chrome and I always end up going back to using Opera exclusively.

      Actually IE and FF are now quite close to Opera because both have copied features from it. Still neither are quite as slick.

      --
      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;
    24. Re:Acid 3 test by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed, there's a ways to go. Fortunatly with IE6 fading and IE as a whole losing market share, we can at least hope the days of the site that proudly proclaims itself to require IE and refuses to even try for anything else are over for good.

      Next step is for IE to become the bastard stepchild browser that gets the reduced functionality page while the other browsers get the full capability (to the extent that they comply with standards).

    25. Re:Acid 3 test by compro01 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, IIS isn't installed by default. I had to install it manually when I was installing virtualPC, which requires it for whatever reason.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    26. Re:Acid 3 test by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      It's the penis size of web browsers. (--I'm IE. --And I'm Opera. --I'm sweet but- --but *I* got the bigger gun!!!!1!!)

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    27. Re:Acid 3 test by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I dunno about 'grin and bear it'. There are no internet sites I use that render badly in Opera.

      Pronbably quite a lot of sites use very basic html that will work on both IE and the rest and the bleeding edge ones serve two versions based on browser id - a 'standards based' one for Firefox/Opera/Chrome and the rest and an 'IE quirks' one for IE or maybe just old versions of IE.

      --
      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;
    28. Re:Acid 3 test by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      For one thing, there is a Javascript file that hacks in support for specific sites. If something like CNN.com is broken, they create a one-off fix for that specific issue.

      Seems like a nightmare to me, but it evidently works for them.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    29. Re:Acid 3 test by Amouth · · Score: 1

      from a clean windows install no.. but there have been instences of it being installed by oem's prior to shipping computers..

      but considering that this is a feature that has to be turned on in Opera by the user for it to work - it's no diffrent than having IIS avaliable to install on the box..

      and yes considering that most OEM's put the contents of the install disk on the computer it is trivial to script a silent install and config of iis without someone knowing..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    30. Re:Acid 3 test by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I used Opera for a while, then moved to Chrome when it came out. Opera is too "feature-complete". I want fast and light, and Opera 9.5 felt bulky. Their new default theme didn't help that impression, either.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    31. Re:Acid 3 test by juancn · · Score: 1

      ... I don't know how they manage doing this, but they do.

      They do site patching

    32. Re:Acid 3 test by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      Joe, Slashdot isn't for you. I suggest you try MySpace or Facebook.

    33. Re:Acid 3 test by Kamokazi · · Score: 1

      Where does it say Joe-sixpack is expected to care about an Acid3 score? The only people who are expected to care about an Acid3 score is those who know what it is.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    34. Re:Acid 3 test by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      Pretend for a second that I don't know anything about Acid 3. Pretend I'm just a regular Joe-sixpack web user.

      Hi Joe, welcome to Slashdot. Here, we talk about computers, software, and other sorts of technology. Sometimes things may be explained from a professional's viewpoint, and some things may not be explained at all. If you need more information on something you're unsure about, there's a website out there called Google. You can get there by opening your AOL and typing in keyword "google". In there will be a little bar where you can enter text. If you type in "Acid3", Google will show you a whole bunch of sites that will tell you all about it.

      Once again, welcome to Slashdot. Have fun!

    35. Re:Acid 3 test by Kamokazi · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Slashdot 2.0 is horribly broken on Opera, and has been for months. Sometimes they fix something and it temporarily works what I assume is supposed to be correct, but generally something is wrong.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    36. Re:Acid 3 test by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 1

      > You spend less time with a broken browser, and more time enjoying a cold one.

      I still prefer Firefox over a cold browser.

    37. Re:Acid 3 test by BtEO · · Score: 1

      Have you filed bug reports?

    38. Re:Acid 3 test by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      It's also a regional issue. In Israel and South Korea you'd better be coding *for* IE. Your fallback should be a standards-compliant browser.

      South Korea browser share, September 2008

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    39. Re:Acid 3 test by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      Possibly even more wrong is that your mind associated "cold one" with "necrophilia". Dude.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    40. Re:Acid 3 test by rs79 · · Score: 1

      " Exactly. Slashdot 2.0 is horribly broken on Opera, and has been for months. Sometimes they fix something and it temporarily works what I assume is supposed to be correct, but generally something is wrong. "

      This is what that looks like in Opera 10:

      http://rs79.vrx.net/.oops/slashdot/slashoops.jpg

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    41. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are so sorry that your feelings have been hurt.

      Please accept this bouquet of ampersands.

      &&&&&
      &&&
      &

    42. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead?!? I thought she was English.

    43. Re:Acid 3 test by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      This web browser is 100% compliant with the proper web rendering standards.

      That's not strictly true, the ACID test does not test 100% of all used standards. A 100% score on ACID3 would indicate that the browser does not suffer from most of the common rendering bugs going around, and handles even little-used standards the way they should be handled. But it's not strictly correct to say the browser is 100% compliant with all web standards.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    44. Re:Acid 3 test by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Speaking of CNN.com, if you use Opera to look at it, do you ever have caching issues? At both work and home I'll pull up CNN in Opera and get cached content, even though I might clear everything out and see it downloading everything and whatnot. When I open cnn.com now I see this on the main page:

      updated 12:45 p.m. EDT, Thu June 11, 2009

      That's 5 days old. The headline story is something about the museum shooting that happened last week. I can refresh all day and see the same thing. cnn.com is the only site I notice that happening on. I don't really read it in other browsers so I'm not sure if it's limited to Opera, but like I said it does happen at both work and home, which are 2 separate ISPs (Qwest and Cox). I know there's no network-level caching going on at either place (on our side of the gateway, anyway). I assumed it was some "quirk" between cnn.com and Opera.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    45. Re:Acid 3 test by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Without changing anything in Opera, the nwolb site says that it is not supported, but does link to a page that lists Opera 9.6 as a supported browser. I would assume that once 10 is out of beta they would detect it as well, they can't have to change a lot (anything?) to get it to work with 10 if it already works with 9.6.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    46. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why does it feel so right?

    47. Re:Acid 3 test by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Have you considered trying Tools -> Clear Private Data, and delete your cache?

      Also, perhaps change the setting Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> History, and check on server, change to more frequent checks...

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    48. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, where are my mod points when I need them!!!

    49. Re:Acid 3 test by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Collectively, the cost of this inability to agree to do things the same way by browser coders, has probably reached the trillion dollar mark.

      At $50k per year for web developers / content guys (which may be high given how many are abroad) that's

      $1 billion = 20,000 man years
      $1 trillion = 20,000,000 man years

      I really really doubt it is over $50b. Still a big hole but nothing like the banking crisis.

    50. Re:Acid 3 test by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree to be honest.

      The issue is as you say even if one browser scores lower than another, the things it fails on may be things that are completely and utterly irrelevant in the real world.

      If Firefox only gets 72% but IE gets 90% yet the 10% of things IE fails on are more common whilst the 28% that Firefox fails on are irrelevant for normal usage anyway it paints an incorrect picture of the quality of the browsers standards compliance.

    51. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They know about the bugs - but just making clear that a 100% score on Acid doesn't mean *that* much in day to day webdev. (Compared to a 92% score for instance)

    52. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't heard of any complaints! ;-)

    53. Re:Acid 3 test by insane_coder · · Score: 1

      Personally, I've found that Safari which also has a history of scoring very high on these tests, has many rendering bugs that show up when rendering normal everyday webpages.

      Most of those, the page is designed wrong, not Safari rendering them wrong.

      --
      You can be an insane coder too, read: Insane Coding
    54. Re:Acid 3 test by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Looks roughly the same in Firefox 3.0.11 on XP. It's Slashdot that's the problem, not Opera.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    55. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, necrophilia is wrong.

      I guess all the windows fanboys would strongly disagree with you on this.

    56. Re:Acid 3 test by soliptic · · Score: 1

      I've used one of those exclusively with firefox since I first got online banking years ago.

    57. Re:Acid 3 test by heson · · Score: 1

      is there any way to set this per server?

    58. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny. Opera seems to work like crap, more often then not. I mean, if you want to render html, cool, but nothing else really works. So who really cares about Acid tests?

    59. Re:Acid 3 test by jonbryce · · Score: 1
    60. Re:Acid 3 test by gosand · · Score: 1

      English?!? I thought she was dead.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    61. Re:Acid 3 test by Ansoni-San · · Score: 1

      I would pitch Acid 3 compliance in this manner: This web browser is 100% compliant with the proper web rendering standards. The more compliant your web browser is, the less likely your web browser will break. You can take that to the bank. You spend less time with a broken browser, and more time enjoying a cold one.

      Except, you know, Opera isn't 100% compliant with CSS 2 or 2.1, and Acid 3 doesn't test for 100% compliance.

    62. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only by your views and beliefs.

    63. Re:Acid 3 test by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Not that I'm aware of... I mean, the servers are supposed to set the content info in the headers and stuff (I'm not a web dev), and Opera mostly honors that via reload (but not necessarily on just navigating there)...

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    64. Re:Acid 3 test by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Speaking of CNN.com, if you use Opera to look at it, do you ever have caching issues? "

      No.

      updated 6:23 p.m. EDT, Tue June 16, 2009

      Tools --> preferences --> Advanced --> history.

      Check documents: always
      Check images: every 5 hours

      just like it was in the default configuration, and it should work just fine. If it doens't try another browser, your ISP may be caching it with squid or something.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    65. Re:Acid 3 test by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Dude, necrophilia is wrong. "

      Not if you're both dead.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    66. Re:Acid 3 test by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "I used Opera for a while, then moved to Chrome when it came out. Opera is too "feature-complete". I want fast and light, and Opera 9.5 felt bulky. Their new default theme didn't help that impression, either. "

      I hear ya. I wish there was an "opera lite" that just did web. Or that you could configure in parts you want and parts you don't and not have to pay the memory/disk footprint for them.

      I don't use mouse gestures, ever, for example. Nor mail.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    67. Re:Acid 3 test by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't look like that to me. At all.

      Even if logged out.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    68. Re:Acid 3 test by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Right, I thought I was clear this was happening after I cleared the cache and on 2 separate ISPs, I guess both ISPs might be caching though, but it only happens with cnn.com.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    69. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been both an Opera user (currently on 9.63) and an RBS customer for quite some years. Whether this makes me a glutton for punishment I leave to others to decide. But I can certainly do all my online banking through RBSdigital in Opera. No problems here. Perhaps this 'reputation' of which you speak is less well deserved nowadays?

    70. Re:Acid 3 test by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "It doesn't look like that to me. At all."

      Ooooook. Doesn't mean mine works. And I'm not the only one. But I'm glad to hear it's not universally broken.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    71. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell should anyone care what the kikes and the kekes do?

    72. Re:Acid 3 test by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      And that's the reason our bosses are marketing guys.

      You can build the best product ever, feature wise, but no one will use it because the default skin doesn't look like what they had in mind.

      I hate that default skin too. But I have never used it, and I only use Opera.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    73. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats the harm?

      oh and the captchca is allowed

    74. Re:Acid 3 test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks the same in Firefox 3.0.11 on OSX.

      It is funny that THE site for nerds is so broken ...
      I love to read /. but hate the UI. And since few weeks it degraded (not gracefully).

    75. Re:Acid 3 test by soliptic · · Score: 1

      Well that link doesn't really relate because it's talking about really alternative stuff like Linux and Opera and all that ;) whereas I was only talking about the relatively un-alternative Firefox on Windows. But yeah, you're right, it wasn't that many years ago - I didn't specify because I can't remember, but I think probably 4 or 5 years, certainly not as far back as 2002.

    76. Re:Acid 3 test by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Firefox was in beta back then, and definitely wasn't supported. I remember it was a long time after its release on 9/11/2004 before they started supporting it. I had some user agent addon that spoofed it as Netscape to allow me access to the site.

    77. Re:Acid 3 test by soliptic · · Score: 1

      I surrender to your superior memory!

  4. OMG! That bug is coming back! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1, Interesting
    In the early days Netscape came with some such functionality. And the websites were able to derive an object from one of the server classes. Some of the private/public/protected interfaces were messed up. So a malicious site could promote that object and essentially ask for anything in the computer and get it.

    Acid test tests only the compatibility with the standards. It says nothing about how vulnerable the executable is in the hands of malicious web masters.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by Amouth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      something sitting in the back of my head telling me that i would trust Opera to do it FAR more better than Netscape - if not for the reason that when Netscape did it.. no one thought people would be evil with it.. second Opera is by far one of the most secure browsers out there, let alone the fastest (although chrome is giving it a run for it's money on that front).

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by bheer · · Score: 1

      This is an alpha release, as others have pointed out. It's not even part of the default browser install - it's a separate download. Treat it as a proof-of-concept and kick the tyres.

      Also, this is 2009, not 1995. We know a lot more about developing more secure software, having secure development lifecycles, and reacting to vulnerabilities and updating software.

      Fractional horsepower web servers are not a new idea, but baking them into the browser is, and assuming the feature is off by default, it's a great idea. It makes the web a bit more equal and opens up new avenues for collaboration.

    3. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FAR more better

      Hmmm.

    4. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by beelsebob · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, no, Opera is not one of the fastest browsers out there as This, on Mac OS, and this on windows show -- note, what is showing as opera 9.8 is 10.0 beta, I've yet to test the final release of 10.0, but you're of course welcome to try to duplicate my results.

    5. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      There isn't a final release of Opera 10 yet. The summary is just wrong. Unite is a "Labs" release. Think Google Labs, just from Opera.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    6. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fractional horsepower web servers [scripting.com] are not a new idea, but baking them into the browser is

      Not even remotely true, I'm afraid. The early WWW papers describe the browser and server being integrated, with the browser UI containing a simple editing tool for editing pages on your local server. It wasn't until later, when dial-up users became common that the two components were separated. The every-client-is-a-server model was at the core of the early Web.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I'll benchmark it again when it is actually released, but the beta I tested above really doesn't look hopeful.

    8. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Since Opera isn't open source, you have to trust them. I would still much prefer to be able to verify it myself.

    9. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by akorvemaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The big speed difference I notice between Opera and some other browsers isn't so much in the HTML/JS performance but in overall responsiveness. Opening a tab is nearly instantaneous, even on older systems. The browser just gets out of the way and lets me work. That speed difference won't be shown in most benchmarks.

    10. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Opera is definitely not the fastest when it comes to JavaScript performance, since they don't have a JIT. It does however render pages pretty damn fast, and, in my experience, it's got the smoothest scrolling of them all (yes, even Chrome).

      Anyway, in the end what really matters isn't raw performance, but user perception of "snappiness". It's pretty hard to judge, but from personal experience I'd say that Opera ranks pretty high there together with Chrome.

    11. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by MrHanky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a very fancy and colourful benchmark, but what exactly does it measure? I tried it on hald a dozen different Linux browsers, and it came out with Firefox 3.0.11 on bottom, well below Iceweasel 3.0.11 (same codebase), with Opera 10 Beta and Konqueror 4.2.4 almost indistinguishable from each other and quite a bit faster, with some WebKit based browsers much faster than those. Problem is, Konqueror is slower than Firefox in all other benchmarks (WebKit's Sunspider, for instance) and in user experience as well. That benchmark doesn't reflect reality.

    12. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      That benchmark doesn't reflect reality.

      But it's shiny, and that makes it important!

      This is something that makes me giggle a little about benchmarks like this: it really doesn't matter much how quickly the browser can render HTML or JS. Another poster in this thread mentioned that user responsiveness is far more important. And really, subjective things like that are much more important. 'Course, there's always the issue with connection latency, hops to the server, and the likes.

      That's a very fancy and colourful benchmark, but what exactly does it measure?

      That should be nominated for best quote of the day. I love it!

      Isn't it funny that we've got a couple of screenshots of this browser performance benchmark from Futuremark and yet not a word on how exactly it works?

      Bah, I'm just cynical today and benchmarks are sometimes so artificial it isn't even funny.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    13. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      " Opera is definitely not the fastest when it comes to JavaScript performance, since they don't have a JIT. It does however render pages pretty damn fast, and, in my experience, it's got the smoothest scrolling of them all (yes, even Chrome"

      I dunno about that. At the beginning of this year with Opera 9.6 facebook was downright snappy. Af their last "upgrade" FB began, because of javascript, to take up to a second or 5 to render a complex page. With Opera 10 its instant. Similarly so but not as bad for ebay.

      I haven't seen any other browser be as responsive on the worlds worst JS pages like FB.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    14. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, "JavaScript performance" generally means performance of the interpreter itself, but there are other factors that directly affect the overall result - for example, speed of DOM manipulation. Your JS code may be blazing fast at bubble sort, but if DOM implementation (which is usually not itself written in JS) is slow, then that is going to be the bottleneck, and the overall effect will be that of sluggishness. Then also there's rendering of the updated page - and Opera had traditionally shined at rendering speed.

    15. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      My understanding is they rewrote the js interpreter for v10.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    16. Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      I know that benchmark. That's just a JS benchmark.

      Opera is not the fastest in JS anymore. It hasn't been in a long time.

      But in everything else, Opera 10 Beta wins hands down. Pages render almost instantaneously, having 60+ tabs is as fast as having just three, and the JS is incredibly faster than in IE, just not as fast as the new Webkit versions.

      Nevermind that Safari cheats in the JS benchmarks.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
  5. Alpha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Somewhere in the summary you REALLY should mention this is an ALPHA release, not a final release.

    Thanks.

    1. Re:Alpha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, gee, alpha release software, can I download it now? ;-)

    2. Re:Alpha! by xtracto · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Don't Worry, since KDE, KDevelop, etc... slashdotters have get used to the idea that if it is a ".0" release, then it is crappy.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Alpha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow an AC that got +5?

      What next? Loving Microsoft Vista?

    4. Re:Alpha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for whatever reasons Opera have made their decision on, the 'ALPHA' doesn't load my Speedial or History either... why ever not ?
      And why did it load my Firefox bookmarks instead of my Opera 9 bookmarks ? Sure, it's got a manual option to load them in, but why did it miss them ?
      Seems a little hit-and-miss for an alpha...

    5. Re:Alpha! by Mystra_x64 · · Score: 1

      You doesn't seem to understand the concept of alpha.

      --
      Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on /.
    6. Re:Alpha! by Bredero · · Score: 1

      Yeah wtf, i was getting all excited untill i downloaded the thing. Love Opera but don't feel like keeping track of alpha and beta installs.

    7. Re:Alpha! by akorvemaker · · Score: 1

      Did you install it as an upgrade of your previous version, or as a separate install?

      I believe the alpha/beta versions default to a separate install.

    8. Re:Alpha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Opera shouldn't boast about how they're going to "reinvent the web" with alpha software, then.

      (I'm referring to http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/06/12/opera_freedom.jpg )

  6. Nicole's Cooter? by xednieht · · Score: 1

    Pretty funny user name for the person giving the demo in the video hehe "niclescooter"...

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  7. using it now. Very, very impressed. by Hanzie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm posting this from Opera 10. It seems quite different from the last version. Slashdot looks very, very good. To enable the file sharing, you have to click the "+" tab at the bottom and explicitly enable the web serving goodness. It includes a media player, to share your music collection around. I think we might have a game changer here. hanzie.

    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
    1. Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. by nkh · · Score: 4, Informative

      I tried it and love it! It has a few "widgets" installed by default (which may be removed in the final version): file, note, and photo sharing, a media player, a simple chat, and a web server that you point to a specific folder on your disk. Of course more functionality will come with the SDK (and there's also a template library to write code faster)

    2. Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. by Hanzie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Damn fast, too. Google Docs works very well, and is very quick.

      --
      ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
    3. Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 2, Funny

      Me too. Although I couldn't say /. looks very, very good :-(

      --
      If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    4. Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. by Bluesman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Me too. Although I couldn't say /. looks very, very good :-(

      But at least you can say it's rendered properly.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    5. Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. by bonizzem · · Score: 1

      I think i'll give it a try, but it's hard to let me forget firefox with all the extension and a standalone HFS.

    6. Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. by rgviza · · Score: 1

      Can you whitelist the IPs allowed to access your webservinginternetbrowser?

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    7. Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. by Amouth · · Score: 3, Funny

      wait.. there is a "proper" way?

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    8. Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. by 117 · · Score: 1

      I'm posting this from Opera 10.........Slashdot looks very, very good.

      Not for me it doesn't, it appears to be missing the curved endings on the green post heading bars (I'm sure there must be a proper term for them, but it escapes me at the moment), as if it's not rendering correctly.

    9. Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I'm posting this from Opera 10 ... Slashdot looks very, very good.

      And you started out so well. You almost had me believing you.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    10. Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. by rs79 · · Score: 1

      " But at least you can say it's rendered properly. "

      Oh really?

      http://rs79.vrx.net/.oops/slashdot/slashoops.jpg http://rs79.vrx.net/.oops/slashdot/sldot.jpg ---- Opera 9

      The last slashdot "upgrade" in the CSS was never checked against opera. Please don't do that again.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    11. Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is rendering that way for me in Firefox too, so it isn't just an Opera thing.

  8. Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a botnet writer's wet dream; a victim that will host your exploit once you've pwned it.

    We can only hope that it's secure, or else the two dozen people who actually use Opera will be very unpopular indeed, at least until the RIAA has then rounded up for sharing their tunes with (world + dog).

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by evanbd · · Score: 2

      If you can exploit a computer in any meaningful sense (ie get your code running on it), then it's fairly trivial to get a web server running. Contrary to popular belief, a basic web server is a *really* simple program. This won't even save a malware author any time or effort; it's as easy to ship their own as to reconfigure the one already present.

    2. Re:Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      How does this impact them at all? Once they pwn yer machine they can install whatever p2p, web, ftp, or irc hosting software they want--its not like theyre going to say "ok, now we have to install opera so we can get that fabled http server software working" after an exploit.

    3. Re:Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      It's a botnet writer's dream, but for other reason. Once people get used that useful (?) web pages are un "untrusty" domains (something like in a isp adsl space, or just ip addresses) they wont mistrust so easily "weird" urls.
      Also will be a punch in the face to isp that want to block access from outside to users ip space, if they try to do that to slow down worm propagations, as with this kind of feature users will ask outside access.

      Probably the "right" way to do it could be browser functionality or extensions, but putting the resources in providers on a cloud (i.e. yahoo, google, microsoft all have most if not all of the functionality they want for the fridge)

    4. Re:Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by Minwee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Once people get used that useful (?) web pages are un "untrusty" domains (something like in a isp adsl space, or just ip addresses) they wont mistrust so easily "weird" urls.

      Try reading the article.

      The 'weird' urls are of the form "unite://computername.username.operaunite.com", and routed through Opera's own servers.

    5. Re:Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera's Unity site states that all the browser "services" are ran in a sandbox.. so it should be secure.. as secure as a java plugin or firefox's extensions.

    6. Re:Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by mikael_j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize that once upon a time the web was filled with "weird" URLs like darthvader.cs.uni.edu/userpages/~mijon96/, web5.hoster.com/m/mi/~mikaelj and the like, right? And that it wasn't unusual to find early web-based companies operating out of websites that could only be reached by typing in a URL like one of those?

      I'm sorry but your post sounds a bit too "we need to clean up the web, only allow hosting by well-known corporate entities and require $500 website licenses for anyone who wants to publish a website!!11" for my tastes (yes, I've heard both these two suggestions being made in a very serious manner by people who I know to be knowledgeable enough about the internet to not make suggestions like that without a lobotomy or, more likely, their corporate masters telling them to in exchange for money).

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    7. Re:Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by jvagen · · Score: 1

      I run opera unite on a non-administrator account on ms winxp sp3, seems to work. I guess running opera unite with administrative rights on windows, would be dangerous.

    8. Re:Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I guess running opera unite with administrative rights on windows, would be dangerous.

      [citation needed]

      Which exploits for Opera Unite are you aware of?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by jvagen · · Score: 1

      none, it was just a guess.

    10. Re:Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

      Assuming Opera approves your app - they aren't letting stuff get added to Unite without their approval. All in all, it's pretty well thought out.

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    11. Re:Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      When Firefox announces this a year later, don't forget to respond to the thread telling us how you and the other 23 people who actually use Firefox think how revolutionary it is. Thanks.

  9. Mac version by Shin-LaC · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Does it look Mac-like yet?

    1. Re:Mac version by ablaze · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it still looks completely out of place.

    2. Re:Mac version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unfortunately, it still looks completely out of place.

      It's highly functional. Of course it looks out of place on a Mac.

    3. Re:Mac version by Youx · · Score: 0

      Don't know, I tried running it and it crashed on startup.

    4. Re:Mac version by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      More to the point, does it feel Mac-like? Or do the text fields still have different click and {control,option,command}-{left,right} behaviour to every other text field in the system?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Mac version by damburger · · Score: 1

      I disagree. It looks like Opera on a Mac ought to look. It doesn't perfectly integrate into the Mac desktop because it isn't Safari. That, my friends, is actually a good thing.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    6. Re:Mac version by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Does it look Mac-like yet?"

      Download the right theme and it can. My 15 year old daughyter did this.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    7. Re:Mac version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera 9 and 10 both work exactly the same as other apps as far as text boxes go. opt-left and right move between words, cmd-left and right move to the start and end of lines. What imaginary behaviour were you expecting?

  10. The ISP's will be thrilled by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

    The single biggest hurdle I see (at least one that they don't immediately address in TFA) is that most ISP's block incoming TCP connections on port 80. Even if the port is forwarded on the end user's router, many will still be unable to host their own sites without using a custom port.

    1. Re:The ISP's will be thrilled by tolan-b · · Score: 1

      There's no need for a web connection to go over port 80.

    2. Re:The ISP's will be thrilled by Amouth · · Score: 1

      ahh damn.. well guess it will have to use one of the other ~65k ports that work

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  11. 10.0 still beta and Unite is alpha by ablaze · · Score: 4, Informative

    Looks great, except that 10.0 isn't released yet, and Opera Unite is a "labs build", aka alpha release.

    1. Re:10.0 still beta and Unite is alpha by 117 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the current released version from opera.com is 9.64. The download from the linked Unite website is actually calling itself 'Opera 10 Beta Presto 2.2' when you go to install it.

    2. Re:10.0 still beta and Unite is alpha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The /. post is utterly wrong. Opera 10 is still in beta. Unite is alpha.

    3. Re:10.0 still beta and Unite is alpha by shird · · Score: 1

      The latest Opera 10 beta snapshot from the Opera desktop blog includes Unite.

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
  12. Gaping security wound by mrraven · · Score: 0

    Nuff said,

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  13. So very very stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A file server should clearly not be browser functionality. Browsers already have a hard time protecting users and their data from malicious web sites. Building a firewall-piercing file server into a browser, a program which typically has full network and file system access, is going to cause many incidents of accidental file sharing.

    1. Re:So very very stupid by damburger · · Score: 1

      This simply opens up one, quite specific, point of attack through an application which has a fairly good track record for security.

      I can see how, on the face of it, getting entry level users to run web servers is opening you up to some attacks, but in a cost benefit analysis I still think it is a winning move. Besides, it is a web server specifically aimed at entry level users; if Opera have any sense security will have been their main focus.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  14. Security by sleekware · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think it's a good idea to run a web server on the average user's PC for security reasons. If there is a web server running on an un-patched (or not patched up to date, rather) and improperly firewalled it could be compromised in a small amount of time. Seeing as many have personal data on their PC as well this makes it worse. Plus, isn't it common practice to separate web servers from the rest of a network also for security reasons?

    1. Re:Security by CatBegemot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Botnet owners think you're wrong.

    2. Re:Security by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 1

      It is highly recommended to put webservers on dedicated/restricted networks to segment them from your internal LAN. It is also highly recommended to put a transaction layer between that web server and another server that hosts the important/private data. This puts one more layer that the hackers would need to get past before your data is compromised. Unfortunately this is not an easy or consumer friendly practice. The truth is though that this is just another hole of many that are already opened up on most desktop systems nowadays. Developers/companies have been pushing apps that automatically open up holes from the internet to your desktop thanks to routers that support UPNP. Yes a web server is more visible because it is well known to the average user how to access it but there are many applications that most people use that already open up connections directly to your desktop from the internet. You just have to look at the many peer-to-peer apps, chat applications, voip applications, etc to realize how bad it has become. Thanks to the wide availability of home routers/wannabefirewalls with UPNP capability, Developers have an easy way to open up holes in your network from the internet. Hopefully tech savy people know the risks but I have a feeling the average PC user does not. Do they really know that a vulnerability in the app could be exploitable from the general internet directly to thier PC? Probably not.

    3. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/netwerk/test/httpserver/README

      Maybe, but looks like Firefox could include one pretty trivially :)

    4. Re:Security by damburger · · Score: 1

      Don't you understand, that is all part of the plan. Combined with the possibility of European copies of Windows shipping with Opera as a legal requirement, they have implemented one of the most ballsy pieces of social engineering I have ever come across. Their entire browser business was simply a long winded ploy to construct the worlds greatest botnet.

      On a serious note though; I think any problems will be outweighed by the utility gained with this experiment. Even though I'm not an Opera user, I find it quite exciting.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    5. Re:Security by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the biggest problem will be the ubiquitous linksys home router/firewall. People will futz with them, and THEN you've got problems.

    6. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with you.

      Can Somebody Puhlease think of THE CHILDREN and keep censuring everything??

      Freedom is for paedophiles!!

    7. Re:Security by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      If there is a web server running on an un-patched (or not patched up to date, rather) and improperly firewalled it could be compromised in a small amount of time.

      [citation needed]

      I've got IIS running on my Win XP SP3 box with a grand total of 9 security updates installed, and it's been running there for years waiting for me to get home and develop PHP. I guess "small amount of time" is relative, especially concerning galactic and universal periods of time, but how long exactly do you think it would take to compromise my server if it's more than a few years? I have a NAT router, but no software firewall or virus scanner either.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  15. Re:opera ftl by WebmasterNeal · · Score: 1

    Yeah.....I don't think I'll be clicking that link, and I wouldn't recommend others do either.

    --
    "During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
  16. Uptime by BeardedChimp · · Score: 1

    Ugh, so now geeks uptimes will be rivalled by their mums trying to host their latest ramblings 24x7 through Opera.

    In a world where we are trying to lower power consumption I somehow get the feeling this won't help.

    1. Re:Uptime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to miss the point hairshirt.

  17. Why does a web browser have FS access by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Building a firewall-piercing file server into a browser, a program which typically has full network and file system access, is going to cause many incidents of accidental file sharing.

    Why does a web browser have full access to the file system, other than read-only access to its own "program" and "files to upload" folders and read-write access to "user profile", "cache", and "downloaded files" folders?

    1. Re:Why does a web browser have FS access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has filesystem access because, even without a file server component, users want to upload files, for example to order prints or add pictures to their social networking pages.

    2. Re:Why does a web browser have FS access by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all browsers, and really all applications in general, have the same level of filesystem access. Browsers aren't limited, or allowed, more than or less than any other program. If I make a call to the Win API, for example, to open a file or save a file, is it going to check whether I'm a browser or a word processor?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Why does a web browser have FS access by tepples · · Score: 1

      I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all browsers, and really all applications in general, have the same level of filesystem access.

      Why is this the case, other than that current user interfaces to manipulate privileges in Windows and Linux are unwieldy?

      If I make a call to the Win API, for example, to open a file or save a file, is it going to check whether I'm a browser or a word processor?

      Ideally, it would check whether the user has granted privileges on that file to the program. The installer for the program opera.exe, for example, wouldn't request read privileges outside its own program folder, the Opera folder in each user's profile,[1] and each user's shared folder. OpenOffice.org Writer would have read on the program and standard templates, R/W on the OO.o folder in each user's profile, and R/W on the documents that the user chooses to open.

      [1] What one OS calls a "profile" the other OS calls a "home directory".

  18. Wait a minute by Amiralul · · Score: 1

    Wait, wait, wait... Opera 10 is still in beta and there is a clear distinction between Opera "the browser" and Opera Unite, which is probably in alpha state. So, do not confuse Opera 10 Web Browser with the new Opera Unite buzz word. How hard can it be to understand that?

  19. Oblig by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yo dawg, I heard you like surfing, so we put a web server in your browser so you can surf while your surf!

  20. Auto-updates? by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

    What about auto-updates?

    This is something what prevents me from even considering Opera as main web-browser.

    IE (in a way) does it. Chrome does it. FireFox does it. Opera - doesn't.

    --
    All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    1. Re:Auto-updates? by characterZer0 · · Score: 0

      You should not be running your browser as a user that has access to update it anyway.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:Auto-updates? by talleyrand · · Score: 1
      You mean something like

      Help -> Check for updates

      --

      "My fingers Emit sparks of fire in Expectation of my future labours." William Blake
    3. Re:Auto-updates? by elcid73 · · Score: 2, Informative

      10.0 has auto updates, but as other commenters have pointed out- 10.0 is in beta and seperate from the "Opera Unite" stuff of the article. You can learn more about auto update and try it out on the beta page

    4. Re:Auto-updates? by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      No, I want it like in FireFox: "Help" > "Restart and install updates." (Or whatever it is called.)

      Opera 9.x pretty much always tells "Oh! Update X.XX is available! Click here to download!!!". After clicking it sends you to generic download page where you have to download newer Opera version manually and install it manually. That sucks.

      P.S. Sorry to be that spoiled by FireFox.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    5. Re:Auto-updates? by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      "Auto-update" is really in 10.x. Thanks for the link!

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    6. Re:Auto-updates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Opera has semi-auto-updates, which are not so bad either.

    7. Re:Auto-updates? by shadowknot · · Score: 1

      True, unfortunately most users (specifically Windows users) use a privileged user account and changing this behavior is going to take a while methinks.

    8. Re:Auto-updates? by British · · Score: 1

      You want to know what's worse? I've downloaded apps straight off the website, and the instant I run it, it tells me there's another update available. Apparently the website(vendor site, not download.com, etc) can't be bothered to get the latest release, or they released it in patch-only.

    9. Re:Auto-updates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should check the update settings in Opera. You'll find that the auto-update works exactly how you want it to.

    10. Re:Auto-updates? by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      Just checked my Opera 9.50 settings - and there is precisely ZERO mentioned of auto-updates. More than that, searching on-line help for "auto update" gave as first result article about e-mail address completion.

      You must have been smoking something... FireFox probably ;)

      P.S. As was pointed above, Opera 10.x beta - yes - have auto-updates. But you know, it took them so frigging long time to implement it...

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    11. Re:Auto-updates? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "What about auto-updates?
      This is something what prevents me from even considering Opera as main web-browser.
      IE (in a way) does it. Chrome does it. FireFox does it. Opera - doesn't.
      "

      THANK FUCKING CHRIST!

      Firefox's annoying habit of doing something I don't want it to do is disgusting.

      You can't help people that don't want help and firefox updating a browser to something I know doesn't work right with sites that are important to me or XP updating and rebooting when I left my machine in a complex and known state are inexcusable. *my* computer, *I'M* in charge and don't you dare change stuff "just cause".

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    12. Re:Auto-updates? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Opera 9.x pretty much always tells "Oh! Update X.XX is available! Click here to download!!!". After clicking it sends you to generic download page where you have to download newer Opera version manually and install it manually. That sucks.

      P.S. Sorry to be that spoiled by FireFox."

      Holy nanny state batman.

      You're not spoiled by firefox, you're just spoiled. :-)

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    13. Re:Auto-updates? by nztheatre · · Score: 1

      You mean: I start Firefox in order to use a certain extension. It immediately updates itself and wants me to restart it, at which point I get "extension x is not compatible with this version. Checking for updates to extension - none available" - so I'm stuck for the next day or so. Has happened several times for me! At least Opera's auto updates will be free of that problem!

  21. Re:opera ftl by Gi0 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I used a toilet once and it wouldnt flush.So i never bothered flushing again.

    --
    There's no patch for stupidity
  22. Re:opera ftl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah.....I don't think I'll be clicking that link, and I wouldn't recommend others do either.

    Sounds like you already fell for it before.
    That which is seen cannot be unseen.

    oblig. Simpsons quote:

    Ned: Well, boys, good thing we brought the eye soap! (Uses it on both Rod & Todd)
    Rod & Todd: Ow! The burning is love!

  23. Re:OMG!!!! Give The Fanboy Hype A Rest!!!! by Carik · · Score: 2, Informative

    So when was the last time you tried Opera? I still use Firefox for a few things, and even IE, but the vast majority of my web browsing is done in Opera. It's faster, it's cleaner, mouse gestures are installed by default, and I like the way they use tabs better. With 10, the speed-dial tool actually got to be slightly useful, which I hadn't expected. It's been ages since I found a site that just plain didn't work in Opera, except ones that require ActiveX, and those don't work all that well in Firefox, either.

    So why the hatred? Given that it's just a browser, and can't have killed your dog/cat/relative, I don't get it.

    If you don't like it, don't use it. But don't insult those of us who find it to be a more usable browser.

  24. Re:opera ftl by fostro1 · · Score: 0

    you fail because there is no alternative for using a toilet...that is, for a civilized person...

  25. Bloatware and sceruity holes by classicvw · · Score: 1

    This is the problem with software. They try and try to add more functionality to it, that 90% of the users do not use. This creates more and more chances for security flaws, and makes the software very bloated. How many users actually want to run their version of a browser, as a server. Leave those things as add-ons, and the person that wants them can "add" them.

  26. Re:OMG!!!! Give The Fanboy Hype A Rest!!!! by TheP4st · · Score: 1

    Obviously you care enough to reply. AC retard.

    --
    "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  27. Google Wave, anyone? by patro · · Score: 1

    Despite the obvious differences the whole thing somehow reminded me of Google Wave. It seems when the time of an idea comes (distributed communication service, every user can run a server easily, something like that) then different teams come up with similar solutions independently without knowing about each other's work.

    The apparent drawbacks of Opera Unite are bandwidth problems when running locally (e.g. ADSL upload speed) and the services being dependent on your computer being turned on.

    Google Wave seems more promising in the long run.

    1. Re:Google Wave, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Google Wave seems more promising in the long run." ..... it seems more promising PERIOD

      this is just not new and not an innovation

      Google Wave is browser independent, flexible and USES OPENID, there's no way to compare to this piece of cr*p.

    2. Re:Google Wave, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imagine Google Wave built into Opera Unite, and Opera Unite built into a true P2P network.

      All of a sudden, we have a browser for P2P! Hooooray!!

    3. Re:Google Wave, anyone? by damburger · · Score: 1

      I see what you mean about Google Wave. I guess innovations are like buses after all. Too early for me to call which will be more successful; Wave is more of a technological leap but Unite has more potential to empower users.

      If the people who could really use a lego brick server actually start using opera (they will have to hear of it first) then it could make a big difference. Bandwidth problems are possible if it takes off - but frankly its the kind of kick up the arse ISPs need from time to time to remind them to stop adding numbers to the stated bandwidth of the connections they sell and start finding some actual infrastructure. Like BBC IPlayer - ISPs were incensed when the Great British public actually started getting good use out of the pipes they had paid for. The ISPs got over it, after a brief hissy fit.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    4. Re:Google Wave, anyone? by k8to · · Score: 1

      Decentralization and independence is huge.

      --
      -josh
  28. Re:opera ftl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably because you're an idiot.

  29. Re: 'fanboy' ac. by Hanzie · · Score: 1

    If you're completely uninterested in this browser, why are you reading this thread? let alone posting. If you're truly bored, there's an ascii goatse link in an earlier thread above.

    That goatse link, plus some tissues, should afford you at least an hour's relaxation and enjoyment. And if you're using Opera, you can go to the Tools -> "Delete Private Data" after you're done cleaning the floor and your screen. Nobody will ever know.

    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
  30. Kneejerk reaction like normal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You should reread and look at what is actually going on.

    Why will this not lead to a hackers wet dream? Static HTML, no scripting language so nothing like php vulnerabilities or access to anything except what the browser allows you to. The file shares are running from a folder that you select to share. This makes a VERY nice way to share big files with your friends. Access is not publicly advertised, you have to invite somebody to have access. If they do give some dynamic features it will be in the form of widgets (which themselves are sandboxed) and gives them a lot of control over what those widgets are and aren't allowed to do.

    A number of these features seem akin to devices such as slingbox which let you pick up your home tv from anywhere and gives you access to your material anywhere you go.

    Opera already has chat functionality so hosting its own IRC or whatever isn't a big jump.

    I find it funny the google talks about wave and everybody is all gaga over it but opera is bring something similar that is not hosted and its horrible.

    1. Re:Kneejerk reaction like normal. by CatBegemot · · Score: 1

      Let me see... oh, wait, I know - because this is nothing like Wave. Wave isn't running web server on your localhost. If I would record all your keystrokes, zip the log and make it available - I wouldn't need any scripting functionality either.

    2. Re:Kneejerk reaction like normal. by damburger · · Score: 1

      It could possibly be that Google is in America (or more specifically, California which is kind of a major geek hub) whilst Opera are off in Europe. Google are also more showy about their new technology - compare the lengths of the demo videos for one thing.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    3. Re:Kneejerk reaction like normal. by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      This is not similar to Google Wave. Google Wave is a messaging server with a Web client. And amazingly smart agents.
      Google Wave also has a very defined protocol so that two Google Wave servers can communicate.

      Opera Unite is a home Web server development platform that uses XML and JS. It actually uses the sandbox model of the widgets, in fact it leverages the entire widgets infrastructure.

      Some of the ideas on Google Wave can be copied, and a Google Wave client in Opera Unite is still a posibility. It also would be awesome in uncountable amounts.

      I also agree with the fact that file sharing using Opera Unite is very kewl and practically untraceable.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    4. Re:Kneejerk reaction like normal. by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      Yeah!

      I expected Opera guys doing a live webcast video too!

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
  31. FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry, but this is not what I call "reinventing the web"

    another username, another password, another website to remember...

    why not use openid?

    this is not the future of the web, this is just another version of another browser just like the others

    #FAIL

  32. WTF? by clone53421 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Ok, in the interests of not being redundant, I'm going to entirely skip the "OMG CAN ANYONE SAY BLOAT" topic.

    A web server?

    A WEB SERVER?

    I will always – ALWAYS – believe a web server is dangerous in the hands of an idiot (and yes, the vast majority of computer users are idiots, in terms of computer literacy). I challenge you to convince me otherwise (actually, never mind... it's probably not worth your time).

    At worst, you've opened a massive set of new vulnerabilities – again, not going to go into redundant levels of detail here, but a general attitude amongst IT is "LimeWire = Virus". Not because it's true, but because so many idiots manage to illustrate it.

    At best, ...there is no best case. I guarantee that there are enough idiots out there that they will find some way to make the worst come true.

    Frankly, if Opera wants to make a web browser that Gramma can use, adding a web server was a poor choice.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    1. Re:WTF? by unifyingtheory · · Score: 1

      1. Grandma doesn't know what a web browser is.
      2. the web server is disable by default.

    2. Re:WTF? by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 0, Troll

      I have to say I agree with you here. The other bad part is, for those 'idiots' who do manage to get this up and running, imagine how many more worthless web pages that we're now going to be inundated with as people who lacked the tech savvy to run a web server before now suddenly find themselves able to run one, and thus put up endless 'OMG Ponies' type websites.

      *shudder*

    3. Re:WTF? by jjohn · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. I understand that Unite is a P2P/Groove retread. Still, creating a massive new vector for a botnet doesn't strike me as a responsible thing to do for a software maker.

    4. Re:WTF? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      It won't be much of an issue - most users are behind a NAT device so are not easily (for joe sixpack) going to be able to enable the webserver part. A lot of other apps have embedded webservers in them (think torrent apps and firewalls!) to remotely control them anyway, so its not like this is going to make a significant increase in the number of computers that are already "botnet-enabled".

      But... lets assume it works really well, and is secure (eg only serves static html pages or carefully written add-on modules written by people who know what they're doing). Maybe this could be IPv6's killer app.

    5. Re:WTF? by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Why is this bad? I mean, I basically ignore facebook and myspace already... Just a few 100 million more websites out of the billions I already don't look at... I thought the web already got over the elitism of the "eternal september" mentality...

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    6. Re:WTF? by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not that it's a huge issue, but I don't know that one should dismiss it as 'elitism'. Look, by your own admission, there are already "billions" of websites you don't look at; nothing wrong with that. All I'm saying is, where is the value added by making it easy for a person who is probably not very likely to have a lot of web design expertise to put up a web page/pages?

      Maybe it's just me, but I do tend to get annoyed when I'm searching for something, and have to root through a few hundred search engine results that are either 'parked' sites populated with various keywords and advertisements, or some personal blog with no real information. I'm not saying that everything on the internet needs to be of a certain type, and I'm certainly not meaning to advocate any type of elitism. However, I don't think I'm the only one who's apt to be annoyed when the number of 'junk' sites jumps up because now every person who's capable of installing a browser can host web sites and just starts sticking 'whatever' up because....well....because they can.

      I can just imagine how many amateur internet entrepreneurs we're going to have making websites and filling them with AdSense banners and borders in the hopes of making millions. To extend the thought, given that hosting costs won't factor in (since the data will be hosted on the users' computers), won't it be a lot easier to create a lot more of these advertising only sites? Heck, as far as I can tell, there won't be any costs for domain registration, so it's going to be quite easy to throw up endless sites full of nothing but spam/advertisements/astroturfing. True, the domain names won't exactly be friendly, but some clever keyword manipulation could get site noticed by search engines.

      Look, maybe I'm way off on this, it's late afternoon and I could use some caffeine, so there's no telling. But I'm definitely not trying to be elitist.

    7. Re:WTF? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      1. Grandma doesn't know what a web browser is.

      Doesn't matter. If Opera wants to expand its market share, it needs to be developed with computer illiterates in mind, because to expand its market share, it needs to be adopted by more than just geeks.

      2. the web server is disable by default.

      LimeWire doesn't share your "my passwords.doc" file by default, either.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  33. Re:opera ftl by Gi0 · · Score: 1

    You do understand that my point was to give something that seems to work(acid test 100/100 in this case) a least a second chance,right?

    --
    There's no patch for stupidity
  34. Opera + Gears + Webserver + PDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opera already have a very nice version resized to fit in a PDA and it's integrated with Google Gears persistence. It would be a *perfect* execution plataform but unfortunately Windows Mobile is so buggy that it deactivates the IP stack if you're not physically connected to the network so it's impossible to run an offline version of the application. But if Opera includes an embedded web server...

    1. Re:Opera + Gears + Webserver + PDA by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Opera already have a very nice version resized to fit in a PDA and it's integrated with Google Gears persistence. It would be a *perfect* execution plataform but unfortunately Windows Mobile is so buggy that it deactivates the IP stack if you're not physically connected to the network so it's impossible to run an offline version of the application. But if Opera includes an embedded web server... "

      This is the most insightful and cogent point made on this whole page.

      And what he said about windows on phones. Holy crap what a disaster. I've seen more people return phones because they kept "freezing" than I can shake a stick it. Funny how it only happens to phones running windows. And from what I've seen it happened to all of them among people I know in the area.

      Gears is indeed a keystone.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  35. Re:bloat by rarel · · Score: 1
    I find that having everything available, and just pruning functions I don't use is much easier than having to chase whatever extension I want until I'm done. As far as I am concerned, Opera's approach is perfect. It's quicker and more efficient.

    That said, YMMV.

  36. File chooser service; copy to shared folder by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why does a web browser have full access to the file system, other than read-only access to its own "program" and "files to upload" folder[...]

    It has filesystem access because, even without a file server component, users want to upload files

    Uploading a file doesn't need file system access; it needs file chooser access. In the Sugar toolkit used by OLPC's XO laptops, for instance, apps that let the user select a file send a request to the file chooser service, which then opens the file and passes the equivalent of a file descriptor to the app. (In fact, a Sugar app's installer doesn't even let a single program request both directory listing and network connection privileges; the user has to apply them manually after the fact.) Another way to do this is to have the user use the operating system's file manager to copy the file into "files to upload" before uploading it, and then the "Browse" button behaves more like the pop-up menu that a <select> element creates.

    1. Re:File chooser service; copy to shared folder by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Because users wont want to learn to stick stuff in the "files to upload" folder and designing a good interface =/= forcing users to adhere to your decided method of interaction?

    2. Re:File chooser service; copy to shared folder by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      ...an OS service should be responsible for all the details of uploading files, you think? Like ummm... enforcing DRM too?

      If I run Opera I want Opera to talk to the network stack, form the packets, and send them. If I run Firefox I want Firefox to talk to the network stack, form the packets, and send them. If I run Safari then I want Safari to ...

      (well, ok, I'd never run safari other then to test out how shitty it is on windows)

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:File chooser service; copy to shared folder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So to include a web server in the browser you have to exclude the file chooser.

      Actually I am not that convinced that complicating the main task of a browser to include bloatware is a good idea.

    4. Re:File chooser service; copy to shared folder by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If my pwnd browser can talk to a "chooser" that has access to the entire filesystem, how is that any different than having a pwnd browser that has access to the entire filesystem. In either case the pwnd browser can read and write whatever it wants, subject to filesystem permissions.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:File chooser service; copy to shared folder by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      If my pwnd browser can talk to a "chooser" that has access to the entire filesystem, how is that any different than having a pwnd browser that has access to the entire filesystem.

      If the "chooser" component itself isn't compromised, and requires the user to select the file to provide to the requesting applications, it makes a big difference for the browser to have access to the "chooser" (so it can send it a request that amounts to "have the user choose a file and give it to me") rather than direct read access to the file system (where it can hunt around and pick up whatever files it wants without the user knowing.)

      In either case the pwnd browser can read and write whatever it wants, subject to filesystem permissions.

      No, if the browser doesn't have access to the file system, it can't read and write anything subject to file system permissions, since it has no access to the file system. If it has access only to the chooser components, it can request things from the chooser, subject to the way the chooser works.
       

    6. Re:File chooser service; copy to shared folder by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      In either case the application can read and write whatever it wants, subject to filesystem permissions.

      And when is that not the case, for any application?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    7. Re:File chooser service; copy to shared folder by tepples · · Score: 1

      So to include a web server in the browser you have to exclude the file chooser.

      Sugar's security model is designed to defeat malicious compromises to an application that open a "shared folder" that the end user doesn't want. A program using a similar security model would have to include the file chooser if it connects to the network, to let the user choose "all files in this folder" to share.

      Actually I am not that convinced that complicating the main task of a browser to include bloatware is a good idea.

      Is the <video> element bloatware? What about <object>? What about <script>? What about <form>? Or <img>? Designers have to draw the line somewhere.

  37. Re:bloat by Hanzie · · Score: 1
    I suspect the programming would be quite tedious, and then Opera would have to slavishly follow firefox wherever it went, or would have to have a kludgy slow emulator. Since one of Opera's main features is it's speed, this would really make it more trouble than it's worth.

    Meanwhile, it is completely reasonable to run Opera and Firefox simultaneously. I do it all the time, and for exactly the reasons you are mentioning above. In fact, I'm doing it right now on an XP system.

    There are some websites that I want firefox for, and there are others that opera works better for. With the advent of tabbed browsing and the ability to open a folder full of links on each, bookmark sharing is much less a concern.

    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
  38. This is not the final 10.0 yet by szotsaki · · Score: 1

    The latest stable release of Opera is 9.6.

    This is an Opera Labs release with a new (and btw. great) functionality. That's why it is listed on the Desktopteam Blog.

    Its version number also says it's 10.00 Beta.

  39. Re:bloat by TheP4st · · Score: 2, Informative

    Now it seems that they are following MS lead by providing proprietary bloat instead cross platform functionality.

    Huh? I run Opera on Windows, various Linux distros, Mac and Open Solaris, you can also find it in use on Wii, Symbian, FreeBSD, Windows Mobile, Nintendo DS. That's not enough platforms for you?

    --
    "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  40. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, if only we can convince Europe to ram it in into Windows..

  41. opera - no longer an Enterprise option by ekimminau · · Score: 0, Troll

    As long as the market Opera was searching for is the Home user, I guess opening up another 10 attack vectors into a users desktop/laptop isn't necessarily a bad thing but this has all but eliminated Opera from ever being a viable enterprise browser candidate. I don't care what perceived benefit there might be for adding all this crap into a web browser, the impact of adding 1,000+ clients all firing up web servers, file sharing, a chat client and all that other stuff is going to kill the WAN for any significantly sized business. IMHO, this release is about as stupid as it gets. Someone with true brillance didn't think this through.

    --
    Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
    1. Re:opera - no longer an Enterprise option by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      They are not going to kill the WAN if they are blocked by the firewall.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:opera - no longer an Enterprise option by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The same way you didnt think your post through--a quick read through the comments (not even the article!) reveals that its NOT integrated into opera, its a widget aka addon. "I hear you can get virus extensions for firefox, so clearly mozilla is retarded". What?

    3. Re:opera - no longer an Enterprise option by ekimminau · · Score: 1

      Your assumption is that every WAN site in a global/distributed enterprise is firewall isolated. The more accurate assumption would be the protocols that CAN be black holed would be at layer 2/3 (at the WAN routers) rather than firewalled. The problem will be identifying the protocols and praying that they aren't tunneling it all over HTTP/port 80 or HTTPS/port 443.

      --
      Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
    4. Re:opera - no longer an Enterprise option by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      As long as the market Opera was searching for is the Home user, I guess opening up another 10 attack vectors into a users desktop/laptop isn't necessarily a bad thing but this has all but eliminated Opera from ever being a viable enterprise browser candidate.

      An optional feature that can presumably be completely disabled or not even installed in an enterprise installation disqualifies it as an enterprise browser candidate...why, exactly?

    5. Re:opera - no longer an Enterprise option by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      Enterprises are using IE6 anyway.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    6. Re:opera - no longer an Enterprise option by ekimminau · · Score: 1

      So obviously you believe this to be preferable to Opera actually making a "better", less bloated, fewer attack vector, "enterprise ready" alternative? BRILLANT!

      --
      Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
  42. Servers are always on, desktops / laptops are not by GordonCopestake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i can just see it now... your mom calls from her vacation abroad: "Hey! How you doing? Can you turn your laptop on i want to show uncle henry your photos of the wedding", "mom, it's 3am... i wish i had put my photos on flckr!"

  43. Re:bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    perfect???

    first, you have to create ANOTHER LOGIN to use this so called "useful features".

    second (I'm kinda speculating here, because i stoped at the login page and there's no way I'm registering for one more thing), a web server is not new stuff, there are tons of another applications that provide you with that and they don't even require login.

    third, it's not integrated with ANYTHING. it's integrated with ITSELF. they created 10 new features and INTEGRATED THEM. that's not the integration they are selling.

    this is one EPIC FAIL. a desperate move with Google Wave coming in. The real future is browser independent.

  44. Re:bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opera does not seem to have the wealth of plugins that firefox does

    Many of those plugins were created to replicate functionality that Opera supplies out of the box.

  45. So many features... by Tarlus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did they just slap a GUI on Emacs?

    *Runs away*

    --
    /* No Comment */
    1. Re:So many features... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Did they just slap a GUI on Emacs?

      Don't be ridiculous. Everybody knows Emacs already has its own GUI

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    2. Re:So many features... by rarel · · Score: 1

      Not just that, a GUI interface made in Visual Basic. Now I can get everyone's IP address!

      MWAHAHAHAHAHA! >:D

    3. Re:So many features... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did they just slap a GUI on Emacs?

      No, but I hear that Emacs is going to be one of Opera Unite widgets in the final release. Now you can truly run your OS inside your browser!

    4. Re:So many features... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "No, but I hear that Emacs is going to be one of Opera Unite widgets in the final release. Now you can truly run your OS inside your browser! "

      Welcome to the 21st century. Opera is your boot loader and emacs is your O/S. Har. Har. Har.

      Seriously, has anybody booted directly to opera without loading an full O/S. An IBM laptop that boots up to Opera is what I'd like to see. BartPE or IsoLinux or something?

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    5. Re:So many features... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Seriously, has anybody booted directly to opera without loading an full O/S. An IBM laptop that boots up to Opera is what I'd like to see. BartPE or IsoLinux or something?

      My Thinkpad T61p has a recovery partition, seemingly WinPE-based, that uses Opera as a browser.

  46. Upload speed , bandwidth costs, always-on comp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Self-hosted servers don't work for most people because:
    (1) Most people don't have the upload speed (asymmetric ADSL)
    (2) If you wanted to have bigger upload the bandwidth would cost most people a lot... that's why most people don't have such plans in the first place...
    (3) Most people don't leave their computer on all of the time nor do they want to (heat, noise, electricity bill...)
    (4) As many others have noted, security is an issue here...

    Really, except for very light usage (very small text files shared with only a few friends) I don't see the use of this. Nobody on a typical home bandwidth program is going to be sharing (uploading) multi-MB files, not unless the other side is willing to wait a *long* time. For sharing files effectively the only way to go is P2P and that only works well once you have 10s-100s of sources, not a single source.

    What are the people at Opera thinking? This isn't "web changing", just silly.

    1. Re:Upload speed , bandwidth costs, always-on comp? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Whenever a computer person tells you something is possible, believe them.

      Whenever a computer person tells you something is impossible or a bad idea, ignore them.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  47. More bloat by Snaller · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is there actually something useful?

    Like being able to make the fonts smaller or larger on pages? (They haven't had this, they "zoom" into the page, which is rubbish)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:More bloat by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I've never understood this complaint. At least to me, Zoom is *better* than text size changes as it preserves the layout of the page, and I would guess thats why IE et al added the Zoom feature. Secondly, at least in Opera, you could just set a minimum text size in the options, and then you'd never need to change text size anyway because it would always be whatever you defined a readable size or larger...

      In what way is just changing text size helpful vs the zoom functionality?

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    2. Re:More bloat by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Like being able to make the fonts smaller or larger on pages? (They haven't had this, they "zoom" into the page, which is rubbish)"

      Have you actually used it much? If somebody sends you a 4000 x 3000 image, "zoom" to 20% is very useful. Any browser that can't do this is broken.

      Moreso, any 320P animation, like, say this real time feed of a beach in Kauai:

      http://66.91.152.38/-wvhttp-01-/GetOneShot?image_size=320x240&REQUEST_ID=1229794393811

      Looks great on a TV when zoomed 100% and becomes full screen.

      Just because you haven't found a use for something doesn't mean it's not worth having.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    3. Re:More bloat by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Have you tried Opera? Zoom is not better its worse. I don't give a hoot about layout, I want to be able to read the text! But it just enlarges the pictures too so often there is a thin gutter of text and these huuuuuge pictures, often pictures of totally irrelevant rubbish. Totally ridiculous.

      Besides, Firefox has a 'only text' switch and generally preserves layout.

      "Secondly, at least in Opera, you could just set a minimum text size in the options, and then you'd never need to change text size anyway because it would always be whatever you defined a readable size or larger..."

      Yes you would often. Because it may be too large to render the page. The "set a default setting" is something which should have been dumped years ago, that is useless.

      "In what way is just changing text size helpful vs the zoom functionality?"

      It makes a page readable.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    4. Re:More bloat by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "Have you actually used it much?"

      Very briefly - when I can't use a browser to read webpages I'm ditching the junk at once.

      "If somebody sends you a 4000 x 3000 image, "zoom" to 20% is very useful. Any browser that can't do this is broken."

      WHAT?! Are you totally sick in the head! If someone SENDS me an image, I get that in the email program, and i view it in a picture viewer. That's in no way some idiot browser should be able to do. But if they want to add that, sure fine, who cares, but that doesn't mean they should add superfluous rubbish at the expensive of things which are needed more: Like users being able to read the fucking pages!

      "Moreso, any 320P animation,"

      Should not be played in a browser.

      "Just because you haven't found a use for something doesn't mean it's not worth having."

      Yes actually, that's exactly what it does.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    5. Re:More bloat by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I use Opera daily. It's my primary browser. I almost never need to zoom, but whenever I have, the resulting page is as readable for me as increasing the text size with Firefox, but it preserves page layout and sizing, so as I stated initinally, it is - to my eyes - clearly superior to text only sizing.

      Your answer really isn't helpful, because if it was obvious to me why zoom is inferior, I wouldn't have asked the initinal question. If it's just personal preference I can understand that. Perhaps it has to do with HOW large you need to make the text?

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  48. Re:bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EPIC FAIL

    Only brain-dead cunts say this. You, and your mother, should stop saying this.

  49. almost seems contrary to cloud computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The introduction of in-built publishing mechanisms (like the web server) seems almost contrary to the concept of cloud computing - in a good way. From what I understand, in a cloud computing world all applications and content are hosted "in the cloud". This of-course brings a lot of ownership (who owns my content?), privacy (who can access my content?), and history (what happens when I want to remove my content?) issues. I suppose if we were to host all our personal info on our own web-browser, we would have full control of every aspect of what and how our content is disseminated. Now, the only problem is the upload bandwidth.

    1. Re:almost seems contrary to cloud computing by damburger · · Score: 1

      Tis good for freedom, as censors and rent-seekers have an easier time going after more centralized servers; imagine if this browser had come out a few months earlier and now been semi-widespread in Iran. The government would've been chasing their tails trying to stamp out a huge amount of 'immoral' content, rather than just having to block a stream of tweets.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    2. Re:almost seems contrary to cloud computing by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "The introduction of in-built publishing mechanisms (like the web server) seems almost contrary to the concept of cloud computing - in a good way. From what I understand, in a cloud computing world all applications and content are hosted "in the cloud". This of-course brings a lot of ownership (who owns my content?), privacy (who can access my content?), and history (what happens when I want to remove my content?) issues. I suppose if we were to host all our personal info on our own web-browser, we would have full control of every aspect of what and how our content is disseminated. Now, the only problem is the upload bandwidth. "

      Cloud computing means the server owners are in charge. Desktop webservers mean the user is in charge. The paradigm is changing.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  50. Re:Holy security nightmare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unsubstantial accusation modded as Insightful. This is /. for you.

  51. Re:Holy security nightmare. by cenc · · Score: 1

    With this release, they also wanted to take free software to the next level. Now anyone can own it.

  52. That's all well and good... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    But it doesn't change the fact that I don't want a web SERVER built into my web BROWSER. I'll get Apache separately, thanks.

    1. Re:That's all well and good... by sopssa · · Score: 1

      So just dont enable it. Whole Unity feature isn't enabled by default, and even then you enable the separate features/widgets in it.

      Btw, even Opera 10 beta seems incredibly fast.

    2. Re:That's all well and good... by elcid73 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure, I don't want a web SERVER either (in the common parlance)- but maybe a server that just does some quick task for me: I find value in being able to easily share my photos with people with little to know real effort on my part. I currently have to FTP/batch to my webserver and "reindex" the site so thumbnails are generated. I would find value in having an EyeFi memory card dump pictures into a folder and they are immediately available to view- no work done at all on my part.

      ...that said, I am concerned about security, but I've used Opera since 2002, and they've at least earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to security.

    3. Re:That's all well and good... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps there are people who would LOVE to set a webserver on their computer but can't figure out Apache which is designed for "real sites".

      OS X is the boundary of usability and Apple excels at making a Unix 03 compliant OS "simpler than Windows" right? How many non nerd OS X users do you know who clicks that simple button "Web Sharing" in Sharing prefs? I personally know none. I know a lot of people who will enable/disable the simple personal web server in Opera for some tasks they do, especially via sites they DON"T TRUST. Do you think they really want to share that family/personal photo from a third party site.

      It is not targeted at you, it is targeted at ordinary, non techie end user. That is what Opera excels at.

    4. Re:That's all well and good... by aesiamun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many ordinary non techie end users actually know what opera is?

    5. Re:That's all well and good... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How many ordinary non techie end users actually know what opera is?

      My Mom for one. I set up Opera for her back in the day when IE was sheer crap, and Firefox was not very stable. It also has a built-in mail client, so for her the red letter "O" is quite literally "the Internet" - and it makes a lot of things easier to explain (I know many power users hate the "kitchen sink" approach, but it still makes sense for some target audiences).

      Anyway, isn't the point of announcements like this one to attract more non-techie users to find out about Opera, and possibly even switch to it?

    6. Re:That's all well and good... by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      I think they will find out about Opera real soon.

      At least my mother really likes the idea.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    7. Re:That's all well and good... by cliveholloway · · Score: 1
      Doesn't matter - *you* run Opera, then send them to the URL of services you're running. I think this has a lot of potential.

      It's hard to see how cool it will be when there are real apps for it, but it will get there.

      As to all the whining about it being offline when you are - well, so is your IM client, and that's the realm that these apps will start falling into...

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    8. Re:That's all well and good... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You have to re-index? Seriously? IIS7 with the "image gallery" HTTP handler can do that in realtime... surely there is something for Apache to do the same?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    9. Re:That's all well and good... by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      I currently have to FTP/batch to my webserver and "reindex" the site so thumbnails are generated.

      http://shiftingpixel.com/2008/03/03/smart-image-resizer/

      Easy as hell. Auto-caches resized images for future use.

  53. Re:bloat by jo42 · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of Nero. Once a nice, light-weight CD burn software product, it is now so full of other cr*p that you have to spend 10 minutes going through the install menu pruning almost everything off.

    Thumbs down Opera. Those that needed it, already installed IIS or Apache on their machines. Those that wanted to share sh*te already installed Limewire or some other evil P2P product.

  54. OMG! Call the DOJ! Call the EU! by itsdapead · · Score: 0

    I'm sure all seven Opera users will be thrilled.

    <joke>
    OMG! OMG! Opera is leveraging their dominant position in the web browser market to unfairly compete with Apache! Why does everybody whine when Microsoft does this and Opera gets away scot free?
    </joke>

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  55. Better flash than AMD64 firefox by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    Running Ubuntu on a 64 bit box. This version of OPera seems more reliable on flash / youtube videos than 64bit FF 3. FF runs a few vids, then stops - with zombied npviewer processes that prevent any more vids until the box is rebooted.

    My unscientific tests of Opera 10 (i.e. about an hour, this afternoon) hasn't had any problems with vids, so far - even though FF is firmly screwed.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  56. Personally I find it scary enough by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    that my printer has a web server built in. Now my browser is going to have one too?????
    Just one more thing to patch

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  57. And for those on ADSL... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

    ...will find out what the "A" stands for when three people access their photos and they get slashdotted (along with everybody else on their ADSL circuit, probably).

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  58. Info on Security would be nice by Danathar · · Score: 1

    Not saying it's not posted somewhere, but I'd REALLY like to know the security behind Unite before touching it with a ten foot pole

  59. I wrote this 9 years ago! by ChronoFish · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The "Fishbowl" browser had an integrated web server.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20010502014727/chronofish.com/FishBowl/

    -CF

    1. Re:I wrote this 9 years ago! by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Did it serve files to other peopler browsing, or just for local cgi programs? It also used IEs rendering (ick).

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    2. Re:I wrote this 9 years ago! by hubert.lepicki · · Score: 1

      This link looks funny, but I'm full of respect, man.

      Did you get smart enough to patent it? ;)

    3. Re:I wrote this 9 years ago! by ChronoFish · · Score: 1

      Thanks for asking... It's initial incantation was simply to incorporate CGI exectution into the browser. The idea was to make Web Apps possible without being tethered to the Internet (when I wrote this I was still using dial up - wireless wasn't even in my vocabulary).

      So no - it was not a web server in the sense that it would be able to serve pages remotely. (And therefore no security issue in that respect - though disk and program access is a security issue enough...)

      Yes it used IE rendering. If I were to write it today it would probably be based on the Mozilla (Firefox) code base. At the time using the IE engine was a very quick way of getting a custom browser running in a very short timeframe. (Still is by the way)

      -CF

    4. Re:I wrote this 9 years ago! by ChronoFish · · Score: 1

      No... But now there is proof of prior art LOL....

      The link is funny. I had to go through "the way back machine" in order to find the pages... My companies logo is hysterical (much nicer today). I was really hoping to get some traction with other developers... but they respond to marketing just as much as the rest of public....and obviously marketing is not my forte.

      -CF

    5. Re:I wrote this 9 years ago! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Fishbowl" browser had an integrated web server.

      http://web.archive.org/web/20010502014727/chronofish.com/FishBowl/

      -CF

      I guess it would have been a better idea to imagine the CSS stylesheets then ...

  60. Even better... by AlXtreme · · Score: 1

    They'll integrate Emacs next.

    --
    This sig is intentionally left blank
    1. Re:Even better... by tomatensaft · · Score: 1

      That looks like it *will be* an Emacs clone pretty soon!

  61. It's like running as administrator by tepples · · Score: 1

    Because users wont want to learn to stick stuff in the "files to upload" folder

    Likewise, users wont want to learn to run non-administrative apps as a non-administrator.

  62. Personal web server with 10 visitors? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    If we really take ISP terms serious, most ISPs disallow running a COMMERCIAL (selling goods etc.) web server on your personal line, they aren't really concerned about personal web hosting especially if your "visitors" are just a bunch of friends.

    For ISP router, there is no difference between putting a 1 gig file to rapidshare (with very questionable policies) or directly posting it over port 80.

    BTW, soon or later, this thing will hit mobile opera. Nokia has a similar, full function web server already which even uses Python. Thing is, if Opera lacks publicity in that sense, Nokia doesn't even exist! What I mean is, networks and cell phone companies will love this just like they love Opera Mini.

    1. Re:Personal web server with 10 visitors? by Jon_S · · Score: 1

      BZZZT. wrong. I have verizon DSL, and I think its terms are similar to most, and they ban servers, period. Nothing about how big or small, commercial vs. noncommercial.

    2. Re:Personal web server with 10 visitors? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      BZZZT. wrong. I have verizon DSL, and I think its terms are similar to most, and they ban servers, period.

      This seems pretty common for telco and cable providers, but ISPs that aren't telcos or cable TV companies (and thus, depend on customers that aren't just picking the easiest choice that's shoved down their throat) tend, IME, to allow servers on even their most basic plans.

  63. Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A web server on every desktop, accessible from everywhere in the world? What could possibly go wrong?

  64. I mean DAMN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that girl in that video is annoying as hell!

    And what a shitty article summary.

  65. Wow, Acid3 by lluBdeR · · Score: 1

    How many times did they have to refresh the acid 3 test page? I just tried 4 times in Firefox 3.0.11 and got 4 different scores.

  66. Re:bloat by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Opera PPC OS X is just 12 MB, the actual executable is way below it.

    In fact, if you dig deeper, you figure the amazing fact. Core renderer is below 1 MB. Yes, 1 MB of ultra portable pure C is the "Opera". Rest is done via the functionality it already has. E.g. lsof when you use the "bulky" IRC function of Opera, you will see the thing you see as "IRC" is actually a web page along with CSS!

    Same with the "Web server". It must be amazingly tiny, even less than the rendering engine since it is clear that they are heading to mobile with this.

    Opera and Firefox has different development models, concepts and even targets. Ask Firefox developers if they will remove 80% of code just because they want the exact same binary to run on my horribly outdated, OS dead UIQ3 Sony Ericsson P1i. That is what Opera does.

    With Google, Google Backed Mozilla, MS Backed IE, Apple backed Webkit, I really don't think Opera dreams about "World Domination!". Look at these silly people, they want to boycott Opera because MS backed blogs called for it. Why? EU judicial system investigates MS (did you see IE icon's size on Win 7?) and MS pulled one of "I am taking my toys and going home" tricks again by not including IE in EU Windows. So, it is all Opera's fault now (as they can't mess with Google/Firefox) and they want to boycott Opera (as if they ever used!).

    I mean, as ordinary user, I can see the stupidity but they can't? I bet they do and they never dreamed of being some 20-30% market share browser because of these facts which aren't really too technical.

  67. Opera Unite! by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    So Opera's going to transform and combine to form a giant robot?

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  68. What about the ISPs? by niteshifter · · Score: 1

    Methinks some ISPs aren't going to like this once it is released "for real".
    From Comcast's TOS:

    Prohibited Uses of HSI. You agree not to use HSI for operation as an Internet service provider, a server site for ftp, telnet, rlogin, e-mail hosting, "Web hosting" or other similar applications, for any business enterprise, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network.

  69. Re:OMG! Call the DOJ! Call the EU! by rs79 · · Score: 1

    "OMG! OMG! Opera is leveraging their dominant position in the web browser market to unfairly compete with Apache! Why does everybody whine when Microsoft does this and Opera gets away scot free?"

    Because Miscorosft doesn't actually have anything that really competes with Apache.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  70. Re:bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is what would be cool. A mechanism that would allow the browser to use firefox plugins. Opera does not seem to have the wealth of plugins that firefox does, and from what I can tell, plugins is why people use firefox. Instead of wasting effort, why not make Opera so it can use the Firefox model?

    You mean all those plugins that reproduce functionality that is natively built into Opera? Or the plugins that Opera can already use? Or the userjs you can use to build your own plugins? And weren't you talking about bloat?

    In order to make Opera use the FF model, it would need to strip out a bunch of features and then find another better browser to copy things from via plugins.

    Instead of wasting time on plugins, maybe FF can find a way to stop the runaway RAM usage. There is no reason FF should use 240MB of RAM with 4 tabs open when Opera doesn't break 100MB with a good dozen.

  71. Not when the EU forces you install it by BOUND4DOOM · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    You forget, Opera is one of the companies behind the EU trying to force Microsoft to install other browsers on the new operating system. So if this goes through, guess how many millions of web serving zombies will be out there by gramdma and grandpa or even your mom and dad who just bought the PC and don't know what opera is don't care and let alone it is sitting there serving web pages. I mean seriously did we lean nothing with Windows 200o default install of IIS.

    1. Re:Not when the EU forces you install it by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Sheesh, do both of them also share your C:\ drive without your consent? NO! You have to configure them to do so! Opera Unite even defaults to "access with password only" with a randomly generated password - you have to explicitly choose "public" to allow random monkeys access.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    2. Re:Not when the EU forces you install it by Nicolay77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean seriously did we lean nothing with Windows 200o default install of IIS.

      Yes, the server and all services are disabled by default.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
  72. a browser ? by petermp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Webserver, extras etc ? I wish it had a browser....:-)

  73. Sharing Music With Your Dog by HannethCom · · Score: 1

    Dear Rogerborg,

    We have received information that you are performing illegal public broadcasts of your music to dogs.
    Cease and desist this activity! Dogs have no way of paying for the possibility of hearing our music.

    We also expect proper compensation for each song you have already played for dogs. Our legal team has calculated that $2000 is a reasonable sum to ask for each song.
    Do not make us take you to court.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
  74. Re:OMG! Call the DOJ! Call the EU! by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yeah, IIS7 is sufficiently far ahead of Apache in almost every way that you're right - Microsoft doesn't have to compete with Apache.

  75. Re:bloat by rs79 · · Score: 1

    "The acid 3 test is good, but so last year. Here is what would be cool. A mechanism that would allow the browser to use firefox plugins. Opera does not seem to have the wealth of plugins that firefox does, and from what I can tell, plugins is why people use firefox. Instead of wasting effort, why not make Opera so it can use the Firefox model?"

    True 'dat.

    Every now and then I try Firefox. Every time it seems, by comparison to Opera, a klunky, slow, featurelss POS. I can never understand why most of my my friends, who seem pretty smart otherwise, use it. In a word: plugins.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  76. Re:bloat by rs79 · · Score: 1

    "This reminds me of Nero. Once a nice, light-weight CD burn software product, it is now so full of other cr*p that you have to spend 10 minutes going through the install menu pruning almost everything off."

    It's not just Nero, it's everything. Norton Ghost stopped being useful at version 11.5, a 7 meg program. Version 14 is like 600 megs and isn't functionally that better.

    http://oldversion.com/ is your friend.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  77. Re: 'fanboy' ac. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    FYI it's not Opera that everyone hates, it's people like you that everyone hates. Opera is doing good things for the internet, what are you doing?

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  78. MOD parent up by nitio · · Score: 1

    Finally, someone that beats Opera on the "oh, but opera had it first" ;)

    --
    http://stoploudness.org/
  79. immediately tossed it by nephridium · · Score: 1

    First of all, I really like Opera, I use it all the time for browsing and email alongside Firefox and Iron, and will continue using it as a web browser.

    So I was thrilled to read about this new feature in 10 beta version, downloaded it and installed it on a test system. Turns out if you want to use the new feature you'll have to register with their "network". Sorry, but my privacy is worth a little more than the convenience that this new feature provides over the current apps used for the functions it's supposed to cover.

    I guess we'll need to wait for Google Wave to come around (brought to you by the creators of google maps) - just saw this video and was very impressed. It lets you upload pics, messages etc. as if you had a webserver, but is far more interactive. If you run your own server node (and encrypt your data) there shouldn't be any security or privacy concerns either, because you can decide what data gets out to third parties (incl. Google). Best of all it's open source using open standards - anyone can write extensions or fork.

    --


    And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
    1. Re:immediately tossed it by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, they're considering whether the final will require a login to their network. Also, for anyone who is using anything at my.opera.com, including the user support forums, you already have a login that works... My guess is most current Opera users (probably who they realistically expected to alpha test this) will already have an account. And it's no more privacy hurting than any other forum account...

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  80. Re:bloat by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    Opera PPC OS X

    They even do releases, including this beta, for Linux on PPC. Which is something the Firefox team does not do. Just installed it on my PS3 running YDL 6.1

  81. Holy mis-moderation, Batman by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

    Troll? What the hell are the mods smoking today?

    1. Re:Holy mis-moderation, Batman by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yeah... I don't really see that many people disagreeing with me, either, and there certainly weren't any flames posted in response to it.

      Two people agreed vehemently, and the other two people basically said it's not that serious from a security standpoint as long as people don't use it and/or it's crippled almost beyond being of any use.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  82. Re:What? What? by Smivs · · Score: 1

    I'm not getting the graphics problem, but I do have a problem which has actually just happened again reading through these comments. I use Opera and have just migrated to Ubuntu from Windows (Hooray!) My problem is that once in a while - maybe once a day - Opera just disappears. One minute it's there, then it's gone. It starts up again OK, and will unfailingly start where it left off (including logged-in to /.) if I ask it to, but it's bloody annoying. Is this a Ubuntu thing...it never did it in Windows? Gnome, by the way, if that's important.

  83. Re:Servers are always on, desktops / laptops are n by jilles · · Score: 1

    So put the server on your mobile phone (if you have a Nokia): http://mymobilesite.net/. Opera is hardly being original here ...

    --

    Jilles
  84. Oh boy... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Opera making a laughable ploy to stay relevant by putting more crap in the browser is hilarious. Like there aren't a myriad of products _dedicated_ to sharing your own content.

  85. opera == garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isnt newsworthy, whether its a server version or a client version of Opera. The browser doesnt work half the time. I tried an early version and hated it, and when I was having issues with Firefox on my laptop recently, I tried every other browser, and Opera still doesnt render websites properly, I could give a rats ass about "Acid Tests". Its not real world, so who cares.

  86. The Grandma coefficient by ancientt · · Score: 1

    Grandma is a reasonable example despite some viable arguments otherwise. The point is that yes, this could work for Grandma. Few at my age have our own grandmother available to explain this to, but my mother is a grandma and I could explain it to her. She already knows how to take pictures with her digital camera, upload it to her computer and email it to her family. Soon they'll switch from dial-up to high speed (probably in the next couple months) and this could potentially save a good bit of time and effort for her. This is something I could explain over the phone as opposed to having to drive six hours to visit in order to set up an actual password protected web server.

    Not that I'm sure this would be worth the effort, or that it would work as intended a week after I talked her through it, but that's beside the point.

    --
    B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
  87. Re:OMG! Call the DOJ! Call the EU! by rs79 · · Score: 1

    "Yeah, IIS7 is sufficiently far ahead of Apache in almost every way that you're right - Microsoft doesn't have to compete with Apache. "

    Thank you Mr. Ballmer. Any other fantasies you'd care to share with us today?

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  88. I win at teh internetz ... by pbhj · · Score: 1

    Ha, I posted about this 4 days ago on my blog, http://digg.com/tech_news/Opera_is_about_to_change_the_world

    Some poor schmuck said "Huh. This must be the most clueless of the clueless speculations so far." and I was pretty close IM(NS)HO.

  89. I love the crashing IE :D by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    Jonaskoelker's Irony Meter

    Jonaskoelker's irony meter has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.

    If you were in the middle of something, the irony you were working on may be lost.

    Please tell Beelsebob about this problem.
    We have created an irony report that you can send to help us laugh at Internet Explorer. We treat this report as hilarious and highly entertaining.

    To see which nuggets of irony the report contains, click here.

    1. Re:I love the crashing IE :D by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Hehe, so so true, it was IE 8 even >.

  90. Holy hell! by drmitch · · Score: 1

    The beta had like... NONE of these features. What next? OperaOS?

  91. Re:bloat by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

    when there was a chance to become dominant on the non-MS platforms, they focused MS Platform and competing directly with MS, instead of filling a hole that existed at the time in the non-MS platforms

    You mean like on mobile phones where Opera started before anyone else? Oh, and Firefox's success came because it focused on the "MS Platform".

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  92. Re:Servers are always on, desktops / laptops are n by rs79 · · Score: 1

    "i can just see it now... your mom calls from her vacation abroad: "Hey! How you doing? Can you turn your laptop on i want to show uncle henry your photos of the wedding", "mom, it's 3am... i wish i had put my photos on flckr!" "

    If yer mum calls you at 3 am looking for photos tell her to quit doing speed.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  93. Re:OMG! Call the DOJ! Call the EU! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing you've never used IIS7 then. I wouldn't say it's far ahead of Apache, but it is finally on the same level.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  94. Bloaty the whale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this turns Opera into the piece of bloatware unite.opera.com seems to be suggesting it will, Opera just lost a long-time user. At least for new versions - I'll probably stick to the newest 9 series until I can find something better. And to you Chrome jackasses, no, it's not the best browser ever, and with the track record for security it had right out of the box I'd really rather not trust it with anything. It doesn't have a good few features I use for web development anyway; no instant code editing, no developer tools, and I am just not a fan of the interface either. It is a sad, sad day for Opera

  95. Little late but... by YoungJules · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... isn't this just what the Iranians are looking for? This kind of democratic peer to peer communication removes the need to rely on central social networking sites and puts the internet back in the hands of the people.

  96. Re:OMG! Call the DOJ! Call the EU! by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    I was overstating it a bit, but IIS7 is technologically superior to Apache in almost every way, and provides a superset of functionality as compared to Apache in most areas. Even PHP performs as well now in IIS7.

    Good luck in your career as a tech dinosaur, though.

    "Grr, Windows bad! Windows Baaad! Me tech dinosaur!"

  97. Re:OMG!!!! Give The Fanboy Hype A Rest!!!! by Oort_port · · Score: 1

    You retarded comment no one gives a shit about is 'very, very' annoying.

  98. No its not a troll you idiot by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Like have they added the ablity to make the fonts smaller or larger on the fly? (They haven't had this, they "zoom" into the page, which is rubbish)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating