Opera Unite Web Server Benchmarked

worb writes "Opera Unite comes with a web server which is supposedly going to 'redefine the web.' But how well does it actually perform? Is it a threat to other server solutions? Someone put it to the test, and published the results. While nginx, one of the fastest web servers available, is 5 times faster, a PHP+Apache+MySQL server is only 2 times as fast. A compiled C++ server, the MadFish WebToolkit, is 6 times faster. He concludes that Opera Unite's server is impressive, and that the others come nowhere close to the ease of use."

Comments

Misleading, again

[SteelRealm]

Opera's Unite is not meant to refine the web as a hosting solution in the traditional sense, but as a way to make your files accessible to yourself and others through it. I don't think anyone is questioning whether it is a better hosting solution then a dedicated server. It's also worth it to note that Unite is a Alpha release with lots of bugs to be fixed and performance tuning and optimization to be done.

Re:Misleading, again

[nametaken]

Sure. It sounds like it's great at what it's meant to do, get the job done and get it done easily.

Re:Misleading, again

[bunratty]

...a way to make your files accessible to yourself and others through it.

Can you say "huge honking security hole"?

Re:Misleading, again

[SteelRealm]

Considering how quickly Opera patches everything, I don't see this as any bigger a threat than normal browsing. People who use your Unite page to access things have only got access to what you allow them to see and what you've choicen to host through Unite.

Re:Misleading, again

[patro]

...a way to make your files accessible to yourself and others through it.

Can you say "huge honking security hole"?

Every server is a security hole waiting to be fixed.

Re:Misleading, again

[master5o1]

Three levels of privacy, default being number two.

1. Public, anyone can access.
2. Passworded, give them the link, they can access, they give that link to someone else, so can they.
3. Private. Only the Opera Account holder can access.

Also, it is only accessible while someone has Opera open. One can start and stop each unite service individually also.

Sounds like it has some decent basic security to me :)

Re:Misleading, again

[Yvanhoe]

I'll say it when there will be one.
It is not very hard to serve files in a secure fashion.

Re:Misleading, again

[Zoidbot]

Plus all the services are disabled by default. Something which most of the morons here seem to have trouble getting their head around.

Personally, I think it's a awesome innovation. It's not a web server, it's a personal content publishing service.

Re:Misleading, again

[FaxeTheCat]

> People who use your Unite page to access things have only got access to what you allow them to see and what you've choicen to host through Unite.

Like "C:\" ?

:-)

Re:Misleading, again

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen.

The Opera Unite service has several features so far: web server, file sharer, music streamer, fridge notes, lounge... It's direct communication for everyday users who will be able to host their own sites, files, music, photos locally on their home computers. Said content will be available as long as Unite is running. When Unite is not running or the computer is off, there's nothing being shared. Why all the fuss? it's easy to understand. Don't like it? Don't use it. The service is what it is, not a professional hosting service with backups and UPS's.

I think it's very good for home users to have the possibility of feeling like small Internet moguls, hosting some little web site and sharing family photos with grandma :)

Re:Misleading, again

[pbhj]

...a way to make your files accessible to yourself and others through it.

Can you say "huge honking security hole"?

Every server is a security hole waiting to be fixed.

Ultimate security = bolt cutters.

Re:Misleading, again

[jc42]

...a way to make your files accessible to yourself and others through it.

Can you say "huge honking security hole"?

Um, how so? That sounds to me like a succinct description of what a web server is supposed to do. Phrased differently, the "for dummies" definition of a web server is a program that you point at a directory, and it makes everything under that directory available via the Web. This isn't a security hole; it's exactly what a web server is used for. It's only a security hole if outsiders can use it to get at files outside the server's directory.

Do you really think that outside access to files that I want made public is a security hole? That's what it sounds like people are saying.

Maybe I'm misreading something here, but so far I haven't read anything about Unite that qualifies as a security hole. I wouldn't be surprised if there were one, but it'd be nice to read some details. Calling "make your files accessible to others" a security hole is nonsense, when the tool was designed and described as doing exactly that.

Next we're going to hear email software described as a security hole because it allows others to read messages that you send to them. ;-)

Re:Misleading, again

[PitaBred]

And hopefully it'll encourage ISP's to keep their pipes open both ways, instead of treating subscribers as download-only nodes

Re:Misleading, again

[kv9]

Excuse me while I fix my tie.

Re:Misleading, again

[DragonWriter]

Opera's Unite is not meant to refine the web as a hosting solution in the traditional sense, but as a way to make your files accessible to yourself and others through it.

But how, exactly, does that differ from the role of hosting "in the traditional sense"?

Disturbing trend

[nausea_malvarma]

I'm disturbed by the centralization taking place on the web, where by networks like email are replaced with proprietary walled-garden social networks, and entire webpages once written in the open html standard are being done entirely in flash. I'm starting to have hope for the future now. HMTL 5 will reduce the need for proprietary plugins, for sure. This Opera web server thing could work towards decentralizing the web as well. Sure, anybody can set up a web server to host their own content in theory, but its too difficult for average folks to do. With this technology, perhaps more people will sidestep commercial options, and host web pages on their own - meaning less reliance on geocities, google sites, ect. And thats good. It's not healthy for a few companies to have that sort of control over a medium.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Abcd1234]

I'm disturbed by the centralization taking place on the web, where by networks like email are replaced with proprietary walled-garden social networks, and entire webpages once written in the open html standard are being done entirely in flash.

I know! For example, Facebook has made it completely impossible to deploy and host one's own website. They simply *force* you to put everything in their system. And don't get me started on the likes of Twitter, which has forced everyone to stop using Twitter in favour of their system. I mean, at least if I could *choose*, but you can't because they can control your *mind*! Yes, very disturbing indeed...

Re:Disturbing trend

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm disturbed by the centralization taking place on the web, where by networks like email are replaced with proprietary walled-garden social networks

Personally I've switched to Facebook for most of my correspondence instead of email. Why? Spam. I get maybe 300 spams for every legitimate email I get. While Gmail filters most of it, it also occasionally catches the few legitmate emails. With Facebook I get zero spam.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Abcd1234]

rofl, man I gotta proof read. I believe I meant "stop using email"... :)

Re:Disturbing trend

[sjstrutt]

Opera Unite is not as decentralized as you may think. It still requires that you initialize connections via the machinename.username.operaunite.com domain that you are required to register with Opera. Sure, this is set up to easily traverse a NAT, but it isnt as decentralized as advertised (and you're restricted from hosting content that they consider "obscene, vulgar, hateful, threatening, or that violates any laws".

A more thoughtful take on the subject can be found here: http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/06/16/thoughts-on-opera-unite/

Re:Disturbing trend

[hairyfeet]

Uuhhhh....I really hate to rain on your parade and all, but you do know that Opera Unite will send everything through Opera's servers right?

Allow me to quote you a snippet of the relevant text "Although Opera Unite claims to "directly link people's personal computers together," to use it you need an account on Opera's servers, and all of your exchanges pass through Opera's servers first."

So I'm afraid it doesn't work like you think it does. All it does is move the central hub from Facebook to Opera. Considering how low their marketshare is I really doubt everyone is going to switch browsers just so they can see Aunt Marsha's new vacation photos. And considering that Opera is the only main browser besides IE that is closed source and proprietary frankly nobody should be surprised.

I predict Opera will hang on for another year or two, thanks to their mobile division, but eventually that will be taken by Google or Apple or Mobile Mozilla and then they will be kaput. Damned shame, as during the IE5 period they really had a shot of gaining a chunk of the market, but they never really knew how to market Opera effectively.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Eil]

Sure, anybody can set up a web server to host their own content in theory, but its too difficult for average folks to do. With this technology, perhaps more people will sidestep commercial options, and host web pages on their own - meaning less reliance on geocities, google sites, ect. And thats good. It's not healthy for a few companies to have that sort of control over

Years ago, I remember certain broadband ISPs would probe certain ports on the customer's side (HTTP, FTP, etc) and do a variety of dickhead things if they found a server running (automatically update the customer to a more expensive plan, send warnings, terminate service) even if the "server" was serving no content or if a different application was listening on the port. Do companies still do this anymore?

Way back when I first learned about how TCP/IP worked, I knew that content corporations would always try to somehow override or make irrelevant the fact that the Internet is just a big network of peers rather than a "we only sell, you only buy" arrangement. It's the center issue of the whole net neutrality thing. It's just nice to see some companies at least trying to put more control back into the hands of the user.

Re:Disturbing trend

[AnonGCB]

Except that you don't need to use opera in order to access the content, you just follow a link and any browser should take you there.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Translation Error]

That's true, but doesn't it also serve as added security versus people connecting directly to your computer?

Re:Disturbing trend

[nausea_malvarma]

I didn't know of this requirement when I posted my comment. Does anyone know of a similar application that makes running a temporary web server idiot-proof, that doesn't require special accounts?

Re:Disturbing trend

[nausea_malvarma]

You aren't taking network effects into account. I'm young, and most of my friends are in their 20s. Some of them never check their emails, and insist that I send everything to them through myspace. Why? Because all of their friends use myspace too, and none of their friends email that often. So yeah, I have the choice of emailing my friends, but their dependence on myspace forces my hand. We all have a choice, but these mediums have generated enough momentum already that it's very hard to get by when using the alternatives.

Re:Disturbing trend

[hairyfeet]

So I can just download Opera and have it all work with out an Opera account? Nope, won't work, sorry. whoever is sharing HAS to have an Opera account.

So tell me mods, how exactly is this offtopic? he claimed that it would "decentralize the web" and I pointed out in the very article that was on Slashodt yesterday, and I again quote "Although Opera Unite claims to "directly link people's personal computers together," to use it you need an account on Opera's servers, and all of your exchanges pass through Opera's servers first.That's an effective way to get around technical difficulties like NAT firewalls, but more important, it makes Opera the intermediary in your social interactions -- not Facebook, not MySpace, but Opera."

Don't believe me? Read it yourself. The simple fact is if you have NAT there is NO WAY to use this at all without Opera servers as the MiTM, okay? And who doesn't use NAT in this day and age? Hell even my 67 year old dad who doesn't have a fricking clue about computers has a wireless router doing NAT.

So mod me down ALL you want, I've got enough karma to burn for centuries. Did I say Opera was bad? Nope, my oldest won't even touch anything else. But don't lie and say the sky is pink when it is blue. The simple fact is you CAN'T use this new feature without an Opera account. Sorry, but it just don't work, because it was designed to go through Opera's servers. So all you are doing with Opera Unite is moving the central server from Facebook to Opera. Sorry, but that doesn't sound very revolutionary to me.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Optimum Online (CableVision) still blocks port 80 (and I think 25, too) on all but their most expensive residential plans. (They do 101 mbit/s cable internet: I assure you they have plenty expensive plans.) I run an HTTP server on a different port (which is annoying, but people are only going to get to it via links anyway) and SSH on the default port which they seem to not care about.

Re:Disturbing trend

[MartinSchou]

Opera Unite.

Granted, it's still in the alpha stage, but if your router supports UPnP Unite will ask you if you want to have your public ip-address pointing at its webserver. And there is nothing that prevents you from using something like dyndns.org to accomplish your goals:

Like this guy from Opera software did

Re:Disturbing trend

[Anonymous Coward]

You can connect directly to the IP and port 8840 without going through Opera's servers.

Re:Disturbing trend

[renegadesx]

I get some the same thing only with Facebook but I just refuse to bow to their demands.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Chainsaw]

and you're restricted from hosting content that they consider "obscene, vulgar, hateful, threatening, or that violates any laws"

Dude... You're talking about a company residing in Norway. The third largest export after oil and salmon is Black Metal. Which is kind of bizarre, as Norwegian is probably one of the most cheerful languages there is.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Psychotria]

What? Your friends are obviously a bit simple. Oh, all of my friends use myspace, I'd better do that as well and ignore email. This scenario that you suggest, suggests to me that you need new friends. Or, get a bunch of friends who actually have a job other than flipping burgers at McDonalds. And why are you letting you friends "force your hand"? That's crazy. Be more sure of yourself and don't give in to their idiot tendencies. Send them emails and force their hand.

Re:Disturbing trend

[FishWithAHammer]

And without a domain name, who's going to do that? In any case, NAT (which basically everyone has or should have!) makes this silly and meaningless. Anybody savvy enough--and with an ISP terms-of-use agreement liberal enough--to set up Opera Unite as their web server on a private account can probably set up a real web server running Wordpress or whatever.

Or just spend $5/month for shared hosting and do it that way.

Re:Disturbing trend

[worb]

A more thoughtful take on the subject can be found here:

I'm surprised to see that people are still linking to this. It's basically full of errors, and was written in rage over all the hype Unite was getting. He was angry about how people just repeated Opera's claims blindly. Kind of like you are blindly referring to his blog post even though it turns out that the post is too inaccurate to really be used for anything.

You really should read some of the comments on the page you are linking to, in order to see people correcting all the misconceptions. For example the misconception that everything goes through a proxy, as you claim it does. Furthermore Chris's comments where fun until Haavard took him down a notch on his own blog, resulting in Chris himself posting on Haavard's blog with a massively different tone.

Re:Disturbing trend

[shutdown -p now]

all of your exchanges pass through Opera's servers first.

Only if you're behind NAT, and your router isn't configured to allow UPnP.

Otherwise, individual connections are truly peer-to-peer. Opera servers don't get involved. They are only used to publish the list of services available for your account, not to access them (except for the NAT workaround).

Re:Disturbing trend

[shutdown -p now]

Most people don't really care that something goes though Opera services. For them, Unite is just a convenient way to share things directly from their computer, without any configuration and regardless of network setup that they have, that also does not require the other end to install any special software (that last bit is what's important!).

Re:Disturbing trend

[Eskarel]

It is unfortunately a natural part of live.

Open Standards are a great thing, but part of being open by necessity means being created by committee, and generally a committee formed up of the people who are trying to generate their own proprietary solutions.

HTML standards are, in general, at least 2 years behind where the actual implementation is. People write websites in flash because flash is a relatively good solution to delivering cross platform Rich Internet Applications. HTML 5 looks like it will provide at least some help in generating these things using open standards and Microsoft's new attention to the HTML standards will help as well, but realistically by the time HTML 5 has any kind of real penetration the web will be moving onto the next big thing which HTML 5 won't be able to provide.

For better or worse, someone will provide the technology to implement what business wants to do with the web because that's the way the market works. The ideas which provide that technology will pretty much guaranteed never be from the W3C or any other open standards body, so the cutting edge of technology will pretty much always be using a standard which is unique to the software implementing it and standards will gradually come in sometimes years later.

Until someone can come up with a way to make committees efficient and people with diverging commercial interests work for the general good, this is probably just going to be the nature of life.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Anonymous Coward]

What, is it really so hard for your friends to have gmail open in another tab, or to have an email program open in the background.

Your friends must be mentally retarded.

Oh, look, they use MySpace. Yes, yes they are.

Re:Disturbing trend

[hattig]

There is a massive difference between a social network and just email though.

And for many people who just want to email their friends, the social network is better. You can broadcast statuses, you can SPAM EVERYONE WITH FUCKING MAFIA WARS WANK, you can arrange events and invite people, you can SPAM EVERYONE WITH FUCKING MAFIA WARS WANK, you can create or join groups, you can SPAM EVERYONE WITH FUCKING MAFIA WARS WANK, and share photos, etc.

However you can't receive emails notifying you that you have a new eBill, or your order confirmations, and so on. Of course you can set up email filters for these so they don't get caught by the spam filter.

Re:Disturbing trend

[andy.ruddock]

If you've set up the router to route incoming traffic to the PC running Opera.
If you're going to that trouble you may as well install a proper web server and be done with it.

Re:Disturbing trend

[TheRaven64]

What are you doing to prevent it? Have you, for example, set up a mailing list that they can use to communicate instead? I've done this for my friends, and now it's trivial for us to send things like party announcements via email, while previously it required collecting a list of email addresses (and always forgetting someone you wanted to invite...) and entering them into your mail client. I also run an XMPP server that a few of my friends use, and if they want to have an XMPP address on their own domain then I'll happily set that up for them too. Have you, perhaps, set up some kind of photo sharing web site for your friends to use? Complaining about proprietary solutions is worthless if you don't provide open ones.

Re:Disturbing trend

[TheRaven64]

On OS X, you just need to click the Enable Web Sharing checkbox in Sharing in System Preferences. I think there is something similar with Windows. The big problem at the moment is NAT traversal. You either need connections forwarded from a third party, or you need to set up port forwarding. When we have IPv6 deployed on consumer-grade connections, this problem goes away; just advertise the IPv6 address and let people connect to it directly.

For this kind of use, however, something like FreeNet would be better than standard HTTP. The nice thing about third-party providers is that the server keeps working when the client machine is disconnected. I don't need to keep my laptop online for people to see the photos on my web server. With something like FreeNet, you can host the content but you get distributed caching too. You don't need all of the anonymity that FreeNet gives, but something built on similar lines would be nice.

Re:Disturbing trend

[anaesthetica]

Chris Messina did the same thing in a 50+ minute rant about Mozilla and RIA technologies two years ago. Why do people pay attention to him?

Re:Disturbing trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you're behind NAT, and your router isn't configured to allow UPnP.

Otherwise, individual connections are truly peer-to-peer. Opera servers don't get involved. They are only used to publish the list of services available for your account, not to access them (except for the NAT workaround).

And hopefully NATs will go away once IPv6 becomes more mainstream.

(NB: NAT != firewall)

Re:Disturbing trend

[m50d]

That's true, but doesn't it also serve as added security versus people connecting directly to your computer?

No.

Re:Disturbing trend

[m50d]

NAT (which basically everyone has or should have!)

Uh, what? No-one should be using NAT. It breaks the internet.

Re:Disturbing trend

[somersault]

These social networking sites give a much wider range of communication possibilities than email, and the only real way to do that easily is for some third party to run servers that host everything for you. The hard way is for everyone to have their own web server running an email server, webserver (for forums, blogs and pictures), and some instant messaging node based on an open standard. Social networking sites integrate all of these into one place. When it comes to staying in touch with friends, email is a pretty poor medium compared to all of that. Him forcing them back to email communication is very unlikely.

To me this is kind of like someone refusing to get a telephone when they can so easily write letters, or refuse to get email when they can telephone. I understand that he doesn't like that social networks are proprietary solutions that don't interact with each other, forcing you to one provider, but how else are you going to get all of that functionality without setting up all your friends with their own personal servers and a pain-free way to administer them? Maybe in 10 years everyone will have their own communication servers sold by Google and other companies, or some open standard will have sprung up to make social networking sites interoperable, and thus give some kind of element of choice that the GP seems to want, but I wouldn't put money on it.

I just realised actually, a useful feature to have on these sites would be to have an email address @ myspace/facebook/whatever. It seems strange that they don't already do this. You wouldn't want it enabled by default because of all the spam, but it would help almost-dinosaurs like this guy communicate with his friends, because these sites already have private messaging systems analogous to email.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Mr. Roadkill]

Optimum Online (CableVision) still blocks port 80 (and I think 25, too) on all but their most expensive residential plans.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. Sure, you know what you're doing and probably won't get something nasty on your machine, but blocking 80 and 25 for the Great Unwashed is a *good* thing and helps protect the rest of us. (ObFullDisclosure: I drive the web and mail filters at work, so my view is perhaps a little jaundiced)

Re:Disturbing trend

[Ltap]

I agree with the grandparent. The problem is that, while the majority of the people on /. are probably able to set up a webserver, the 'regular user' has no real hope. What disturbs ME are people relying on third-party sites like Youtube of the numerous file- or picture-hosting sites to allow download of their files at 24/7. if they don't, they end up having to pay someone else for hosting that is usually only accessible through something like Vistapanel (full-control VPSs aren't cheap), which brings additional risks - sure, professional hosting companies have rugged, powerful servers, but they also tend to be under attack more often than not - by having a site that might be under attack hosted on the same server, they could end up having their site deleted or taken offline.

If everyone has their own fileserver and webserver, it will bring true community internet to another level - hosting companies will have to provide unique and useful features to convince people to pay, and people will be able to transfer files and host their own websites easily.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Nicolay77]

If e-mail is so perfect, then why is everybody thrilled by something like Google Wave?

Remember: in Korea only old people use e-mail!

Now a bit serious: I really see Google Wave having replaced both e-mail and facebook-like communication in a couple of years. That, or a clone of Google Wave by somebody, but the ideas behind it are amazing. The reason is convenience and user friendliness.

The fact is that for informal communication, a lot of alternatives are more convenient than using e-mail.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Carewolf]

Not so strange. If everybody is talks gay and cheerful, you can easily get dark urges. I believe Black Metal is just a PC rename of a music genre all that is all Norwegian: "Nazi Death Metal". At least the norwegian nazis spend more time singing and less time harassing minorities.

Re:Disturbing trend

[pbhj]

[...] he claimed that it would "decentralize the web" and I pointed out in the very article that was on Slashodt yesterday, and I again quote "Although Opera Unite claims to "directly link people's personal computers together," to use it you need an account on Opera's servers, and all of your exchanges pass through Opera's servers first.That's an effective way to get around technical difficulties like NAT firewalls, but more important, it makes Opera the intermediary in your social interactions [...] But don't lie and say the sky is pink when it is blue. The simple fact is you CAN'T use this new feature without an Opera account. Sorry, but it just don't work, because it was designed to go through Opera's servers. So all you are doing with Opera Unite is moving the central server from Facebook to Opera. Sorry, but that doesn't sound very revolutionary to me.

You're mixing a lot of half-truths in there.Opera Unite does directly link peoples computers together. Period. It _also_ acts as an intermediary where they can't use UPnP or in other situations. Opera also creates the links that direct people to the service you're hosting from your browser.

You _can_ use the features of Unite without an account, any browser can access my Unite fileshare with the write password and URL; same goes for accessing photos, media, chat. Oh, right, you want to host a service (with 3 clicks of your mouse!) on the internet without signing up for anything, good luck with that. Even backbone connections have peering contracts - every internet service has to sign up for something.

Remembering that this is a first alpha I think Opera has started a mass decentralisation of the internet, the peerweb as it were. I give it a few months before Opera Unite will connect to other intermediaries and perhaps a year before you can host that same intermediary on a box inside your firewall.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Abcd1234]

You aren't taking network effects into account

And you're missing the point. Let's assume, for the moment, that you're right, and that Facebook/MySpace has, or will, overtake email as the primary way people communicate. Now, the only reason I can see this being a problem is if one or both of them suddenly turn evil and... I don't know... do something... evil.

Anyway, let's suppose this happens. OHNOES, whatever will you do! Oh... wait... that's right, regular ol' email still exists (you can't send ebills over Facebook, and last I checked, no business is going to allow their communications to occur over MySpace, so SMTP ain't going away). You can still deploy a web server. So, in the end, who gives a shit?

Re:Disturbing trend

[somersault]

Thankfully you can also block notifications from applications like Mafia Wars, or even notifications from certain people entirely IIRC :)

Re:Disturbing trend

[Anonymous Coward]

I've bought 12miles of string and a couple dozen paper cups. Gonna make my own network.

Re:Disturbing trend

[PitaBred]

One word explanation: Vikings.

Re:Disturbing trend

[AmigaHeretic]

I think you haven't used Opera Unite. I mean you have a well written post there, but it is completely false. Yes, you can access your computer through operaunite.com, IF you choose to sign up for an account.

You don't need an operaunite account. You can access it by your ip address:8840.

I have mine set up with a domain name and went to the domain control panel and changed my DNS setting to forward the domain to my IP.

Re:Disturbing trend

[amicusNYCL]

Goddamn, how difficult is it? If they demand you use MySpace, fine, post a message on MySpace:

"check your email"

No one is forcing you to use MySpace, you're making that choice.

Re:Disturbing trend

[amicusNYCL]

Yes, it does, actually. Nice sig.

Re:Disturbing trend

[sorak]

Or better yet, send them a telegraph. Why bother communicating with friends in a way they feel comfortable with?

Re:Disturbing trend

[Quantumstate]

Blocking port 80 for the standard windows user will have no effect. People do not run servers listening to port 80 unless they know what they are doing or somebody else did it for them. So port 80 on most PCs is about as vulnerable as any other port.

Re:Disturbing trend

[m50d]

In all seriousness, no. They have to let enough pass through that people can download a general file from your computer, so they can't adopt a default deny/whitelist policy. So while Opera will be able to pattern-match known attacks, that doesn't actually increase security substantially - assuming you keep things up to date, you're protected against known attacks anyway, it's the unknown ones you have to worry about. And Opera's intermediate servers aren't going to be able to do a thing about them.

Re:Disturbing trend

[amicusNYCL]

OK, well I'm glad that we can agree that the presence of Opera's servers adds some security, including authentication, even though it doesn't protect against all known and unknown attacks. If you find a system that protects against all known and unknown attacks, by the way, please share it.

Re:Disturbing trend

[m50d]

OK, well I'm glad that we can agree that the presence of Opera's servers adds some security, including authentication

If Opera's servers do the authentication then that's inducing a huge security hole - anyone who can spoof being Opera's servers gets full access.

If you find a system that protects against all known and unknown attacks, by the way, please share it.

There's no system that protects against all attacks, but there are certainly ways to protect against unknown attacks - the principle of minimal privilege, and things like base address randomization, DEP and the like all protect against some attacks even before they're known. Running your opera under a separate user with very limited privileges would give a substantial improvement to your real security; passing connections through opera's servers doesn't as far as I can see.

Re:Disturbing trend

[FrostDust]

That's kind of a poor analogy for the topic at hand. You don't know if a friend has a telegraph machine or not.

Facebook requires you to sign up by using an email address (initially, you had to us a college-issued email account). Therefore, a person's being on Facebook proves that he or she, at least at the time the account was created, had a working email address.

A person's not regularly checking an inbox is another issue.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Takes no savvy whatsoever. Most routers come with port triggering enabled by default so it would all work automatically.

Nobody cares if it's an IP or a URL. People don't type these things in, they just copy/paste them.

Sure you can set up your files on Wordpress or something else, if you don't care what happens to your files and don't care who has them. Opera Unite allows you to maintain strict control over your personal content. I can quickly send a link to a friend to grab a specific file, then easily discontinue the server when they have it.

Re:Disturbing trend

[slapout]

I guess I'm too old to understand the not checking email thing. Checking my email is _how_ I find out when I have a message on MySpace or Facebook.

Re:Disturbing trend

[sorak]

You don't have to own a telegraph machine to receive a telegraph, and there is no law saying you can't run out and buy a telegraph machine.

The point is that, it is passive aggressive for either person to say "you will communicate with me on my terms". It doesn't matter what those terms are, or if either party has equipment that facilitates the transfer.

Re:Disturbing trend

[FishWithAHammer]

The alternative is the woefully unsupported IPv6. Next question!

Re:Disturbing trend

[sznupi]

Gmail integrates nicely IM (open standard!), VoIP and videoconferencing (likewise; though right now only VoIP is implemented by 3rd parties afaik). With the same account you have pictures (virtually unlimited in comparison to "free" albums on social networking sites (well, that's the way at my place...), blogs, and forums. Few other things too, Youtube for example. But it's different in two important ways...

1) you can use any e-mail you want to create Google Account for all those services (you can use any Jabber server for IM & VoIP (with video likely coming; definitely Google doesn't mind))

2) Most of those services don't force you into registering just to use basic functionality.

Using "mail" provided by social networking sites is like going back to times when telephone networks weren't interconnected. Would you really defend cellphone network that doesn't interoperate?

Re:Disturbing trend

[hkmwbz]

And without a domain name, who's going to do that?

Wait, so it's Opera's job to provide you with the .com domain of your choice for free? And how, pray tell, would they go about making sure that domain pointed to your computer unless you had an account with them which could be used to keep track of your IP address?

What's preventing you from registering your own domain name exactly?

In any case, NAT (which basically everyone has or should have!) makes this silly and meaningless.

And guess what, Opera uses UPnP go get through NAT.

Anybody savvy enough--and with an ISP terms-of-use agreement liberal enough--to set up Opera Unite as their web server on a private account can probably set up a real web server running Wordpress or whatever.

This is a joke, right? Setting up a wewb server running wordpress is as easy as logging in to Opera Unite and double-clicking a service to start it??

Or just spend $5/month for shared hosting and do it that way.

..and your files end up on someone else's servers, which is what Opera Unite avoids. It's amazing how you suggest something that's the opposite of what Unite is trying to do!

Re:Disturbing trend

[hkmwbz]

you do know that Opera Unite will send everything through Opera's servers right?

No it won't. It will use UPnP, and as a fallback it will use a proxy server for routing.

So I'm afraid it doesn't work like you think it does.

I'm afraid you are spreading FUD.

I predict Opera will hang on for another year or two

LOL. People have been saying that for 15 years. But the market is going where Opera wants it to go. Yes, their mobile division is doing incredibly well, and it will only do better. Also, Opera's desktop user base has more than doubled in less than 2 years. How's that for "hanging on"? You doom-sayers crack me up. You have been wrong about Opera for 15 years, and will for at least 15 more. The worst that can happen to Opera is that they are bought up by some other company. Otherwise they'll continue to thrive.

Re:Disturbing trend

[hkmwbz]

Open standards are held back because the dominant browser ignores them. In a world with several browsers with about equal market share, things would move much faster because there is no dominant player to slow everyone else down. And if one of the browsers don't follow the rest, it will lose users.

Until someone can come up with a way to make committees efficient and people with diverging commercial interests work for the general good, this is probably just going to be the nature of life.

Right now, all other browser vendors are able to work together and agree on standards, except Microsoft. Diverging commercial interests or not, they are working together and getting things done.

Re:Disturbing trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't use it and shut the fuck up.

Amazing how morons like you feel the need to whine about these things. It's like the thought that you don't actually have to use it and that other people have different needs has never crossed that pea sized brain of yours.

Re:Disturbing trend

[FishWithAHammer]

Clearly you can't read.

Without a domain name, this sort of thing is basically useless.

It's great that it uses UPnP. Woo! Awesome! Gold star! But it's still essentially useless for damn near anything.

Setting up a web server really is trivial. Like this. And it actually gives you something worth a flying fuck.

And using "keeping your files local" as a reason for some stupid boondoggle like this is absolutely silly.

This is Opera trying very, very had to remain relevant by replacing MySpace, Facebook, et al. by encouraging traffic through their servers, becoming a hub of traffic. Great idea--but nobody gives a damn because nobody uses Opera and this is certainly no killer app.

(I'd love to see the impotent nerd rage on the faces of Opera devs if Google came out with Google Sites-On-Your-Computer in the next six months and obliterate what little buzz this stupid, stupid feature has. Not because I think it's a good feature, but because the Opera folks have a history of doing more whining than marketing and have the success to show for it.)

Re:Disturbing trend

[Eskarel]

Yes, but they're getting together and getting things done 3 years too late. We needed HTML 5 three years ago, not three years from now.

What Microsoft did with IE has caused me more drama than I care to think about, but none of that changes anything.

Standards committees always standardize what is already been done(and for political reasons sometimes it's standardized in a way which totally diverges from what the market is actually doing), they very very rarely standardize what we will be doing.

Re:Disturbing trend

[FishWithAHammer]

You cannot access Opera Unite from, say, a web browser without explicitly opening the port. You have to go through Opera. And, frankly, fuck them. It's a blatant play to attempt to become relevant in social networking, and they suck at it. I hope somebody (I mentioned Google below, but anyone works) comes out with a clone and relegates Opera to the bottom-feeding bullshit that they've ended up in for the last...uh...ever, when it comes to desktops. Not because I think it's a good idea--I don't--but because anything that makes Opera's devs get their panties in a wad is fine by me.

Re:Disturbing trend

[somersault]

I don't think that everyone should use a social networking site as their only means of online communication, and if the sites interoperated with email and jabber etc it would definitely improve the situation for people like the question submitter. Still, each place has stuff to offer and can be worth joining depending on what you and your friends are looking for.

Re:Disturbing trend

[sznupi]

That plus the nasty little thing: most social networking sites force you into registering if you want to use even the smallest amount of functionality (only browse, for example)

They are control freaks. Don't expect their mail services to open soon (likewise, Facebook and few others wanted to move their chat into Jabber over a year ago...and nothing happened; I guess it was scrapped once they realized they wouldn't have good excuse for lack of interoperability)

Re:Disturbing trend

[hkmwbz]

Without a domain name, this sort of thing is basically useless.

Yes, and? So what? They let you get one easily, or you can just buy your own. If not, what's preventing you from registering your own domain name exactly?

It's great that it uses UPnP. Woo! Awesome! Gold star! But it's still essentially useless for damn near anything.

What do you mean by "anything"? Do you even know what Unite is?

Setting up a web server really is trivial. Like this. And it actually gives you something worth a flying fuck.

Actually, it isn't as trivial as setting up Unite. And besides, Unite isn't supposed to replace traditional web servers.

And using "keeping your files local" as a reason for some stupid boondoggle like this is absolutely silly.

It's silly to want control of your own files? Wow.

This is Opera trying very, very had to remain relevant by replacing MySpace, Facebook, et al. by encouraging traffic through their servers, becoming a hub of traffic.

Hey, you blabbering idiot, the proxy is just a fallback. If UPnP works there's no traffic through Opera's servers.

I'd love to see the impotent nerd rage on the faces of Opera devs if Google came out with Google Sites-On-Your-Computer in the next six months and obliterate what little buzz this stupid, stupid feature has. Not because I think it's a good feature, but because the Opera folks have a history of doing more whining than marketing and have the success to show for it.

It's ironic, then, that you are whining like a little crybaby now. You are raging so badly that you just threw a childish fit, and had some childish fantasy about Google beating up the mean Opera for innovating. LOL.

Opera is currently the dominant mobile browser, and the revenue growth from the desktop version is more than 100% each quarter, with a user base more than doubling in less than 2 years. Sounds pretty successful to me.

Re:Disturbing trend

[FishWithAHammer]

It's ironic, then, that you are whining like a little crybaby now. You are raging so badly that you just threw a childish fit, and had some childish fantasy about Google beating up the mean Opera for innovating. LOL.

No, I'd like to see it because Opera is a pissant company who's never been able to actually compete with anyone else and I wish nothing but failure on them.

Opera is currently the dominant mobile browser,

Give it time. The non-Blackberry smartphones are going to Webkit and it's not going to be close. Opera's mobile version isn't even tolerable compared to the G1 browser or the iPhone's version of Safari. It's shit.

and the revenue growth from the desktop version is more than 100% each quarter, with a user base more than doubling in less than 2 years. Sounds pretty successful to me.

And yet after, what, thirteen years, their desktop version has less than half of what Google Chrome's is--and Google Chrome has been out less than a year.

It's a toy...

[jo42]

Is it a threat to other server solutions?

In one word, No.

In more words, can it run apps written in PHP, Ruby, Python, Java, etc. with SQL server database back ends? No.

Can it be load-balanced, clustered, etc. on servers in a data center? Well, maybe if you tried hard enough. Heck, you do anything if you try hard enough. But in one word, No.

Re:It's a toy...

[SteelRealm]

It's not meant to act as a serious server, just to allow easy access to files and content made avaible to Opera on the user's computer. They said it's unlikely PHP and MySQL will be added, but the possiblity that they might do it is there in the future. It's a toy to attract users and to maintain those who may consider leaving the browser, and it's doing just that. Anyone who wants to share content with friends/family can easily do it, and it's incredibly handy for people who use multiple computers.

Re:It's a toy...

[TheRaven64]

Exactly. It's like someone noticed you can edit text in Opera and posted an article asking if it's really a threat to Vim. Just because two pieces of software have some overlapping functionality doesn't mean that they are meant for the same task. You wouldn't use MS Word as a code editor, even though it can edit text, and you wouldn't use Opera Unite to host a high-volume site, even though it can serve HTTP.

Re:It's a toy...

[m50d]

"Toy" is unfair; it's the correct tool for certain tasks. I find myself using the "web server" built into the KDE system panel (kpf) a lot more than my apache install, because most of the time I just want to put a particular file on the internet so I can link my friends to it. For that sort of thing, unite is great.

Re:It's a toy...

[pbhj]

[...]
It's a toy to attract users and to maintain those who may consider leaving the browser, and it's doing just that. Anyone who wants to share content with friends/family can easily do it, and it's incredibly handy for people who use multiple computers.

I don't think Unite is a toy, it's already affecting how I do business and I think it will make a lot of difference for some of my clients eg sharing files is absolutely simple, easy enough for my Mum to do! Now if they can just get it to hook up a VNC session ...

Still an Epic Fail

[TheMiddleRoad]

So what? It's a somewhat slow web server. It's easy, guys. If you want to leave your home machine naked to the net, use real and tested server software. If you want to do all the tasks done by Unite but easier, get cheap or free web hosting and a Facebook page.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

...and leave all your data on someone else's server, which is exactly what Unite allows you NOT to do. Why would I pay for web hosting or let Facebook hold my data hostage when I can distribute whatever I want, including any size pictures (have you seen the size of Facebook photos?) to whomever I want using Unite?

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure is attracting a lot of attention for such an "epic fail"...

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[AuMatar]

Because for the market its going after (people who don't have the knowledge or expertise to set up a real web server) is almost 100% populated by people who won't keep up security patches or really understand the security risk of the product? Not to mention if you don't want the data on another person's server, I'd think really damn hard about putting it on a web server. If you don't trust it on a remote host, it probably shouldn't be web accessible.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[rs79]

"So what? It's a somewhat slow web server. It's easy, guys. If you want to leave your home machine naked to the net, use real and tested server software. If you want to do all the tasks done by Unite but easier, get cheap or free web hosting and a Facebook page."

I'm guessing you haven't actually tried the software. But you know about problems with it already even though it isn't actually a "webserver/daemon" in the classic sense of the word.

That's kinda like saying "I don't like asparagus but I've never tried it because I don't like it".

Maybe it does have a security hole in it. But shouldn't we actually find out first before we just guess and assume that it does?

Security hole. Pffft. BindOutlookXPIEExcel. Life goes on.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[AmigaHeretic]

>>If you don't trust it on a remote host, it probably shouldn't be web accessible.

Yeah, but maybe this product (and ones already out there and soon to follow) will allow us to expand our idea of what should be web accessible.

For example I wouldn't make my entire MP3 collection web accessible using Google storage space. Why because even though my intention is to use it only so "I" can access all my music anywhere I go, Google might not see it that way. (Or what ever company I happen to have storing my data). With Unite and a few clicks I can have my music available to me and not have to worry about the company hosting it thinking I might be breaking the law.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[TheMiddleRoad]

That's because nothing gives a Slashdotter a hard-on quicker than the words "Opera" or "Linux".

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[Fallingcow]

If you want to do all the tasks done by Unite but easier, get cheap or free web hosting and a Facebook page.

I can set up 40GB+ of music to play via a decent-looking web interface for anyone I send a password and URL to in less than a minute and with 5 or 6 clicks using my Facebook account and some shared web hosting? 'Cuz I did that earlier today with Opera Unite.

I went in to this skeptical, and I barely even used Opera before this (I'm a web developer and, though I admire Opera, I need the tools available in Firefox) but it only took about 5 minutes of tinkering with this thing for me to be sold on it. I believe my exact words on testing the media sharing were "whoa, fuckin' cool!"

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[ardor]

I can set up 40GB+ of music to play via a decent-looking web interface for anyone I send a password and URL to

Nobody expects the RIAA inquisition!

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[AuMatar]

Actually, you are breaking the law. Streaming makes a copy. Not that I think it should be so, but that's how it is.

If you want to put data up and have it be private, encrypt it. Personal webservers on your home machine are not a good idea unless you really know what you're doing. Which is a pretty small percent of people. Having it built into a web browser is not a good idea.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even "free high-speed newsgroup access"?

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[TheMiddleRoad]

I feel dirty just thinking about that. It reminds me of the days where entire hard drives were displayed on Napster.

And you're sure you want to do that? First, it's possibly illegal. Second, it's a security nightmare. Third, you could set up a web server with an actual track record of security.

Ick.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[TheP4st]

If you don't trust it on a remote host, it probably shouldn't be web accessible.

With the the way many ToS's are worded I find it a rather sensible thing to not trust remote hosts. Remember this?" and there are plenty more examples like that around.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[hkmwbz]

Unite is getting attention way beyond Slashdot.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[hkmwbz]

It's a good thing Opera 10 has automatic updates, then.

Unite is no more of a security risk than anything else that connects to the web.

If I don't trust Flickr or don't want them to hold my data hostage, I can still make it accessible over the web. If they grabbed my copyright protected photos from my computer like that and put them on display without my permission, I could sue them. If I uploaded to them, I couldn't, and would lose control.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[fbjon]

You gloss over that "set up" part there. Besides, Opera is one of the few companies I trust by name to make good software.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[shutdown -p now]

And you're sure you want to do that? First, it's possibly illegal.

What, letting specific people play music from your collection?

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[St.Creed]

And I wonder how the RIAA will detect music-sharing on your private friendsbased network. Even if you have 1000+ friends, there's not much chance the RIAA is part of it. They just don't have friends.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[andy.ruddock]

What! Where? URL?

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[m50d]

Actually, you are breaking the law. Streaming makes a copy. Not that I think it should be so, but that's how it is.

Streaming makes a copy, but it's a purely transitory copy the sole purpose of which is a legitimate usage. Which even in the UK, with the smallest set of fair use rights imaginable, is still explicitly legal.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[DragonWriter]

For example I wouldn't make my entire MP3 collection web accessible using Google storage space. Why because even though my intention is to use it only so "I" can access all my music anywhere I go, Google might not see it that way. (Or what ever company I happen to have storing my data). With Unite and a few clicks I can have my music available to me and not have to worry about the company hosting it thinking I might be breaking the law.

I don't understand what even remotely new Unite brings to the table here. Its not the first webserver available for desktop OSs, or the first free webserver available for desktop OSs.

Granting that there are reasons you might want to run a webserver on your desktop or laptop, why would you want it to be Opera Unite as opposed to one of the myriad other options?

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[DragonWriter]

Maybe it does have a security hole in it. But shouldn't we actually find out first before we just guess and assume that it does?

Why should we bother? What compelling new feature does Opera Unite bring to the table that would get me not to use one of the better performing, more-established, free webservers available if I wanted to host web-accessible content on my PC?

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[keefus_a]

Add to that, Opera's biggest install base is mobile devices. When your desktop and your laptop/PDA/Wii and the rest of the laundry list of devices that run (or are at least capable of running) Opera are suddenly connected and your data is freely accessible wherever you may roam...that's a game changer...as long as your "server" is powered on and connected.

I have to agree with the parent. In my mind, the biggest benefit is the ability to share information with myself, not everybody else. It just so happens that sharing/exchanging/communicating with others is one and the same.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[DragonWriter]

And I wonder how the RIAA will detect music-sharing on your private friendsbased network.

Well, as for "private", the Unite introduction shows "privileged access" (password protected) requests going over HTTP, not HTTPS; so even assuming, for the sake of argument, that connections from the local web server to the proxy server are secured somehow, those from the proxy server to the client who is accessing them aren't, so the RIAA's strategy of putting pressure on ISPs to be piracy cops would seem to quite applicable.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[amicusNYCL]

Look around, there's a lot of Opera hate on Slashdot. Don't get me wrong, I get a spicy boner when I think about Opera, but I'm not a typical slashdotter.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Epic Fail

STFU!

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[St.Creed]

True, if the ISPs are compromised there's a problem. An easier tactic for the RIAA would be to target one company - Opera - for facilitating filesharing, though.

Who wants to bet the musical jukebox is gone in the beta? :)

Ofcourse, Opera could get around this by merely using the browser address and the proxy to swap service names and ip-addresses. Then it would all be browser-to-browser from there. Implement a central mandatory public key repository, filled with a public key created on installation of Unite out of your own admin password. Or just implement an easy-to-use one for your friends. Then sit back and see how much fun the RIAA has with the encrypted traffic and your home-made version of PGP with non-standard storage protocols for the key. Given that they'd have to be fishing the ISP-streams for proof before they could raid your home, that would be a pretty difficult proposition.

Re:Still an Epic Fail

[hkmwbz]

It's much easier to set up and use (how much hacking and customization will you need to do in order to set up music streaming?), and will have lots of services doing all sorts of weird and wonderful things, such as controlling an RC car.

all i need now

[markringen]

all i need now is a dumb server: by that i mean a os that only has 1 single task (webhost). and be truly modular, i don't want several hundred background tasks running all over the place. without rewriting linux/bsd/etc your pretty much screwed, in achieving a clean "security hole free" webserver.

So Opera web browser now runs as a system service?

[SpazmodeusG]

So much for Opera being a small, simple, fast web browser. It now has a browser, an email client, a jukebox and a web server all built in.

Hooray for feature bloat and big monolithic applications that try to do everything!

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[worb]

And yet it's still smaller than the so-called "pure browsers" ;)

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[NervousNerd]

There's hope yet, we still have Lynx.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[SteelRealm]

You realize it is still smaller download then Firefox and has a smaller memory footprint then all other browsers, right?

Stupid benchmark

[royallthefourth]

The summary conflated a web server with a database and a programming language (PHP+Apache+MySQL) when discussing benchmarking of just a web server.

I'll go ahead and assume that the article isn't worth reading.

Re:Stupid benchmark

[worb]

What is "just a web server"? He tests both dynamic and static data. PHP and MySQL was just for comparison purposes, to see how the Unite server compares to other web servers.

Re:Stupid benchmark

[tyrione]

Java? Ruby? Python? ObjC? Do I need to go on to include the massive depth and breath that Apache 2 covers to even make this remotely worth comparing?

Re:Stupid benchmark

[jonaskoelker]

I'll go ahead and assume that the article isn't worth reading.

You had to read the summary to jump to that conclusion??

O_o

Re:Stupid benchmark

[Manfre]

For unite, his dynamic test included writing to a local file. For apache, he wrote to a database, which in the end writes to a file. That doesn't give a comparison between web servers. It shows that file IO for unite is about half the speed of using apache+php with a database. Had his apache+php test written to a local file, then it would a much better comparison.

Re:Stupid benchmark

[hkmwbz]

Did anyone claim that it was a thorough comparison? No. It's just to see how Unite's performance measures up. It's a fun exercise, and gives you an idea about how far you can push it.

I feel vindicated to some extent

[bogaboga]

...He concludes that Opera Unite's server is impressive, and that the others come nowhere close to the ease of use...

When I suggested that Apache needed some thing near to easy configuration, I was labeled a troll and requested not to tinker with such a server if I did not know what I was doing. By the way, I know Apache has some configuration GUIs but none comes close to Opera's offer.

In fact, I was castigated for being one of those who crave "point and click" interfaces that are "responsible" for most of the chaos on the internet.

I am happy that I have one fellow who agrees with me. I will not be surprised if Opera's web server snatches market share from the established ones.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent

[chdig]

Opera's web server has a completely different target market than apache, and is so completely different that to compare Opera to Apache is like comparing benchmarks of serving static content to that which comes from a database -- yes, another silly comparison that TFA for some unknown reason actually makes. Apples ain't oranges!

As others have mentioned, to serve pages to anyone other than yourself, the requests will be sent through (and approved by) Opera's servers. Unite itself isn't open source, apache is. Apache can do almost anything any web developer can dream of. Unite is one dimensional.

As for your configuration "argument", are you still trying to install Apache from source or something? a WAMP install will put apache/mysql/php on your computer in a minute or two. Toss a blog app into the web folder, use a browser to enter its connection settings, and voila! you've got yourself a basic, but dynamic blog online in minutes, just for one example.

But besides using it for web development, running a website with PHP/any dynamic language off your home desktop would be exposing yourself to some serious risks, which is again yet another reason that a Unite/Apache+PHP comparison is completely senseless.

What is truly wrong is that TFA and its "benchmarks" made it onto /., where most of us actually know that dynamic!=static content. A far better, and insightful article on Unite was written by this guy: http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/06/16/thoughts-on-opera-unite/

--
The Opera fanboys are out tonight, and with mod points to spare. Hmm, it's not even a full moon.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent

[twostix]

There's a dozen free simple "point and click" web servers already in existence. IIS has a "point and click" interface *and* comes installed in most Windows installations and still holds a minority share.

I don't think you understand why Apache is where it is. And it's *hardly* because there's no competition for it. It's fought web servers backed by billion dollar companies to come out on top. There's a reason for that and it's not just because it's free as there's other free web servers that also hold a tiny fraction of the market.

To do anything other than host a simple html site requires complexity. Some thing's can't be made any simpler than they are with trading off far too much flexibility.

If all you need to do is host a simple static website on your PC that has a static IP, then use the right tool for the job. Trying to make Apache something it's not just so that it's easy to do one thing to make 0.01% of the market happy is ridiculous.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent

[St.Creed]

A good GUI supported with wizards that can (if desired) access any option available to the commandline is semantically completely equivalent to the commandline function, only easier to use. Not supplying such a GUI is just stupid, especially if the competition has them and people like them. It's one of the reasons I use Microsoft's webserver, and not Apache - i just want to dump some HTML on the web, not spend hours digging through arcane config files.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent

[Shados]

The only issue (and don't get me wrong, I love IIS and its my primary web server, for both personal and professional use) is that Microsoft's web server only exposes a fraction of its options through the GUI... when things get heated, and you have to actually drop to the config file, IIS is a serious nightmare.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you been? People have used control panels to manage Apache for years now. Check out Webmin for a decent example.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent

[worb]

As I said in another post:

I'm surprised to see that people are still linking to this. It's basically full of errors, and was written in rage over all the hype Unite was getting. He was angry about how people just repeated Opera's claims blindly. Kind of like you are blindly referring to his blog post even though it turns out that the post is too inaccurate to really be used for anything.

You really should read some of the comments on the page you are linking to, in order to see people correcting all the misconceptions. For example the misconception that everything goes through a proxy, as you claim it does. Furthermore Chris's comments where fun until Haavard took him down a notch on his own blog, resulting in Chris himself posting on Haavard's blog with a massively different tone.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent

[chdig]

Ah, and as I said in another post:
TFA that is being discussed on /. is one of the most incompetent pieces of drivel I've seen posted. Benchmarks that make no sense are not benchmarks. Code that looks as if it was written by a 6th grader should be embarrassing. The author worrying about his hdd blowing up for using PHP blows my mind. Not understanding the difference between server based web-serving and client machine web-serving, nor between dynamic and static websites makes me regard Timothy's posts with great skepticism.

TFA is one of the worst I've ever seen posted on /. and ironically makes Opera and its fanboys look bad for supporting it. The other article I linked to still presents many very valid points whereas TFA presents confusion and misleading "conclusions" in place of any form of insight.

Regarding proxies and Unite, let's just quote the Opera Unite offical website, "Opera Unite uses a proxy between the server and its clients"

And you know what? I've got nothing really against Unite itself, but TFA is a real piece of work.

rant over.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent

[hkmwbz]

What's with the constant crying? TFA was an interesting article showing that while the Unite server can't really compete with the big boys, it still does quite well, and the ease of use is much better than the rest.

Regarding proxies and Unite, let's just quote the Opera Unite offical website, "Opera Unite uses a proxy between the server and its clients"

Hey, quote mining! Just like Creationists! The proxy is just a fallback in case UPnP fails, as the FAQ clearly states. But I guess you prefer to whine like a little crybaby instead of educating yourself about the facts.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent

[worb]

I'm sure you would like to go on and on about this, but you didn't actually address my comment. Did you understand what I wrote about Chris Messina's misguided blog post?

FWIW I completely agree that Unite and servers like Apache are completely different beasts. But that doesn't mean that it isn't interesting to see comparisons and benchmarks. And nothing beats Unite's ease of use for most people. You won't be hosting the next Facebook, but you will have control over your own data. Several people I know have converted to Opera already based on this first preview of Unite. They love it. It's more to do with the ease of use than that they don't want other people to host their files for the most part, though.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent

[chdig]

I've been following the back-and-forth on Chris Messina's blog post, and notice that he's responded to the response with some backtracking, and also good points as well: http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/06/17/responding-to-unite-misconceptions (search for "factoryjoe"). If you don't mind, I'd rather let others who know more judge his comments fully, but he does bring up how some of the documentation on the Unite website pages is quite misleading, one example being on the proxy issue.

As for TFA we're here for, I truly believe that misleading comparisons and misleading benchmarks serve to confuse rather than inform. There is nothing about owning your own data and all the positives of Unite in TFA -- at all.

TFA's comparison is like comparing performance of MS Access to Oracle. Imagine you didn't know exactly what Access was when reading those comparisons (such as any newcomer to Unite vs Apache+PHP). This hypothetical comparison of two completely different softwares that store data would imply that Access is an equivalent to Oracle. In the end, the reader wouldn't be thinking that "nothing beats [Access]'s ease of use for most people", but would be left confused as to what Access is.

My point with all this is to show that TFA is terribly misleading, and when you already have to deal with articles like Mr. Messina's, which don't grasp the full potential of Unite, why support another article which merely confuses matters further?

If you look back to the original parent I responded to, he is a perfect example of someone who is confused and believes that Apache and Unite do the same thing.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent

[worb]

The documentation is not misleading at all. Maybe if you only read one single paragraph and ignore the rest you will get the wrong idea, but the fact is that most people seem to get it.

And you are saying that TFA is like comparing Access to Oracle, but why are you assuming that everyone knows everything you do about this? A comparison like this between Access and Oracle would not imply that they are equal at all. In fact, the test results speak for themselves.

"Someone"?

[adavies42]

Someone put it to the test

"Someone"? Really? Color me paranoid, but I'd be inclined to suspect at least a little bias from a website named "unitehowto.com". Are we sure kdawson didn't get hold of timothy's posting account?

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[SpazmodeusG]

That's not true in any sense. Current version of Firefox is ~7MB, Opera is ~10MB in size.

Ever since version 3 of Firefox it's been one of the most misely in memory usage. It beats older versions of Opera by a long way (no benchmarks yet for Unite but i don't think it's better than the older versions).

http://avencius.nl/content/firefox-3-vs-opera-950-memory-usage

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox generally uses less memory than other browsers

HA HA HA HA HA!!! BS!! Firefox is as memory hungry, if not more, then the rest of the browsers out there.

I do hope Mozilla is paying you to promote their browser. Do you have a picture of a Fox curled up trying to eat it's tail on your shirt, too?

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[SpazmodeusG]

No it isn't. That's something so easy to verify i can't beleive you're at +4 right now.

http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
http://unite.opera.com/

Opera Unite is a 40% larger download than Firefox.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox uses less memory than other browsers? Less than IE, maybe. Not less than Opera, Arora, Konqueror and.. well, pretty much everything else. Compare footprints and CPU usage. You'll see the big red "O" is way lighter and has a smaller footprint than FF, even having FF without addons.
Or if you don't have time to do it, maybe stop spreading FUD.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[SpazmodeusG]

Firefox 2 had a bug. Firefox 3 does use less than Opera. Much less. (I'll admit these benchmarks aren't for the latest build of Opera, but Opera has more features now not less so i think it's still accurate).

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/03/firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.ars
http://avencius.nl/content/firefox-3-vs-opera-950-memory-usage

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what versions you are talking about, but Firefox uses upwards of 300,000k on my system whereas IE uses about 30,000 - 40,000k with it's multiple processes.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Vectronic]

Also, with all this extra stuff, it still runs faster and smoother than any previous version of their browser, there is absolutely no feeling of 'bloat'... and when you turn something off, it stays that way, Turbo, Unite, Mail, Widgets, Dragonfly, etc...

v10 alpha was already faster than v9.64, and almost every new snapshot has been quicker/better than the previous.

It's memory footprint isn't really better, but isn't worse than most others... mine's been running for about 4 days since the last time I closed/re-opened it
Current: 161MB
Peak: 398MB
VM: 205MB
Handles: 708
Threads: 26

But I don't care about that, from a cold start it launches in under a second, whereas Safari and Chrome take about 4, IE and FF 3.5 take about 9, I've ran into 0 problems with webpages with Opera v10, but FF 3.5 (just as Beta as Opera) won't even allow Slashdot to work half the time, however it is a bit faster on some sites, like Facebook... Plus, Opera hides in the systray, and stays completely idle until i need it, or it shows me a new RSS, or email... making it show up instantly when asked, which is more important (to me) than any memory footprint.

What is this juvenile fascination with speed?

[presidenteloco]

How dumb, or seriously ADD,
do you have to be, when the major question you ask about
a new technology is: Yeah, but how fast is it?

"We've invented this program that is smarter than the average bear"

"Yeah, but how fast is it?"

"You don't understand! This baby even knows that you're not SUPPOSED
to fight forest fires!"

"Yeah, but how fast is it?"

Seriously, these speed evaluations are irrelevant, boring, and inane to
the extreme. How about some evaluation of the possible uses this new
technology will be put to, and how its abilities to support these uses
compares to other competing or similar technologies.

"Look at this new amp we've got! Look at this. It goes up to 11! Unbelievable!"

"Yeah, but how fast does it go pedal to the metal, man?"

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up.

...How fast is it?

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is that it really is NOT new technology - it is just a web server with shiny wrapping. Speed benchmarks are an easily quantifiable measure of quality, and, should there be a high enough demand on the software, a major issue. Ease of use, sleekness of looks, and level of innovation are all things that are more subjective than objective.

The speed benchmarks tell us if, all other things being equal, which product we should use. In computer software, quickness of execution is the primary currency that you work in. You give up speed in order to get more features or benefits, such as more eye-candy, more features, easier to support code, or time spent in development. At the end of the day, the software that does what you want it to, as easily as you want it to, with the smallest memory footprint and smallest cpu cycles used, should be the one that you pick.

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed?

[tecnico.hitos]

The problem is that sometimes you need speed instead of features that you probably won't even use.

If the speed of an application is below the expected for its main use and the additional features don't compensate for the lost speed, there will be a productivity loss.

You say there is a "juvenile fascination" with speed, but the same can be said about new (or not so new) technologies that introduce new features to applications, even if they don't add anything to the so-to-speak standard purpose of the application. It may end up as a "juvenile fascination" with novelty.

Speed is important for many and optimization is technology too.

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed?

[noidentity]

And yet somehow, the summary doesn't even mention the speed of the Opera personal webserver:

But how well does it actually perform? Is it a threat to other server solutions? Someone put it to the test, and published the results. While nginx, one of the fastest web servers available, is 5 times faster, a PHP+Apache+MySQL server is only 2 times as fast. A compiled C++ server, the MadFish WebToolkit, is 6 times faster. He concludes that Opera Unite's server is impressive, and that the others come nowhere close to the ease of use.

They were able to cover the speeds of several others, but not Opera? Sorry, this is fucking bullshit.

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed?

[DNS-and-BIND]

The really stupid part is that they're speed-testing an alpha. Who cares? It's going to be different by release, anyway.

Benchmarks and reviews are ways for otherwise boring people to attempt to take part in ideas larger than themselves. Never mind if you're just jabbering or are an idiot with an obviously-flawed method - everybody's text looks the same on wordpress.

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We developed this new console that's so easy to use. you just point this remote at the screen, anybody from young to old can just pick up and play."

"Yeah, but how fast is it?"

"You don't understand, this is totally changing the future of games consoles, from now on everything is going to be motion controlled. Its never going to be the same again!"

"Yeah, but how fast is it?"

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what is it with you not realizing that SPEED IS EVERYTHING when it comes to web servers?
Enjoy serving webpages with Windows Vista on a C64, if you can even manage to load the damn thing. (and if you can, you might win some sort of award)

Nobody wants to wait an age for a page to load.

And that is actually one of the drawbacks with OU, they have filled pages with images in one hell of an amateurish way.
Not meaning to insult, it is easier, but DAMN, come on! Half the images i saw loading up do not need to be there.
And to be perfectly honest, i'd rather be able to turn off every image. (well, except some basic images, but even then, they can still be created entirely in HTML+CSS with border polygons for older browsers)
I, like millions of others, have limited bandwidth. Testing out the servers with some friends has almost been painful at times waiting for images loading.
This is one of the major parts that need redoing or it simply won't take off, period.

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed?

[DragonWriter]

Seriously, these speed evaluations are irrelevant, boring, and inane to
the extreme. How about some evaluation of the possible uses this new
technology will be put to, and how its abilities to support these uses
compares to other competing or similar technologies.

Underneath all the marketing speak, its (1) a local webserver, and (2) a central proxying service, giving you some of the benefits of a local webserver, with the drawbacks of an additional dependency on an external server which presents a single point of failure. The only additional advantage it seems to have is that the local webserver actively connects to the remote proxy, which makes Unite useful if you have to tunnel through a firewall you don't control (but where you have enough control of the computer to put Unite on it in the first place).

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed?

[hkmwbz]

The proxy is just a fallback if UPnP fails.

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed?

[hkmwbz]

Did you even RTFA? And the original article? Obviously not. Welcome to Slashdot, where trolls flame story writers without having RTFA.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Checking the size of the installation folder, Firefox is just over 24MB and Opera Unite is just over 14MB.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[MrMista_B]

Does it have AdBlock Plus?

I'll gladly wait 5 minutes for my browser to start, if that means I never see any ads of any kind ever.

Oh no! I'm going to kill my HDD!

[chdig]

From TFA:
"Well, since I don't want to kill my HDD I'm doing a test where PHP takes a value from simple MySQL table, increments a value and saves it back (using a set of functions that are typically used in web programming)"

What am I going to do?! I'm running complicated PHP scripts on my development machine... is my hard disk going to die?
..
but seriously, the author is converting the value received from an integer column in mysql to... an integer:
$i=intval($i)+1;
--
What happened to /. and why are the most incompetent articles imaginable being posted?

I Call Shenanigans

[mpapet]

Can you say "huge honking security hole"?

The great news is there are viable replacements for this reference to Microsoft's operating system. Debian, BSD's, maybe some other Linux distro are more than capable of serving and Opera runs on all of them.

Another Opera summary that's mostly flamebait. That's disappointing because it's a good idea whose time has been very long in coming.

Re:I Call Shenanigans

[hunteke]

That's disappointing because it's a good idea whose time has been very long in coming.

Erm ... hasn't Firefox had a browser-based webserver for at least a couple of years?

Perhaps the difference is the already-built-in-nature as compared to the-user-must-install-it? There is definitely something to be said for teaching the general public and making standard useful tools.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox generally uses less memory than other browsers.

Citation please.

I do hope Opera is paying you to promote their browser. Do you have a big red "O" on your shirt, too?

Were you going for 5, Inciteful?

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[dreemernj]

Mileage always varies. I use Opera because if I open up 6 or 7 tabs of the pages I usually visit in Opera, it takes up 90 megs of RAM. If I open them in Firefox they take up around 750 megs. For others the results could probably be the exact opposite.

I will say that, as a long time Opera user, Opera 10 is turning into one of the best releases they've ever done. It outperforms Opera 9.x in any way that matters to me. Speed, memory usage, stability. 9.6 was starting to get on my nerves and I was beginning to use Chrome more and more. But 10 has been a dream.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[squiggly12]

Well, right now I just checked how much memory that FF is using on my machine and it has consumed 384, 164 K of memory. Two tabs open.
I just did a fresh install of XP Pro on this machine 5 days ago.
Flamers go away, FF did much better when I was running Vista Ultimate memory-wise. One more beer then bed I promise!

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[dreemernj]

Opera 10 is dramatically outshining everything they did in Opera 9.x. 9.x actually led me to try Chrome out more regularly because of performance and stability issues (at least on a modern computer). Opera 10 has been a dream.

On my older computers I don't really have another option. I run 500Mhz Celeron comps with 64-128MB RAM running Damn Small Linux regularly. Firefox barely runs with one tab on those systems while Opera is still quick with 4 or 5 tabs. The difference is night and day.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

You can filter ads with privoxy.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

SteelRealm, it's "than" not "then".

The real speed test...

[bgspence]

How long does it take someone unfamiliar with a each web server take to download the required software and serve the first page?

I bet Opera Unite beats the other solutions by a mile.

Re:The real speed test...

[smoker2]

And how long will it take for them to figure out they need a hole in the firewall (or leave the browser running 24/7) before anybody can see it ? And how long before those people leave private documents in the public folder and then bitch about it ?

The whole summary is a troll. All the other servers were faster without exception, but they take the conclusion that this is good ? Are we supposed to rip out our lamp stacks now and run opera on our co-lo servers ? I don't think so. As for ease of use, I installed fedora and selected the server items during the install. All I had to do then was put files in the relevant folder - not rocket science. If I wanted to do it post-install it's just add/remove programs, and the same result. And none of my stuff gets sniffed as it passes though operas gateway.

Re:The real speed test...

[Rockoon]

And how long will it take for them to figure out they need a hole in the firewall before anybody can see it ?

I guess you missed the features, and point, of Unite. Perhaps you should investigate about why you are wrong.

Re:The real speed test...

[aj50]

sudo apt-get install apache2

About 3 minutes.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[shentino]

My priority for any browser is standards compliance.

Why? Because I expect browsers to do what the fuck they are told, and I expect to see the expected results from webdevs who are good enough to follow the rules and keep their sites clean.

My browser of choice is Chrome.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[tpgp]

Plus, Opera hides in the systray, and stays completely idle until i need it, or it shows me a new RSS, or email.

So does it stay completely idle, or does it show you new RSS / emails as they come in?

Can't be both.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[BikeHelmet]

This is an Alpha or Beta. Opera 9.64 (final) is only 5.3MB large.

On my computer Firefox consumes way more memory than Opera - but it has so many extensions and plugins installed, that I'd be surprised if it didn't.

v300.motofan.ru

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow bonanza for hackers!!!!!!! Yehhha :)

Yeah, right . . .

[siloko]

and most of my friends are in their 20s. Some of them never check their emails

I'm guessing none of your friends either work or are at college. Try telling your boss or University sysadmin that you don't want customer emails or system notices because you won't read them unless they are sent via mySpace . . . No job/Slap around the face will quickly ensue!

Re:Yeah, right . . .

[FooBarWidget]

And this ad hominem adds what value to the discussion? Even if you're right and his friends don't work or attend college, it doesn't make his point any less valid.

Re:Yeah, right . . .

[xouumalperxe]

Actually, despite the ad hominem-ness of the post, his point stands: the "real world" still very much uses, and expects you to use, e-mail.

Re:Yeah, right . . .

[d3ac0n]

Actually, despite the ad hominem-ness of the post, his point stands: the "real world" still very much uses, and expects you to use, e-mail.

Indeed.

I don't know of any White Collar jobs that do NOT revolve around e-mail as a primary communication source, and even some Blue collar jobs are going that way.

In fact, in many companies the on-site use of "social networking" websites such as My Space and Facebook are strictly prohibited and/or filtered out using Websense or some such network product.

So truly, It sounds very much like nausea_malvarma's friends are all college kids about to get whacked by the reality of having to always use regular e-mail.

Oh, and one last thing, it isn't ad-hominem if it's both true and relevant to the discussion at hand.

Re:Yeah, right . . .

[jonaskoelker]

Try telling your boss or University sysadmin

So? The friends in question will grudgingly use email when they're forced, and use myspace for everything else, including communicating with friends.

Congratulations, you have... wait, not done anything about OP's problem.

Re:Yeah, right . . .

[xouumalperxe]

The argument wasn't ad hominem per se, but the way it was phrased left a sour taste in my mouth, feeling more like an attack on the OP's friends' credibility than an argument on the usage of e-mail.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[onedotzero]

For Windows versions, the current 'release' version of Opera (9.64) is 5.4MB. The beta (10.00b1) is 6.6MB. Firefox 3.0.11 is 7MB.

http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/firefox/ http://www.opera.com/download/get.pl?id=32022 http://www.opera.com/browser/download/?ver=10.00b1

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Vectronic]

It's completely idle excluding RSS/Email, those are useful/necessary processes, it' doesn't randomly start doing something unless it needs to is basically what I meant.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[SpazmodeusG]

Yeah those versions aren't Opera Unite. That's what i'm getting at. Those browser only versions are what people think of when they think of Opera. Small, fast and simple.

Opera Unite on the other hand is a much larger monolithic program with many unrelated features hanging off it. It has system services (that's how it keeps the web server up when you close the browser down) so it stays memory resident and uses resources even when you think you've closed the browser.

Interesting benchmark

[Jarlsberg]

It's interesting to see that Nginx performs so well in comparison with the LAMP setup. I've setup a server at home using Nginx (http://magicode.org/) and it really performs well, even though it's a very modest server (P4, 256MB ram, slow drives, basically a 10 year old computer with parts added on).

Regarding Unite, will people simply be using it to offload larger files and images, or will it be a genuine platform for people with no access to hosting? It's an interesting experiment by Opera.

Re:Interesting benchmark

[mrboyd]

Marketing failure. You should have released SQLLiteAdm before trying to get ./ed :)

Re:Interesting benchmark

[Jarlsberg]

Haha, yeah, but it's still scheduled for release next week. And it's open source and free, so I'm not sweating about budgets or marketing.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox uses more than Opera on my system

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[onedotzero]

True. So really the size should be compared to other web servers, not other browsers.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Vectronic]

You can also filter them basically the same way AdBlock does... Opera has the "Blocked Content" (edit manually, or enter the "blocking" mode and just start clicking on stuff) which will do the whole .com/ads/* sort of blocking, you could even download, or use the your existing Adblock list (patterns.ini) with a bit of parsing/editing and using it for Opera (urlfilter.ini), and CSS and JS for more complex blocking

http://www.adsweep.org/
http://userstyles.org/styles/299

etc... quite a bit more manual, but it's not something you have to do very often, however it's essentially the same thing.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[worb]

You are comparing apples and oranges. The 10 MB version of Opera has 30 languages included. Compare the basic English version, and the story is quite different.

I don't know about memory usage. In my experience, Opera does better than any other browser there.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that it handles torrents as well.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Mishotaki]

Opera Unite is a 40% larger download than Firefox.

and how big is Firefox if you count all the extensions it needs to get as good as Opera?

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

That "test" you linked to is pathetic, the guy just opens a few tabs and declares a winner. How about some REAL usage? I can make Firefox crawl with my normal usage patterns. Try something like this:

After 3 days of regular use

Firefox 3.0.10 (with Adblock and NoScript) - 1.5GB memory, 50% (1 full core) intermittent CPU usage, even if it was just idling
Opera 9.64 - 350MB memory, 0% consistent CPU usage while idle

On every single PC I have used Firefox on, it always hoarded tons of memory after only a couple of days running until it gets to the point where it's spiking the CPU every 20-30 seconds for no reason. The only way to "fix" it is to exit and restart the browser. Opera has no such problem with resource management and I use it for a hell of a lot more than Firefox.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Mystra_x64]

My priority for any browser is standards compliance.

My browser of choice is Chrome.

Does not compute.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[shutdown -p now]

These days, as far as standards compliance goes, you really can't get it wrong unless you go for IE. Between all Gecko-based browsers, all WebKit-based browsers, and Opera, they all support everything that matters. Aside from that, Opera is pretty well-known for implementing web standards early, and actively promoting them. They are one of initiators and major drivers of HTML5, for example.

That you are comapring Opera and Apache...

[jotaeleemeese]

... tells me how correct the people that chastised you were.

I will repeat the advice: leave Apache alone, it is for people that know what they are doing (and having a point and click interface will not improve your understanding of what Apache is doing).

Opera Unite with Ubuntu

[zbharucha]

I tried to use the features offered by Unite on Opera 10 in Ubuntu (9.04). No dice. In fact, Unite doesn't even seem to exist in my install of Opera. What am I doing wrong?

Re:Opera Unite with Ubuntu

[Dude McDude]

I don't know what you're doing wrong, because everything works fine in 9.04 for me. Did you download the correct version from here?

Re:Opera Unite with Ubuntu

[zbharucha]

Really weird. I got the one from here here and that version simply didn't have the Unite stuff. Anyway, thanks for your help. Works now.

Websites from behind corporate firewalls

[orin]

One of the most fun things about Opera Unite is that it allows standard users to enable it and run websites from behind the corporate firewall. As long as Opera has been installed on a computer, a standard user doesn't need admin privileges to enable Unite. Most corporate firewalls won't block the traffic because the local version of opera will establish the session tunnel to the opera unite servers, through which all incoming web traffic will travel. More here: http://bit.ly/4gmpFv

Re:Websites from behind corporate firewalls

[DragonWriter]

One of the most fun things about Opera Unite is that it allows standard users to enable it and run websites from behind the corporate firewall.

If you are in an environment where you have both a restrictive corporate firewall and a loose corporate desktop administration, at least. But, since just about anything can be tunnelled over HTTP, most corporate environments are probably going to restrict what software can be installed on systems as well as having a firewall.

As long as Opera has been installed on a computer, a standard user doesn't need admin privileges to enable Unite.

If so, that just means that corporations, etc., are going to view Opera itself as a security hole (and rightly so.)

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think Opera has better standards compatibility than Chrome.

Can someone else honestly tag this...

[sega01]

as worstofslashdot? This article is only mildly interesting because I had never heard of Opera Unite before. But what is with such a low quality article getting on Slashdot? Slashdot is for people with half a brain. I don't care about "813 r/s"; saying that figure means nothing. And what hardware exactly? Reminds me of this post on reiserfs-devel (just the first two posts). At least he gives some comparisions later on, but a Slashdot article pointing to a witty comment in another article would probably make for a better read. Seriously though, what is happening to Slashdot? Digg sometimes is more consistent with good articles, and that is just sad. Slashdot is a great site overall and has its own unique taste, but it needs to stop pushing articles like this. Cheers! Yeah, I debated posting this as anonymous. Troll me down if you disagree.

Re:Can someone else honestly tag this...

[Dude McDude]

But what is with such a low quality article getting on Slashdot?

Do you come here often?

Re:Can someone else honestly tag this...

[hkmwbz]

I don't care about "813 r/s"; saying that figure means nothing. And what hardware exactly?

People with more than half a brain would have RTFA and seen the hardware specs in the original post. Funny how you talk about low quality, and yet your comment is obviously based on not bothering to read the thing.

Re:Can someone else honestly tag this...

[sega01]

You are right, I missed that part. Either way, 813 r/s is kind of useless until you stumble upon the basic hardware information, unless it is compared to other data. It also (maybe I'm wrong about this, too) does not say the operating system used, which could be the sole reason the caching is working well. In my opinion, the article is a bit much over excitement combined with too little exposed technical knowledge on behalf of the author. I'm sure Opera Unite has some use potential in many areas, but the article is simply not Slashdot quality.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Rockoon]

Um, the current "browser only" version that you are talking about does browsing, also has an email client, and instant messenger, and irc client, a bittorrent client, and so on...

Perhaps you should rethink your arguement, since Opera 9 is small, tight, and fast and is not a "browser only"

Beta builds come with a lot of cruft.. you know that, right? You didn't know?

I was really happy because...

[Damien1024]

For the longest time i've just wanted to setup something simple for getting my box at home to download stuff, not having NAT and UPNP and DynDNS kept me from doing this, in 30 minutes I hacked the blog example apart and got it to accept a name and link which I now export into a RSS feed which bittorrent can pick up, all running on the VERY slow laptop which I use for it, no RD or Log Me In or anything overblown like that just a happy lil downloading box... I guess I should password protect my lil app though otherwise I might find some really wierd stuff downloading on the box (at the moment it's plausable deniability, ha ha ha)

super super idea

[cinnamon colbert]

I think I'm the target customer, and i think putting a web server in the browser is a fabulous idea.
The market logic is as follows: people like me, who don't know anythiing about web server technology, or php or mysql, except that a lot of really cool software requires this stuff. Many times I personally have tried to install things like mysql or whatever, and the language and gui and whole gestalt is just totally wrong - orienteted to the tech expert, not the non specialist.

I think putting a web server in a browser could spark a real huge change in the way people like me - I'm the sort of guy who is first to try the software, the sort of guy who got everyone to use firefox, the sort of guy people come to when they need a utility - interact with their computers.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[dreemernj]

I want the same thing. That's why I use Opera. I think Chrome is pretty good, I've used it quite a bit, but I was under the impression it supported all the webkit specific CSS hacks and embracing and extending CSS is something I frown upon ;-)

For standards support, both in the browser and fighting to get recognition for standards as well as helping to define them and improve them, you can't get much better than Opera.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera Unite on the other hand is a much larger monolithic program with many unrelated features hanging off it. It has system services (that's how it keeps the web server up when you close the browser down) so it stays memory resident and uses resources even when you think you've closed the browser.

When you close Opera ALL of the Unite services you are running close with it. Everything goes through Opera.exe; there are no '"system services".

It's a fuckin browser

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a fuckin browser with an addon that lets people share their files. Not a replacement for apache or something in almost all cases - if they are being used interchangably (or if you are using opera where something else shoudl be used, eg apache) you have a problem.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[pbhj]

It doesn't have ABP afaik. It does have in-built adblocking that can be used with wildcards. Presumably those rules are held in a file somewhere that you could just wget from someone else. The blocking mechanism is quite nice too, right-click and choose "block" the page changes with a menu bar (for fine tuning) and with blocked items crossed out, just click on bits you want to block and it adds a wildcard for that item.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[pbhj]

Opera has always been good for standards compliance (and for implementing things early). I do testing on it with website designs and have rarely found I needed to debug something because Opera was doing something wrong, indeed (like FF) it's more an indicator that I've dropped an error into the code than anything else.

Chrome is only in my test regime as a "looks fine" check as my clients don't have large chrome userbases.

how bad it can be

[daserzw]

Maybe it is just my bad attitude, but there is something I can't really understand: it seems that Opera Unite is by far the slowest web server around, so why the guy has to say that it does an "impressive 800 requests per second" or that it uses "very smart file I/O!", well what if it doesn't? I mean, have you read what happens when you do more than thirteen connection (thirteen not 2^32)? The article should be renamed "Opera Unite benchmark: you won't believe how bad it can be..."! cheers

Re:how bad it can be

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously misinformed troll is obvious.

Misleading and not useful at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Benchmarking is difficult, Benchmarking is work, Benchmarking is tough, Benchmarks have to be done for a particular kind (sort) of applications. I think the ones mentioned here have different aims. At least a benchmark should be done by a technically skilled person. Regarding the goals of the given software packages I completly agree with the previous poster "Steel Realm"

citation:
"Since Opera uses only 1 proccess and therefore - only 1 core . . . "
Oops . . . really wrong, at least the way it's written (what about these 13 threads?)

apache + php + mysql VS. unite + file I/O
Strange comparison - I let one program directly write to the local harddisk and the other one has to write to a database (however, I guess on the same machine)

13 concurrent connections == heavy load?
Nope - definetly not. However, I have to admit that 13 concurrent connections *can* result in heavy load. Normally this is not the case. As soon as you have a dedicated db server there is some additional latency (no matter how fast the network is), which makes the time/request longer. This doesn't mean the webserver has (really) more to do, it just means that some of these connections are waiting for results from the db machine. Webservers are desinged to handle much more concurrent connections (hundreds or thousands!)

citation:
"Opera Unite uses very smart file I/O! Even if you save data to file each request (simplest, but stupidest way to do it) - it still can push out very impressive 744 requests/second! (It probably means that this data is saved to memory and dumped only sometimes, smart move!)"
This smart move can become a major pain. What if you are writing some kind of logs and you are trying to figure out why your application crashed. Well let's have a look at the logs . . . hm . . . logging seems to have ended sometime before the interesting part would have started . . .. uhm . . . smart caching :(

I think this benchmark is worthless. And yes - I hate this kind of benchmarks

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[hkmwbz]

Opera Unite on the other hand is a much larger monolithic program with many unrelated features hanging off it.

Huh? Opera Unite is a web server inside a browser. It's part of the "small, fast and simple" Opera, which also happens to include an email client, chat client, BitTorrent, newsgroups, etc. What on earth makes just one more feature Opera "larger and more monolithic" exactly?

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[hkmwbz]

Latest public Opera: ftp://ftp.opera.com/pub/opera/win/1000b1/en/ (5.5 MB for the classic installer, 6.7 MB for the MSI)

Latest public Firefox: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/3.5rc2/win32/en-US/ (7.9 MB, a hefty 1.2 MB bigger than even Opera's bloated MSI, and 2.4 MB bigger than the classic installer)

And you were saying again?

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi

[hkmwbz]

Latest public Opera: ftp://ftp.opera.com/pub/opera/win/1000b1/en/ (5.5 MB for the classic installer, 6.7 MB for the MSI)

Latest public Firefox: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/3.5rc2/win32/en-US/ (7.9 MB, a hefty 1.2 MB bigger than even Opera's bloated MSI, and 2.4 MB bigger than the classic installer)

And you were saying again?