Opera 10.10 Released, Includes New "Unite" Tech

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Opera 10.10 Released, Includes New "Unite" Tech

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday November 23, 2009 @08:16AM from the but-does-it-live-in-the-cloud dept.

Opera 10.10 has been released, and with it their new "Unite" technology, which allows users to share content directly between all of their own devices. Unite wraps both web browser and web server into a single package in an attempt to change the way users think about their browser. "'We promised Opera Unite would reinvent the Web,' said Jon von Tetzchner, CEO, Opera. 'What we are really doing is reinventing how we as consumers interact with the Web. By giving our devices the ability to serve content, we become equal citizens on the Web. In an age where we have ceded control of our personal data to third-parties, Opera Unite gives us the freedom to choose how we will share the data that belongs to us.'"

262 comments

just friends, no facebook, no cloud by PizzaAnalogyGuy · 2009-11-23 08:16 · Score: 5, Funny

It's great that Opera Software understands the power of P2P like sharing between people. I dont want to have everything on sites like Facebook just so people can see them.

Let me give you an example.

If you're cooking your own pizza, you have the choice on what to put in it. Make it a normal pizza or a pan pizza? Make it square or round? What toppings to put on it? Unite allows you bake your own pizza in the heart of your pc, and you can choose what to put on it. Want ham? Fine! Want pineapples? Fine! Want tuna? Fine! Want pepperoni? Fine! What would you have as a sauce? Barbeque sauce! The widgets you install and enable are your toppings and you choose what you want to have.

What comes to the "from the but-does-it-live-in-the-cloud dept.", I personally dont want it to be in the cloud. Then I lose control over it. That would be like having a happening in your town square where everyone is ordered to bake their pizza. They bring it there, put it out and lose control over who eats it. Direct friend-to-friend model lets you control who eats your delicious pizza, or who even knows about it. And if that said pizza happens to be a bad one and it comes hunting you later, you can pull it off. Good luck trying to do that in the town square after people have ate your pizza already.

So what I'm basically saying is that *I* should be the one controlling my content, not some other site or cloud service. Unite makes that easy for people.
1. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by mjihad · 2009-11-23 08:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So what I'm basically saying is that *I* should be the one controlling my content, not some other site or cloud service. Unite makes that easy for people.
  On the other hand, it means that content on Unite is ephemeral and subject to the vagaries of hosting everything on one's computer(such as the information only being available while the PC is powered on and Opera is running, not 24x7). Also, does the app data stored on a computer running Unite survive a reinstall, which tends to happen often on Windows machines?
  
  --
  http://blogs.lns.kicks-ass.net/moonjihad/
2. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by webmistressrachel · 2009-11-23 08:23 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Despite being a shill account created by Opera Software, you are, nonetheless correct about hosting our own content. Problem is, we already have web servers, p2p, ftp etc. and they are stable, mature and bug-free. Why your entirely new, potentially untrustworthy integrated solution? It's hi-fi seperates vs. computer speakers again... see my other posts today... :-P
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
3. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by interkin3tic · 2009-11-23 08:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm confused, even though you made a pizza analogy (maybe there's a reason we stick with car metaphors). I from the summary and press release, I thought unite was mostly for sharing stuff between your devices, not with other people or as a social networking... thing... I was under the impression that there were plenty of, er, cloud services where you could put your files on the cloud and then share them with one person instead of everyone.
4. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by dave562 · 2009-11-23 08:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Or does Unite provide a way to find the content that other people have put up? I don't understand what market Opera is trying to target here. Anyone with the where-with-all to setup their own web server and the associated DNS host records and the like has probably already done so. The OP bashes on Facebook, but Facebook (and Myspace and whatever the other sites are) offers the person an ability to tell someone else, "Look me up on Facebook. My name is..." Does Unite offer the equivalent capability?
  It seems to me that the large majority of what people want to share online isn't their own content, but content that they come across. Facebook is the perfect example. It seems to be filled with links to YouTube, links to other webpages, and blogs and whatever else any particular person finds interesting and wants to share with their friends. Very rarely do the large majority of people want to share content that is uniquely theirs. The one big exception that I can think of is music. Myspace seems to have the lion's share of that market. And on the subject of music, who wants to eat the bandwidth costs of serving up music from their own computer when a site like Myspace, or YouTube or listentomymusicyo.com will do it for you, for free?
5. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by clone53421 · 2009-11-23 08:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You really think Opera created a shill /. account solely devoted to the heretofore unheard of pizza analogy?
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
6. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:43 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  You dare question webmistressrachel slave? Your suffering shall be legendary even on slashdot!
7. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by FlyingBishop · 2009-11-23 08:45 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Facebook and the like offer zero security. If you understand the risks of what happens on Facebook well enough to make an informed decision to put your stuff up there, you probably understand it well enough to throw up a quick web server.
  The social media have been a great equalizer in terms of access, but that's a double edged sword.
8. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by mcgrew · 2009-11-23 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm confused, even though you made a pizza analogy (maybe there's a reason we stick with car metaphors).
  Ok, you drive a hundred miles, wrap your frozen pizza in tin foil (much like our hats) and put it on the exhaust manifold. The result is... PIZZA!
  (and no, I'm not PAG. I think he used to be BadAnalogyGuy but that's just an ignorant guess)
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
9. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  sudo make me a sammich, bitch.
  Who let you out of the kitchen, anyway?
10. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  On the other hand, it means that content on Unite is ephemeral and subject to the vagaries of hosting everything on one's computer
  You must be new here - TO THE ENTIRE INTARWEB - if you honestly think that every single shred of corporate-hosted content isn't already volatile and at risk of disappearing at any moment at the whim of somebody you don't even know.
  The Web has ALWAYS been volatile. That is both a strength and a weakness. Right now the Web is thoroughly capitalistic in nature; are we proposing to fully socialize it, to the point of demanding that everything "submitted" to the Web instantly becomes public domain and forcibly archived somewhere for all eternity?
  The lesson you should learn is that if something you see on the Web is important to you, don't count on it being there a year from now: save a copy for your own damned self. Nobody else can read your mind and know that it's important to you and thus feel obligated to keep it anchored in the exact same spot because you'd prefer it. Regarding whether we should change the ownership of information once it's been made thus public, that's a (ongoing) debate for another place and time.
11. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by mjihad · 2009-11-23 08:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or does Unite provide a way to find the content that other people have put up? I don't understand what market Opera is trying to target here. Anyone with the where-with-all to setup their own web server and the associated DNS host records and the like has probably already done so. The OP bashes on Facebook, but Facebook (and Myspace and whatever the other sites are) offers the person an ability to tell someone else, "Look me up on Facebook. My name is..." Does Unite offer the equivalent capability?
  I think the idea is more to host your own stuff, such as your pictures or some other small app like the Fridge notes without having to muck around with DNS and servers and pasting the link to your friends over IM. That way you can tell your friends to leave you at note at an URL like http://macbook-win7.jfim.operaunite.com/fridge/ instead of having to sign up for yet another service for only one simple app.
  
  It seems to me that the large majority of what people want to share online isn't their own content, but content that they come across. Facebook is the perfect example. It seems to be filled with links to YouTube, links to other webpages, and blogs and whatever else any particular person finds interesting and wants to share with their friends. Very rarely do the large majority of people want to share content that is uniquely theirs. The one big exception that I can think of is music. Myspace seems to have the lion's share of that market. And on the subject of music, who wants to eat the bandwidth costs of serving up music from their own computer when a site like Myspace, or YouTube or listentomymusicyo.com will do it for you, for free?
  I don't think the purpose is to replace any serious hosting proposal, it's more of a share with a handful of friends thing.
  
  --
  http://blogs.lns.kicks-ass.net/moonjihad/
12. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 08:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Problem is, we already have web servers, p2p, ftp etc. and they are stable, mature and bug-free. Why your entirely new, potentially untrustworthy integrated solution? It's hi-fi seperates vs. computer speakers again...
  Exactly. Hi-Fi = sites you have to sign up for, upload, invite your friends to, get them to sign up, log in, etc. All you do with Unite is send them an URL to whatever they need, and it's done. Also, Unite is much, much easier to use than standard web servers, P2P, FTP, etc. And it can be added to with new application which can be installed with a single click.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
13. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by macraig · 2009-11-23 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That was me, but Thunderbird isn't behaving quite the same way with /. RSS feeds these days and it doesn't recognize logins, so comments made inside the RSS feed wind up being anonymous. It used to be that hitting Reply would spawn the browser, but not so any more; I don't know whether it's Thunderbird or Slashdot to blame for the change. It's not as practical as before, but maybe that's a good thing if it causes me to keep my trap shut more often?
14. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Stratoukos · 2009-11-23 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I thought unite was mostly for sharing stuff between your devices, not with other people or as a social networking... thing...
  It's neither or both, depending on how you use it. Basically it's what it advertises it is. A server. You get a URL for your pc (pc-name.username.operaunite.com) and you open services like file sharing. Anyone can go to that URL and see what services you are running, So, if you want you can advertise that URL making it something like a social network, where everyone can go there and leave messages, stream music from your pc or whatever else you are running. Or you can keep that URL for yourself and password protect everything, if you just want to share stuff between your devices.
  
  --
  It may be 7 digits, but at least it's a semiprime
15. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Lord+Ender · 2009-11-23 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Congrats on birthing one of the worst analogies ever posted to slashdot.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
16. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by webmistressrachel · 2009-11-23 09:04 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  That's not actually me! Flattering, though. Want to be my slave? ;-P
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
17. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by ErkDemon · 2009-11-23 09:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Potential Killer Application: sharing family photos with family. Almost everyone has a digital camera these days, but almost nobody (apart from SlashDot readers) has their own home server. A lot of people still try to share photos by email.
  It'd be interesting to see how they're handling security, though. Damn, now I'm going to have to download it.
  
  --
  Eric Baird
18. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  Depends, got a pic?
19. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by clone53421 · 2009-11-23 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Are there benefits?
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
20. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by plague3106 · 2009-11-23 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Actually that's one of the main reasons i use facebook...
21. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Put simply, all those computers can talk to each other. And they can be made to do so extremely easily. If you can't imagine the possibilities of that, you need to think some more about it :)
  If you check out some of the Unite apps, it isn't even necessarily about sharing.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
22. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Rockoon · 2009-11-23 09:24 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Anyone with the where-with-all to setup their own web server and the associated DNS host records and the like has probably already done so.
  You've already failed to comprehend. Maybe before you post a big-assed TL;DR, you take the time to know something about the subject your are blathering on about.. that way when we don't bother reading what you said, at least what you said applied to the subject.. even if we didn't read it.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
23. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by webmistressrachel · 2009-11-23 09:24 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  And this is the point in the conversation where we all get modded "-1 Offtopic". But yes, there are benefits. There must be, otherwise AC there wouldn't be extolling my virtues, would he? (or she, as the first replier implies).
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
24. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by tomhudson · 2009-11-23 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Check the documentation - your web browser is not really becoming a "web server" - your requests go through their proxy server at yourdevicename.yourusername.operaunite.com
  They've just wrapped xhmhttprequests (XHR) in their own custom javascript class, and provided a default proxy for it.
  http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-unite-developer-primer-revisited/#conceptsproxy
25. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by clone53421 · 2009-11-23 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  And this is the point in the conversation where we all get modded "-1 Offtopic".
  Meh. I was still going for funny.
  Also, I love it when my sig seems to perfectly complete my post.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
26. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by dave562 · 2009-11-23 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  I started my post with a question asking about what it was that Unite offered. Apparently despite your best attempts not to, you went ahead and read what I wrote none the less. I'm not sure what is the bigger fail... my failure to read the article, or your failure to follow your own precepts.
27. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 09:41 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Using /. without viewing the ads on it is stealing.
  You're one of those freetards blessed soul Rupurt Murdoch is railing against, aren't you?
28. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by macraig · 2009-11-23 09:49 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I take it that (a) you know absolutely nothing about RSS or (b) your tongue is planted firmly in your OTHER cheek where we can't see it?
29. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by nullchar · 2009-11-23 09:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And you require all of your family to join Facebook, click past their terms of service, and befriend each other?
30. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by ground.zero.612 · 2009-11-23 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  So what I'm basically saying is that *I* should be the one controlling my content, not some other site or cloud service. Unite makes that easy for people.
  On the other hand, it means that content on Unite is ephemeral and subject to the vagaries of hosting everything on one's computer(such as the information only being available while the PC is powered on and Opera is running, not 24x7). Also, does the app data stored on a computer running Unite survive a reinstall, which tends to happen often on Windows machines?
  I really love how the zealots throw unsubstantiated slander around when it comes to Windows.
  Either this guy is a complete retard, or is too thick-skulled to take some basic measures to ensure stability and reliability of a Windows system. For the record, I have 3 Windows workstations (XP, Vista, and 7). The XP box has a 280+ day uptime and has never had one of these 'reinstall often' things. Unless I have some "reinstall Windows gnomes" lurking about, that is the original install I did on it 4 years ago.
  I have, on the other hand, had to re-install Linux several times because of some stupid driver crashing hard (related to ATI video usually), dependency-hell, or to upgrade to the newest filesystem every 3-6mo.
  /rant
  
  --
  "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
31. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by easyTree · 2009-11-23 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  ...wrap your frozen pizza in tin foil (much like our hats)
  Not sure it's safe to wrap your noggin in aluminium foil - Aluminium is TOXIC
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
32. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 10:10 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Yeah but what about security?
  I'm playing around with it right now and there appears to be no real security whatsoever. No SSL connections and the authentication page is wide open for anyone on the line to snag your password.
  Also, it appears to transfer all your content through an intermediate Opera server. So I'm not sure how that's you controlling your data. You're handing it all off to Opera and they give it to the final destination. So basically Opera gets to snoop on everything you're doing (plus your ISP and anyone else in-between since none of the connections are encrypted).
  Now I could be wrong since I have only started to look at it, but it seems that security or privacy weren't big concerns even though they're touting "personal control." Ha
33. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by commodore64_love · 2009-11-23 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  If you're cooking your own pizza, you have the choice on what to put in it. Make it a normal pizza or a pan pizza? Make it square or round? What toppings to put on it? Unite allows you bake your own pizza in the heart of your pc, and you can choose what to put on it. Want ham? Fine! Want pineapples? Fine! .....you choose what you want to have.
  Brilliant.
  Now why don't people apply the same thought-pattern to government?
  Why do they insist upon a "one size fits all" centralized program?
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
34. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by commodore64_love · 2009-11-23 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Ahhh so it's like the 2010 version of those old self-hosted BBSes! Now I understand. This means I could setup my own private forum where people would want to come chat on my computer. Or host my own files for them to download. Or... um... I don't know what else. Play games?
  On second thought the days of BBSes, where we visited other people's computers, were actually quite dull.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
35. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. Cool. Thanks for the input.
36. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by assert(0) · 2009-11-23 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think I just came.
  
  --
  (founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
37. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Runaway1956 · 2009-11-23 11:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The target market is the not-tech savvy home user. Grandma wants to see the newest pics of her grandchildren getting a bath, and styling the new clothes she sent to them. Momma ain't real tech savvy, but she can put those pics into a folder, then invite her mother (in-law) to view the folder via unite. Easey-peasey. There's no need to put those pics on MySpace, Facebook, or any other hosting site - they are private. In fact, putting naked baby cheeks on the web just MIGHT get someone arrested for child pornography - the laws are crazy in some places.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
38. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by icebraining · 2009-11-23 11:20 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  You have to use Opera to use their proxy system, to access the Unite contents. All the traffic goes through them. The difference is that at least Facebook hosts the files and provides bandwidth for you. Unite is lose-lose.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
39. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by w0mprat · 2009-11-23 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Can someone please explain a pizza analogy in a car analogy??
  
  --
  After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
40. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by dave562 · 2009-11-23 11:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That makes a lot of sense. It fills that niche for data that is too big or otherwise burdensome to share via email, but that you don't want to put on a site like Flickr, YouTube or the like.
41. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by uglyduckling · 2009-11-23 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  How is this any better? You can already mark photos on Flickr as private.
42. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Not so much Hi-Fi separates vs Computers, rather Hi-FI Separates vs cheap all-in-one stereos.
  Guess what sold more ?
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
43. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by w0mprat · 2009-11-23 11:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Definate killer application: Cloud-like sharing services but you retain total control of your data . It's also stunningly easy. It is by far the fastest set up of a webserver I've seen. You fire up opera, log in with a opera account, choose folders for sharing, start the server or other services. You then send your friends http://username.computername.operaunite.com/
  
  It even seems to be a pretty good performing web server, opera are also know for their good attitude towards security. I think it's killer.
  
  --
  After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
44. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 11:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  What protections does the cloud afford ?
  - Privacy ? uncheck.
  - ownership rights ? uncheck (woman's personal photo used in an add)
  - data security ? uncheck (see Sidekick)
  Any connexion to the Web is a conduit for malware: Bittorrent, IE... Because MS regularly makes a hash of things does not mean that any connexion is unsafe. Please, prove your point.
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
45. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Answer 1: yes. Look me up on Unite, my name is...
  Even easier: let me mail/IM you my site's adress, you just need a browser to view it, no need to sign up for Yet Another Social Website. Sames as you have a mail adress which anyone can use with any mail client, you have a unite adress which anyone can use with any browser. Convenient, eh ?
  Answer 2: You pay for your bandwidth ? Mine is free, and the low volume on a personal site is negligible anyway.
  Answer 3: In case I DO have personal content, I don't have to relinquish my rights to it by posting it on someone else's websites. I'll even have true control over who gets to see it, be able to take it offline if I want too, to back it up...
  Answer 4: if I just want to hyperlink someone else's content.. guess what, I can !
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
46. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 11:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  My PC is powered and running 24x7.
  If you lose all your data everytime you reinstall Windows... I've got one trick to teach you.. it's a brand new concept, called partitions... And another one, called backups... bleeding edge stuff !
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
47. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Runaway1956 · 2009-11-23 11:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yes, you can mark your stuff as "private" in a lot of places - but they are still hosted in the cloud. I haven't poked far enough into Opera Unite, but I don't think they cache your pics. Meaning, once Grandma gets those pics, you can remove them from your shared photo, and no one else is going to get them, either from Google cache, a guessed password, or whatever. Besides - will Flickr share your warez files, or your ripped MP3's? It seems that Unite will share ANYTHING you want to share.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
48. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  This is probably the worst analogy ever, and the worst way to make the point that Opera gives you back ownership, control, and security, that "the cloud" took away.
  Welcome back, backups, freely defined access rights, copyright @myself, not some photosharing site, on my own stuff !
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
49. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by webmistressrachel · 2009-11-23 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  My analogy was meant to mean services (ftp, http etc) = hi-fi and integrated (snazzy new lo-fi opera) = mini system. Mix and match vs. done for you. And they sold more because they were cheaper, not better. There is still a market for "proper" hifi. And lots of second hand gear for discerning people like me, available cheaply. So everybody wins in the end. I think?
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
50. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, we do agree. 2% of the population want to build their own, 98% want ready-made, so the appearance of a ready-made solution that does not compromise your rights, your control, your data, is very good news.
  But disagree with your new = untrustworthy assertion. Anything is untrustworthy, even very old stuff like Windows... I think a priori trustworthiness for a new product is more a matter of company track record, and Opera's isn't too shabby. Do you consider all cars unsafe until they've been on the roads for years ?
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
51. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by tftp · 2009-11-23 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  If you understand the risks of what happens on Facebook well enough to make an informed decision to put your stuff up there, you probably understand it well enough to throw up a quick web server.
  Yes. But that means that 99% of people will use Facebook and 1% of people will NOT use Facebook. Out of that 1% maybe 10% will want to share a file using Unity. So Opera apparently made a business decision to go for the 0.1% of the market. I wish them luck, they will need it.
52. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by dave562 · 2009-11-23 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  How does it get around the persistence issue? Most home users have dynamic IP addresses.
53. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by tftp · 2009-11-23 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of people still try to share photos by email.
  Are they somehow failing at that, or what? Where is the problem?
54. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  http://yourname.unite.opera.com/ and your local copy of opera regularly pings their server.
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
55. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 15:40 · Score: 0
  
  So what I'm basically saying is that *I* should be the one controlling my content, not some other site or cloud service. Unite makes that easy for people.
  Ooooh! I thought you were basically saying that we could have some of your pizza.
56. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by quickOnTheUptake · 2009-11-23 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  From your link:
  
  Note that the proxy is really only a fallback mechanism to ensure that data can be delivered in case NAT traversal fails.
  
  --
  Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
  Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
57. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Rick+the+Red · 2009-11-23 15:51 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  So what I'm basically saying is that *I* should be the one controlling my content, not some other site or cloud service. Unite makes that easy for people.
  Yeah, but it's Opera, so the Chinese Government is the one controlling your content.
  
  --
  If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
58. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by tomhudson · 2009-11-23 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  Psst ... you still need the proxy to initiate every transfer. That's not a real web server in the real world. A real web server opens a socket and listens for incoming connections - and you can get to it directly by typing the protocol (http or https) IP address and (where it's listening on a non-standard port) the port number. eg: http://23.45.67.89:8000/
  It's a step in the right direction, but only a step, towards a more distributed web.
59. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by bleedingpegasus · 2009-11-23 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Naked cheeks as pornography? Lucky country - we think its a hard core porn to show your face here...
60. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by bleedingpegasus · 2009-11-23 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  Any connexion to the Internet is a conduit for malware... Please, prove your point.
  There i fixed that for you... And yes - don't forget your tin foil hat... and unplug that cable after using your terminal...
61. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by quickOnTheUptake · 2009-11-23 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Psst ... you still need the proxy to initiate every transfer.
  I guess in as much as you need a DNS server for every transfer, unless you are using raw IPs.
  
  A real web server opens a socket and listens for incoming connections
  That is what Opera Unite does.
  
  you can get to it directly by typing the protocol (http or https) IP address and (where it's listening on a non-standard port) the port number.
  Haven't tested it myself, but I would be surprised if you couldn't do that with unite. Unless of course you are behind a firewall that wasn't configured to forward Unite traffic. But then again, there aren't many servers that work well behind unconfigured firewalls.
  
  --
  Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
  Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
62. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by erayd · 2009-11-23 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  You could try subscribing!
  
  --
  Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
63. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by erayd · 2009-11-23 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  Quite apart from anything else, this means that you are running an ancient, unpatched system...
  
  --
  Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
64. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by BlueWaterBaboonFarm · 2009-11-23 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Just a slight correction, I believe it is http://yourdevicename.yourname.operaunite.com./ At least that what it is for me.
65. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 19:12 · Score: 0
  
  UMMM.....Apple did this already and it is call Bonjour and it is available for Windows through iTunes
66. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 19:28 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Bonjour is spyware. It installs without asking or notification alongside various Apple software, hordes CPU/RAM and offers absolutely nothing that couldn't already be done with Windows networking.
67. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 20:12 · Score: 0
  
  Or just use a service like OnlinePizza where you can specify which ingredients should be on your pizza and use the time you gained on something worthwhile.
  http://onlinepizza.se/
68. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, Bonjour could not be used to host chats, interactive whiteboards, stream music with a simple web browser, etc.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
69. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by somersault · 2009-11-23 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  The one big exception that I can think of is music.
  And photos, writing and other art. And even videos.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
70. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by somersault · 2009-11-23 21:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Opera apparently made a business decision to go for the 0.1% of the market
  It's about time they focused on growing their userbase!
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
71. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by somersault · 2009-11-23 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  That way you can tell your friends to leave you at note at an URL like http://macbook-win7.jfim.operaunite.com/fridge/ [operaunite.com] instead of having to sign up for yet another service for only one simple app.
  
  jfim's page
  Send message to
  You must be logged in to send a private message. If you're not a registered member, please sign up.
  I don't think you're making your point very well. Why not just give people your email address rather than getting them to sign up to yet another service? Also, your computer is apparently off just now. So people will only even be able to see content you've shared when your personal computer is switched on. I don't really see it catching on, I'd prefer to set up an always on server for this kind of thing. But at the moment I'm happy with the multitude of social networking sites out there for whenever I actually feel like sharing something.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
72. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Rhaban · 2009-11-23 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  You need to use opera to share, not to access someone else's content.
73. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 22:23 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks! I choked on my water...
74. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by uglyduckling · 2009-11-23 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmmm, I see the idea. Really, when I'm chatting with someone on Skype / MSN / whatever then I use the file send feature to send those files, so then they're not hosted anywhere at all. Or I just email. I think this feature will die before it's even got going - advanced users will have their own hosting; novice users will get very confused, thinking they've 'uploaded' something to somewhere and then turn off their PC. Grandma will then try to access the photos and get fed up when it doesn't work.
75. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by fbjon · 2009-11-23 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Opera Unite is really just a (semi)permanent link to your computer. Anyone going to computername.username.operaunite.com/whiteboard will get a DNS record pointing to your current IP. All the real happens on your computer.
  Also, sharing with Opera Unite is way easier than any kind of uploading to some other server, only for someone else to download it from there, instead of just downloading it immediately from you. In other words, it's not a person-to-world tool, it's a person-to-a-few-people tool.
  
  --
  True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
76. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-24 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  Except they'll drop their 3-4Mb files straight off the camera and serve them through a (mostly) max 1Mbit upload... No thanks...
77. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by KibibyteBrain · 2009-11-24 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  often on Windows machines...for geeks. I reinstall my Windows installations historically about once a year. Recently its probably a bit longer than that. But I have colleagues who are on the same install/upgrade chain from about 2001. I have a Windows Server install back to 2003 that I've also used as a workstation that runs fantastically. I have had better uptime on my own personal systems than any web service I have ever used.(of course, coming with its own cavets) Many web services didn't even exist then. Many more have been born and died in that time. I don't see how cloud computing is really a solution to longevity unless you really have faith in the current state of web service business models. Frankly, I think there will be a second bubble burst when people realize that internet advertising is not valuable or effective enough to sustain the entire advertising supported web. Long term, hosting your own services is silly. We are about 1-2 years away from web service platforms from Amazon, Microsoft, etc making web services a more perfected medium by making TCO of one scalable. It would be much more efficient to have them centrally managed and on high uptime systems while not using up tons of idle resources. However, we geeks often look at what is possible with current technology and not what we can actually do TODAY. For 2009, I'm not so sure hosting your own personal server is so terrible for certain things. After all, only when you have the Database and Backups for your web apps are you really in control of anything.
78. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by drinkypoo · 2009-11-24 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  The target market is the not-tech savvy home user
  And that is why this is doomed to fail; even relatively advanced home users have been known to have problems making firewall rules (especially since no uPnP IGD server OR client mechanism I have ever seen is actually effective - I got one to make some rules for a Microsoft game running on XP once, but they were WRONG and didn't work) and in this day and age most everyone has a firewall from their ISP. The clueless home user won't even be able to get this thing to work in the first place.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
79. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by clone53421 · 2009-11-24 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  LOL, it looks like you did get tagged with Offtopic, and I for some reason did not. I’m sorry.
  Mods, show some sympathy here... if you don’t think it’s funny, collapse the thread and move on, eh?
  (Braces for impact...)
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
80. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by jp10558 · 2009-11-24 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yes. My mom fails at sharing photos by e-mail all the time because
  a) her camera takes photos that are ~ 4.5MB each
  b) she wants to send 5-10 photos out
  c) e-mail servers tend to cap at 10MB of attachments.
  She has no idea how to compress photos, it's very confusing for her and she can't do it.
  Now, whether she could set up or use unite is another question, but yes, I certainly know some users with problems e-mailing photos.
  
  --
  Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
81. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by clone53421 · 2009-11-24 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Not that I disagree with your post, but I do disagree with the claim that Facebook offers zero security. It’s just that most people don’t understand security, and don’t properly use the security features it does offer: friends-only albums, restricting the amount of profile information that is visible to non-friends, etc.
  Oh, and while we’re on the topic of Facebook/security, and particularly, knowing how to exercise it:
  That picture you saved off Facebook? The one with the funny filename, with all the numbers in it? Rename it. (Well, what did you think those numbers were?)
  A picture lifted off someone’s Facebook account is as good as a link to their profile, unless you rename it. The filename contains both their user id and the photo id. Furthermore, it’s also as good as a link to the album it came out of, unless the privacy settings for that particular album are set to prevent non-friends from seeing it. Even if you can’t see the user’s entire list of albums, you can sometimes still get into the album the particular photo came from.
  If the photo’s filename begins with the letter “n”, the number immediately following is their UID, and the next number (after the underscore) is the photo id ($PID).
  www.facebook.com/profile.php?id={$UID}
  www.facebook.com/photo.php?id={$PID}&uid={$UID}
  If the filename does not begin with the letter “n”, the second number (they’re delimited by underscores) is actually a combination of the UID and the photo id ($CID).
  www.facebook.com/profile.php?id={$CID}
  will redirect to:
  www.facebook.com/photo.php?id={$PID}&uid={$UID}
  from which you can then get
  www.facebook.com/profile.php?id={$UID}
  The photo.php page might sometimes tell you the content is unavailable (if the user has set the privacy for the album to friends-only, I guess). However, you can still get their public search listing from the profile.php link. Note that someone’s profile visibility to logged-in users is not necessarily the same as their visibility to non-logged-in users. However, there is no way for a Facebook user to know that you searched for them or visited their profile, so there is no risk in logging in to visit their profile.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
82. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Hal_Porter · 2009-11-24 03:51 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  If this analogy were an analogy it would be an analogy that described a situation that wasn't at all analogous to the situation it was attempting to analogize.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
83. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Hal_Porter · 2009-11-24 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  This. I've got several friends that are smart but not at all technical and they regularly send out emails with huge images in them.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
84. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by ground.zero.612 · 2009-11-24 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Quite apart from anything else, this means that you are running an ancient, unpatched system...
  You wrongly make the assumption that that somehow matters.
  
  --
  "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
85. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by plague3106 · 2009-11-24 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  If they want to see the pictures, yup. Its easier for me to upload them once than clog my email trying to send them, and I can pull them if I want. Nevermind that most people are signing up on their own anyway.
86. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by tftp · 2009-11-24 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  her camera takes photos that are ~ 4.5MB each
  Nobody should foist 4.5 MB images onto anyone, this is not a format for distribution regardless of how you do it. The problem needs to be fixed where it originates: you need to configure her camera to default to a more reasonable format. I can understand taking raw images if you are a professional, but then you'd be importing them right into Photoshop and you'd know what to do with them.
  But if you or your mother are not professionals that need every pixel then you should change the settings on the camera. You should end up with a JPEG that is anywhere from 200 to 300 kB, and you can't see any loss of quality in that. Also the flash card in the camera will hold more of those.
87. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by DragonWriter · 2009-11-24 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Definate killer application: Cloud-like sharing services but you retain total control of your data.
  What's cloud like about it? It doesn't feature abstracting physical servers or dynamic provisioning, so its nothing like a cloud. Its a local server, so I suppose you could say "remote web hosting like", since its just like that, except that the content is locally hosted, and only the URL is someone elses.
  Its an easy to configure web server plus a service -- that you don't control any more than you control "cloud" services you might use -- for mapping operaunite URLs to your computer. Its a nice tool/service, but I don't see any reason it should have any relationship to a browser. And, if its a popular kind of service, I expect something like it will be rolled into common OS's in not too long.
88. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by jp10558 · 2009-11-24 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think we changed the default on her camera, I know I didn't. I don't think she could. I originally would have worried about printing the images, but seeing as she hasn't done that, I'll look into this suggestion.
  
  --
  Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
89. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-24 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  the word is connection. connexion looks stupid.
90. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by shird · 2009-11-25 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's where it makes sense to use Unite - it has firewall and NAT traversal techniques built-in, with the help of the Opera servers.
  
  --
  I.O.U One Sig.
91. Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud by drinkypoo · 2009-11-26 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Big Brother is watching? So much for geek appeal. (Did not RTFA)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
ISPs won't like this by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

A lot of TOS cite that you cannot use your connection as a server. Other ISPs simply block all P2P traffic.
The best way, as of right now, is to sign up at a Web Hosting provider where you host your own website instead of relying on something like Facebook.
1. Re:ISPs won't like this by sopssa · 2009-11-23 08:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  ISP's wont care about it. They only do if you start running some heavy traffic stuff on it. Here in Scandinavia that has been standard clause in the TOS for ever, but I've never got any saying from ISP about it (even while actually running a high traffic website on my 100mbit).
  Lots of people also run gaming servers, even more so because for example MW2 is now automatically choosing one of the players as a listen host. P2P clients also usually start a listening server, technically, and so do all the IM clients when sending a file and so on.
  They wont have any problems with this.
2. Re:ISPs won't like this by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 09:30 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Ditto in Canada. Check Shaw's page on P2P - http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/CustomerCare/InternetSupport/Residential/Sharing/PeerToPeer.htm
  Shaw is a big corporate ISP, with a 'no server' TOS clause, and they're fine with P2P. What's more they're refreshingly sensible, because they tell their clients what P2P is and how to do it securely.
3. Re:ISPs won't like this by PeanutButterBreath · 2009-11-23 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Here in Scandinavia that has been standard clause in the TOS for ever. . .
  Hey, that's great. In the US ISPs most certainly will care about it because they believe they are entitled to profit from any addition of features or functionality, period.
4. Re:ISPs won't like this by owlstead · 2009-11-23 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they don't. They probably don't even know about it. The second that it becomes a problem though (infection, illegal content - basically anyone firing a complaint) they now have a club to hit you with.
  My ISP (xs4all.nl) however has a very liberal TOS. Basically you can do with your link whatever you want (I don't think you may sell it to others, but that's about it). Companies use it for cheap web access for instance. And they've got all shell accounts, web disks, newsserver, configurable filters, SMTP functionality etc. etc. Many people only compare bandwith, but their reliability and extra services is why they (IMHO) are pretty cheap.
  There don't seem to be too many of those kind of providers left.
5. Re:ISPs won't like this by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 11:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Can I give you my Mom's phone number so you can explain her how to do that ?
  With Unite, she was up and running in 20 minutes.
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by bogaboga · 2009-11-23 08:22 · Score: -1, Troll

Despite low usage numbers after more than a decade in existence Opera folks continue to spew out features. Good for them but I still won't touch their product.
Nuff said.
1. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Yvan256 · 2009-11-23 08:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But why won't you try Opera? Is there a good reason? Is it because it's closed-source? Is it because at the beginning they were not offering their browser for free?
  FWIW, Opera is a fine browser, much better than IE, on par with Firefox and Safari. Also runs very nicely on a Nintendo DSi, given the limits of the system.
2. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by colourmyeyes · 2009-11-23 08:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  By this line of reasoning, would you agree with the following?
  
  Despite low desktop usage numbers after more than a decade in existence Linux folks continue to spew out features. Good for them but I still won't touch their product.
  
  Nuff said.
  
  --
  My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
3. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by wizardforce · 2009-11-23 08:31 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I have. It's on my system right now along with Firefox, Konqueror and Chrome. Addons are the critical component in which these other browsers than Firefox are very much behind. I would ditch Firefox in an instant if Chrome or Opera or Konqueror managed to be as flexible as Firefox but they're not... yet.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
4. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sopssa · 2009-11-23 08:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  And I would even say that it's a better browser than Firefox or Safari, but that's of course everyones own opinion. The robust interface and feeling on how fast things work is just good though. Firefox doesn't really come close with it.
  That being said, Opera doesn't really even have low usage numbers. It has over 50% marketshare in Russia and CIS countries, being the #1 browser. It has really wide deployment on mobile phones, Wii's, other electronic equipment and hotel tv's and so on.
  Actually making a better profit than Mozilla too, so I don't see why they wouldn't keep developing new things (and Opera has usually been the first one to actually develop new browser features)
  Mozilla Foundation: Revenue $75 million (4 employees)
  Opera Software: Revenue $89 million (675+ employees)
5. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by TeXMaster · 2009-11-23 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Despite low usage numbers after more than a decade in existence Opera folks continue to spew out features. Good for them but I still won't touch their product.
  I wonder why. It's not open source but it's still gratis and technically superior to anything else I've tried.
  
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
6. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by wizardforce · 2009-11-23 08:36 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Linux doesn't go out of its way to please the Chinese government with its new update; Opera did. Linux isn't closed source either. The two aren't in the same boat here.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
7. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting perspective. I used to use Opera all the time, until early betas of Firefox came out. I can see value in providing p2p in a browser for some circumstances, however, look at the given example of sharing lots of pictures. Direct is fine, if you've got good upload speeds and the 2nd person has a good path between you. But uploading them to Google, or some other host, has the advantage of probably faster download speeds from them to the 2nd person, as they most likely have a fatter pipe. Add in a 2nd person, and you've only had to upload once. And you don't have to worry about what security holes you've opened up on your machine, or what other subfolders you happened to share by mistake.
8. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by TeXMaster · 2009-11-23 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have. It's on my system right now along with Firefox, Konqueror and Chrome. Addons are the critical component in which these other browsers than Firefox are very much behind. I would ditch Firefox in an instant if Chrome or Opera or Konqueror managed to be as flexible as Firefox but they're not... yet.
  Most of the features that are provided by add-ons to Firefox are built-in to Opera. Additionally, Opera allows User JavaScript, and even supports GreaseMonkey script. So ... is it just a matter of the principle and theory of flexibility, or are you actually missing some specific function that is provided by add-ons in FF and not provided in Opera?
  
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
9. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  Despite low usage numbers after more than a decade in existence Lamborghini factories continue to spew out features. Good for them but I still won't touch their product.
  Nuff said.
10. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by CannonballHead · 2009-11-23 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  ... and they employ more people. +1 Economy points. :) ;)
11. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:47 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Y'know when I first saw this I thought "hey cool, if only it was on some other browser"...
  What is it about Opera exactly that has the stink of death on it? I mean it went through phases where it wasn't free and had embedded ads in it, as far as I know those days are long gone. So if that's the case what gives?
  My current running theory is that it just has an unfortunate name. When I think of "Opera" I think of a long, boring musical experience in Italian.
12. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by the+linux+geek · 2009-11-23 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  What? The government of China told Opera to change things? That's strange, I would have thought the democratic government in Taipei would do better than that.
13. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by gmuslera · 2009-11-23 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  I've been ever fan of Opera innovations, because i know i will probably see them in my future, no matter in which browser. But the new additions looks dangerous. Are open the field tie browser/user content to the maker of the browser (the 10gb of shared photos and opera turbo mean opera servers and services behind, and not so sure about the "embedded" server) and if well they could do that right or wrong, are practically forcing the other players in the browser arena to do the same, and not all are so well behaved.
14. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by clone53421 · 2009-11-23 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, then on the other hand when I saw it I though “boy, I sure hope Firefox doesn’t suddenly get the irresistible urge to copy this silly feature”.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
15. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 08:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Where did you get the idea that Opera went out of its way to please the Chinese government? They were forced to comply with the government's demands. That's quite different from your insane lie.
  Someone asked: "How does not having any kind of access to Opera Mobile/Google/etc helps the people in China, compared to having a censored version?"
  I haven't seen a response to that yet.
  What were Opera's alternatives?
  Refuse? They would be thrown in jail, and the Chinese office would be history.
  Pull out? How would that help anyone? It would just deprive the Chinese people of another way to access the web. The more ways to access the web, the more work for the government when they are trying to censor it. There needs to be as many ways to access the web as possible, because the more there are, the more difficult it is to police, and the easier it is to poke holes in the firewall. You are clearly blinded by your own ignorance.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
16. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by mrclisdue · 2009-11-23 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Revenue != profit
  GM's revenues are in the billions of dollars, but they've been losing hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter for some time now....
  As far as Opera goes, I don't use it because it's not FLOSS, and yet, it could and should be.
  cheers,
17. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Darkness404 · 2009-11-23 08:56 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  The problems I have with Opera are manyfold.
  
  A) It is closed source. Yeah, its secure, but I'm sure a lot of it is security via obscurity, and the browser is about the main (close to only) easy way to exploit a typical system with a decent user, a firewall and no local attacks.
  
  B) Little to no add-ons.
  
  C) Too much work to get it how I like it. Firefox (along with IE, Konqueror and most others) comes how I want it little to no tweaking required. With Opera I have to move around toolbars, etc.
  
  D) It uses QT, not GTK. I use GNOME on Linux so using QT makes it look out of place and uses more resources.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
18. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  China? Open source? Out of scope. Opera and Linux (on the desktop) both have low usage numbers after more than a decade, so they are in the same boat here.
19. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  TripMaster Money, you realize that revenue is not profit, right?
  Mozilla is likely much more profitable. Each Mozilla employee can be thought as bringing in $18.75 million, versus a mere $132,000 for each Opera employee.
  Mozilla has much lower salary expenses than Opera, and given that salaries are often the largest expense of any business, it's easy to believe that Mozilla is significantly more profitable.
  That said, Mozilla clearly does make abundant use of the time of unpaid developers, which Opera does not do (since Opera is a real business).
20. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by AlexBirch · 2009-11-23 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Forced is relative. They chose to comply with the government to keep their product in that market, much like Google, Yahoo, etc.
  It's a great market, but you have to ask what your soul is worth (turns out mine is only 50 bucks and a copy of firefox).
21. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Those revenues for Mozilla are including revenues from MozCo, which employes a couple of hundred people.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
22. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  I spent far to long getting Firefox's tabbed browsing to behave the way I want (saving sessions that actually work, opening all new windows (yes ALL of them) in tabs instead). I'm much happier with Opera just working. I haven't seen any Addons that appeal to me. And I like being able to change skin without restarting the application.
23. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They chose to comply with the government to keep their product in that market
  No, they chose to comply in order to avoid trouble like arrests of their Chinese employees and such.
  But you didn't answer the part of my comment that dealt with how staying in the market helps the Chinese people, and how pulling out would be detrimental to their freedom. Again: More services = more work for the government = less oversight = more chances that there are holes in the firewall.
  As it happens, there are several ways to access the uncensored web through Opera Mini even after this. If Opera pulled out, these holes would be gone forever, and there would be no opportunities to open new ones. Your brain. Use it.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
24. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by mahsah · 2009-11-23 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Userscripts still are quite a bit more clunky on Opera, as is their adblocking option.
  Yes, they are both there, but adblock plus and greasemonkey on Firefox are much more functional and easy to use.
25. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by amicusNYCL · 2009-11-23 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Linux doesn't go out of its way to please the Chinese government with its new update; Opera did.
  1) Just out of curiosity, what demands could the Chinese government possibly have on an operating system? You don't need to censor an OS, it's the applications they're worried about.
  2) I wasn't aware that "Linux" is an entity that the Chinese government can make demands on, but what's the point of demanding that "Linux" make changes when the Chinese can just make their own?
  This is aside from the fact that the parent was comparing consistently low usage numbers instead of vague support for government ideologies.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
26. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by plague3106 · 2009-11-23 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Because for me, IE does the trick (and prior to 8, FF did). Its a browser, kind of a "so what" thing, as long as it works.
27. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by wizardforce · 2009-11-23 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's funny... I haven't heard anything about Firefox or Chrome doing what Opera did. Opera certainly had a choice. They chose to support the censorship in China in exchange for more market-share. Nokia and friends helped China to set up the firewall in the first place for the market-share too; are their actions excusable as well?
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
28. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That's funny... I haven't heard anything about Firefox or Chrome doing what Opera did.
  That's because neither Firefox nor Chrome work like Opera Mini. They are like Opera Mobile, but Opera Mini is a thin client which needs a server to handle websites, because that's the only way it can work on low-end phones.
  
  Opera certainly had a choice. They chose to support the censorship in China in exchange for more market-share. Nokia and friends helped China to set up the firewall in the first place for the market-share too; are their actions excusable as well?
  Why did you ignore the part where I very clearly explained how Opera pulling out would be detrimental to the Chinese people because they would lose a way to access the web, and the fewer services, the easier it is for the government to keep track and plug all holes. As it is today, there are in fact several ways to circumvent the firewall using Opera Mini. If Opera pulled out, they would be completely blocked, and those holes would disappear.
  Your view of the situation is simplstic, naive, and frankly, scary. I thought people were willing to use their brains!
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
29. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by AlexBirch · 2009-11-23 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm simply stating that we make choices. It's been a long, long time since I was forced to do something. Opera could have closed down its site and simply quit selling its browser in China. Just like Google could have.
  I would say it's a moot point to their freedom. The government will simply ban it, when it becomes a detriment. In addition to this, the government could just look at those with Opera as greater security threats.
  These people should be using BETTER software to get around the china holes.
  My entire point was simply use the proper language.
30. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by wizardforce · 2009-11-23 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  The Chinese government is detrimental to their freedom. If the internet gets to the point where the Chinese government feels that it doesn't have control, they'll throttle the hell out of it until they can control it. Using Nokia and Opera and any other corporate entity to accomplish the task.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
31. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  By the way, Google did what Opera did (or worse). They were forced to block Chinese people from their international search engine, and provide a censored version. As did Yahoo, Microsoft, and many other companies. But more services = more work for the government = more potential holes in the firewall = good for the Chinese people.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
32. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:29 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Fuck you. You keep ignoring the points I'm making. You are evidently only here to spew your pre-prepared garbage. You have yet to address the fact that more services = more work for the government = less oversight = more chances that there are holes in the firewall. How is the Chinese people better off with fewer choices and possibilities? They aren't.
  Opera pulling out would make it easier for the government to maintain control. Opera pulling out would do exactly nothing to prevent the firewall from working. Fuck you again for fucking spewing out your inane nonsense without even fucking addressing my points.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
33. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by wizardforce · 2009-11-23 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  1) red flag linux and green dam.
  2) Red Hat and friends could be restricted from offering support for their flavors of Linux unless X demand is met.
  3) Maybe so but I felt that it was worth noting a few things.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
34. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Blah blah blah.
  I just explained to you how Opera being completely shut down in Chine would have been detrimental to the freedom of the Chinese people, but you chose to ignore it and rant on.
  The government doesn't see Opera as a problem, but the fact is that people have already discovered several ways to work around the firewall in Opera Mini. The more services, the more potential holes, and the more difficulty for the government to enforce the firewall.
  Opera being completely blocked would not have helped at all. It would simply have deprived the Chinese people of choice and possible ways to access the uncensored web.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
35. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by wizardforce · 2009-11-23 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Noscript,CS Lite, Adblock, menu editing features, scrapbook etc... You *could* block ads and control cookies and javascript but it's not nearly so clean as Firefox's addons allow. To me, Opera reminds me of Gnome. Things can be done but it's not really designed to do the job efficiency.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
36. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  Then again, Linux as an entity never provided free uncensored web proxies for the Chinese people that they could be pressured to shut down in the first place, except in the general "every non-BSD server worth a damn runs it" kind of way.
  Now there's an idea for an unite app...
37. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by wizardforce · 2009-11-23 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly you've convinced me of the wrongness of my position with all the profanity and ad hominem attacks. China has significant control over the connections to its borders. They will not allow their walled garden to get out of their control unless the people fight them tooth and nail.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
38. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I notice that you once again ignored my points. I said "fuck you" because I'm sick and tired of dishonest people like you. The more services, the less control. Face the facts, and stop being an asshole.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
39. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Tubal-Cain · 2009-11-23 09:58 · Score: 1
  ...or are you actually missing some specific function that is provided by add-ons in FF and not provided in Opera?
  Last I checked?
  
  EasyList filter subscriptions. (ABP)
  Simple javascript whitelisting (& temporary whitelisting) from a statusbar button. (NoScript)
40. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by amicusNYCL · 2009-11-23 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  The Chinese government is detrimental to their freedom.
  If the Chinese people are content to live under that system without trying to affect change, who are you to say that they should have a different government? If the Chinese feel like their freedoms are being curtailed, isn't it their responsibility to do something about it, not the responsibility of Opera or Google or some random guy on Slashdot?
  I mean, we can sit here and talk about things the Chinese government has done or is doing, but at the end of the day the Chinese people are still content to live under that government. No one but the Chinese has the authority to say which government China should be run by.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
41. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  The most obvious answers is yes. Unless opera include everything under the kitchen sink, chances are it is missing something that firefox add-ons has to offer. Of course, it's in opera best interest NOT to include every feature (as many conflict). Not to mention the different ways a feature can be approached.
  Missing opera features as far as I'm aware of:
  No-script ability to easily change javascript on/off based on site.
  Easy menu to control greasemonkey scripts (it has the capabilities but it's barried within a few options) unlike a simple icon.
  Compact menu: icon to replace menu saving space
  Of course, this is specifically stuff that I find missing since i last did a quick check (opera 9 developing a cross-platform greasemonkey script).
  Having a specific feature doesn't mean it presented the way a user might like. Hence why you might see duplicates of the same feature for firefox plugins. Nothing wrong with opera method of no addon but that just means only a subset of people will like opera. I'm sure many firefox users who don't use addons or only use a few (of the more common) could easily switch to opera but that doesn't meant everyone will find the switch pleasant.
42. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by easyTree · 2009-11-23 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Opera also has a built in bittorrent client :D
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
43. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by TeXMaster · 2009-11-23 10:17 · Score: 1
  EasyList filter subscriptions. (ABP)
  Simple javascript whitelisting (& temporary whitelisting) from a statusbar button. (NoScript)
  I don't know about the former, but JS can be quickly enabled/disabled by pressing F12. You can also associate the toggle to a shortcut of your own preference.
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
44. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by TeXMaster · 2009-11-23 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Noscript,CS Lite, Adblock, menu editing features, scrapbook etc... You *could* block ads and control cookies and javascript but it's not nearly so clean as Firefox's addons allow. To me, Opera reminds me of Gnome. Things can be done but it's not really designed to do the job efficiency.
  I agree that the accessibility of some features really needs some work. My biggest complain in that regard is wrt the handling of UserJS files, for which you are essentially on your own.
  
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
45. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by easyTree · 2009-11-23 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's not Opera, it's people - they like the clunkiness of IE and Firefox - the massive amounts of wasted screen space - the lack of responsiveness. Try opening 75+ tabs in firefox without the universe grinding to a halt..!
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
46. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  And why do you think we care why you are not using Opera? Actually, you shouldn't use Opera, you are not part of its target audience. If you are the kind of person who has the time to spend hours upon hours tweaking extensions, settings and toolbar locations, you are probably way better off with some open sores browser.
47. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by wizardforce · 2009-11-23 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  If I remember correctly, F12 enables/disables javascript globally but not locally. You can't selectively disable javascript with F12. So if you go on a site and want to keep the site's javascript but not doubleclick's javascript, then you're SOL. Noscript is wasily configurable and doesn't need to be told every single time you visit a site.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
48. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  "Firefox (along with IE, Konqueror and most others) comes how I want it little to no tweaking required."
  Then why do you care if Opera has add-ons or not?
49. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by wizardforce · 2009-11-23 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the Chinese government's history of headshotting and crushing opposition under tanks, if you lived in China and opposed what the government was doing, would you be in any hurry to advertise that fact? The Chinese government is in the business of suppressing dissent with any and all means available. Don't assume that the government's existence is indicative that it's what the Chinese people want.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
50. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sopssa · 2009-11-23 10:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Right-click->Edit site preferences.. lets you edit those for individual sites. If you want a no-script like thing, disable global javascript and enable for sites you want it to function at.
51. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by commodore64_love · 2009-11-23 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  >>>Revenue != profit
  No but it does indicate how "strong" the browser is compared to Mozilla - essentially equal; not a little tiny nobody as the great-great-great grandparent had indicated.
  .
  >>>I don't use it because it's not FLOSS, and yet, it could and should be
  Why? Just because you say so? Yeah well I think you should give me yoor car and computer to replace my old junk. Fortunately for both you and Opera, private property is still private property, and people don't have to put stuff in the Public domain if they don't want to.
  Yes Opera "could" put their browser in FLOSS. But whether they "should" is THEIR decision, not yours, or the czar's, or the government's.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
52. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by wizardforce · 2009-11-23 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
53. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by icebraining · 2009-11-23 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Opera offers the same functionality built-in has thousands of addons? Then it must really be bloated.
  By the way, where is Vimperator, DownThemAll, DownloadHelper and support for DBus notifications on download completion?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
54. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by icebraining · 2009-11-23 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe in some ways, but it looses in flexibility for Firefox addon support. It may not mean much to you, but it does to a lot of people, including myself.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
55. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by amicusNYCL · 2009-11-23 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I don't buy it. There are, what, 1.3 billion people living in China? If the people revolted against the government there's not a lot the government could do about it. The fact that the government is able to put down an uprising indicates to me that the uprising does not have popular support, which further indicates that the people who are not supporting the uprising support the government. That's probably a safer assumption to make than assuming that I know what's best for the Chinese people.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
56. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by icebraining · 2009-11-23 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  the massive amounts of wasted screen space
  
  That can be solved with a magic little key called F11, and Vimperator and/or Mouse Gestures to control the browser. Besides, you can fully configure the bars, to the smallest detail (it's all CSS).
  
  Try opening 75+ tabs in firefox without the universe grinding to a halt..!
  At the same time? Sure. But I don't usually do that. Using the browser with 75+ tabs open is smooth, though.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
57. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, stick with IE, get yesteryear's features with very high "usage numbers" (sic). You won't be missed. Don't forget to eat all your meals at McDonald's, wear whatever is the fashion, watch Fox, and use Windows+Office on a Dell.
  You won't be missed.
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
58. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by mrclisdue · 2009-11-23 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  .>No but it does indicate how "strong" the browser is compared to Mozilla....
  Come back when you get a clue. Revenue is meaningless on its own. Realizing this would be a prerequisite to Business 101.
  >>I don't use it because it's not FLOSS, and yet, it could and should be
  >>>Why? Just because you say so?
  Yes, because I say so. That's my prerequisite for using any software. Am I not entitled to have my own conditions for software use, and to voice those OPINIONS?
  cheers,
59. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by gfody · 2009-11-23 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  Mozilla weave (bookmark/password sync), adblock plus, firebug and dictionary tooltip would be my necessities Anybody you ask will have an arbitrary list of a handful of extensions they must have. Is Opera's strategy to build-in every last one?
  
  --
  
  bite my glorious golden ass.
60. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by BhaKi · 2009-11-23 16:48 · Score: 1
  
  Refuse? They would be thrown in jail, and the Chinese office would be history.
  Could you give any real examples?
  
  --
  The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
61. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Samgilljoy · 2009-11-23 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, 250 people. One should also keep in mind that the corp is a fully owned subsidiary of the foundation, and thus not the same sort of entirely profit-minded machine as a regular corp.
62. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by TheMuon · 2009-11-23 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  I have to agree with the latter two examples but Opera is perfectly capable of the first. You disallow JS globally and enable it on individual sites.
  One thing to add to the list is a better adblocking system. You can add premade block content lists with Opera to serve the same purpose as adblock but it is not entirely trivial to do.
63. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  Real examples of what?
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
64. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by BhaKi · 2009-11-23 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  Examples of throwing software-makers into jail.
  
  --
  The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
65. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  Software-makers? Opera Mini is a service which Chinese people used to get around the government's firewall. Yes, people who do not follow orders from the Chinese government are indeed thrown in jail.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
66. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sopssa · 2009-11-23 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  1) Opera Sync does basically the same
  2) There's that build-in adblocker, but I like Ad Muncher more. And it works in other browsers too.
  4) Not exactly a tooltip, but double-click word->click dictionary with shift down. Then just ctrl+w to get back. Works just as good after a few uses.
67. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-24 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  "FWIW, Opera is a fine browser, much better than IE, on par with Firefox and Safari."
  I use Opera as my main browser. It's my browser of choice on XP. Here's the problems I've had with it that I've reported to Opera:
  * Memory use is high and volatile. I run the Task Manager and watch it's memory use fluctuates wildly. Quitting, for crying out loud, often takes it from 75mb to 140mb+ before it shuts down. It seems to have problems with JS heavy pages. It's at least 30% higher than with IE8 for the same page. And it's not not straight up and store; if you are running on a slower or older machine, where Opera used to shine, you can get screwed with swap access as it thrashes like no other app I've used. I've click on a page (not even a link) and have had the app go to not responding status for minutes while every other app is fine.
  * Dependencies on the system's OS has not been tested thoroughly. Opera has issues with SSL cert navigation, and will *render a web page that is https'd but where it has not negotiated a valid SSL cert*. This was introduced in 9.5 and initial 10. The should be secure page gets a greyed circle ? in the URL bar, gets rendered, and the cert detail states Opera has not negotiated the page, but it displays a user interactive and usable page.
  * On XP, Opera did and might still depend on IE8 for some of its workings. An upgrade from IE6 to IE8 during version 9 changed and improved the functionality of the Opera browser (I forget which version).
  * Lack of consistent user interface and minor "twekas" that are in reality big changes to browser behavior that are hardfixed. Examples:
  The + in tabbed windows has been left, then right between versions.
  The lack of not having Opera in a system tray when you setup a mail or feed account. Forces the user to use /notrayicon to start Opera, which gets overwritten upon every update if you have it in desktop or taskbar shortcuts. Should be user selectable in preferences.
  Another was introduced in 10.10. The exit alert box now has a countdown timer. No option known presently to bypass it. The whole point of an exit alert box is in case you exit you manually confirm it. Combined with memory thrashing of the app noted above, you can accidentally exit, and never make it back to the app before the countdown timer quits the browser (and closes all 20 of your tabs).
  * Crashes. It used to be highly stable. It bombs more than IE8 now.
  * Lack of simple feedback. The only way to feedback on non-web issues (such as email, RSS feeds, now Unite) is to have an Opera forum account or to submit a bug report, neither of which should be necessary.
  Still a good browser, but definitely almost wants people not to use it. It's gone beyond the fast, quick but not always compatible browser to this current beast that is bloated with features but doesn't quite act bloated, but is nearing that tipping point.
68. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by xtracto · 2009-11-24 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  ... are you actually missing some specific function that is provided by add-ons in FF and not provided in Opera?
  I was an Opera user for several years, even using the "ad-supported" version of their software, because I really liked it.
  Nowadays I run firefox. Opera would need to provide the functionality of the following extensions for me:
  ScrapBook: Capture pages locally, add comments and remove DOM objects.
  Stylish: Change CSS of pages you visit
  TinyMenu: Change the menu bar to a single "Menu" button and move the other control bars so that they occupy only one row in the screen.
  Tree Style Tab: Present tabs in a vertical tree (on the left of the screen).
  DelIcioUS: Bookmarks
  DownThemAll: Mass Downloader/Download Manager.
  PriceDrop: Track amazon and bestbuy price changes and notify about them.
  The issue with Opera is that to get the same functionality of Firefox, it will either need to make use of addons/plugins or it will suffer the same fate as Netscape or other browsers who wanted to do everything.
  
  --
  Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
69. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sh33333p · 2009-11-24 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Does this method allow you to block other active content, like silverlight and flash on a per-site, quick-toggle fashion? Noscript does all that and I don't have to click more than twice to allow/disallow a site.
70. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sznupi · 2009-11-24 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  "A lot" paints a bit false image. Yes, there is certainly sizable number of people who use addons/functionality that are only available in a form of FF extension.
  However...you are a very small minority of FF users. Which doesn't mean that vast majority of its users don't use extensions! It just means that, using the example of Opera in this discussion, all of the features that most people boast about with few popular FF extensions, are available out-of-the-box in Opera or easily added.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
71. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sznupi · 2009-11-24 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  That can be solved with a magic little key called F11, and Vimperator and/or Mouse Gestures to control the browser. Besides, you can fully configure the bars, to the smallest detail (it's all CSS).
  I think you realize F11 goes a little too far in any browser; CSS goes too far when it comes to vast majority of users. As for full keyboard navigation or mouse gestures - it's nice to have it nativelly implemented instead of the browser being possibly bog down with another extension...
  
  At the same time? Sure. But I don't usually do that. Using the browser with 75+ tabs open is smooth, though.
  Sure you can't...not on comparable hardware at least (I'm doing much more on ancient Athlon XP 1467MHz + 768MB that I have lying around here...). And you don't really have a way to navigate those tabs in default FF GUI (so again...more extensions). In Opera not only tab buttons resize their width by default and have more "spatial" behavior when opening/closing, but also:
  a) "tab menu list" actually allows you to see all tabs (uses Windows Start menu - like "revealing" instead of scrolling through one column)
  b) there's also a tree view with all the tabs in all windows, with text search
  c) "hold RMB & scroll" is handy too...
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
72. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sznupi · 2009-11-24 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  ...Opera (on the desktop; excluding former Soviet block) and Linux (on the desktop)...
  Fixed that for you.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
73. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by TeXMaster · 2009-11-24 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  The most obvious answers is yes. Unless opera include everything under the kitchen sink, chances are it is missing something that firefox add-ons has to offer. Of course, it's in opera best interest NOT to include every feature (as many conflict). Not to mention the different ways a feature can be approached.
  Missing opera features as far as I'm aware of: No-script ability to easily change javascript on/off based on site. Easy menu to control greasemonkey scripts (it has the capabilities but it's barried within a few options) unlike a simple icon. Compact menu: icon to replace menu saving space
  Of course, this is specifically stuff that I find missing since i last did a quick check (opera 9 developing a cross-platform greasemonkey script).
  Having a specific feature doesn't mean it presented the way a user might like. Hence why you might see duplicates of the same feature for firefox plugins. Nothing wrong with opera method of no addon but that just means only a subset of people will like opera. I'm sure many firefox users who don't use addons or only use a few (of the more common) could easily switch to opera but that doesn't meant everyone will find the switch pleasant.
  The problem is that most people are uninformed and unwilling to be informed, pretty much as it was at the beginning for IE vs Firefox. The point about feature presentation is very interesting. I mentioned in another article that there are quite a few points where some of Opera's feature could improve handling-wise, most notably the UserJS handling (equivalent of GreaseMonkey).
  As for the other two you mention specifically:
  JavaScript toggling: Put a button on one of the bottom toolbar if you're too lazy to go the F12 way. Still faster than installing noscript if all you want is toggling JS on/off.
  Also, the iconized menu is available in Opera 10 too, and in fact it was the default in some of the betas but user complained so you now have to enabled it by deselecting File -> Show Menu Bar.
  
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
74. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by TeXMaster · 2009-11-24 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  and 3) DragonFly is an excellent replacement for firebug
  
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
75. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sznupi · 2009-11-24 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm, saying only that you don't use it because it's not FLOSS would be fine (BTW, I wonder - certainly you never use Nvidia GFX drivers, or proprietary firmware/bios?). But you've said more, that Opera "could and should be" FLOSS. Which simply doesn't fit their business model, at which they are quite successful.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
76. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sznupi · 2009-11-24 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it doesn't. But trust me, it offers all the functionality that some 90+ % (from my experience) of FF users want and "can only have in FF extension" (yes, not in the same GUI...why would FF copy things from Opera in exactly the same way? ;) )
  Regarding your examples - Opera has full keyboard navigation for a long time (well, it's not like in Vim...why should it be? Though I don't know if you can make it behave like Vim, I don't use it; it's certainly configurable), DownThemAll is built in since..."forever", DownloadHelper is a case of simple UserJS/Greasemonkey script or bookmarklet. I wouldn't know about DBus generally, perhaps only about specific usage scenario if I knew what you want to do with that info.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
77. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sznupi · 2009-11-24 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Adding to other answers: adblock is built-in, using basically the same list...
  http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/
  (and from what my buddy who used FF for a long time says, "empty field hider" works slightly better in Opera)
  Plus you can add manually through GUI element blocker whatever comes through...but that doesn't happen to me, so it's probably quite rare...
  And no, not everybody will have an arbitrary different list of extensions. Yes, there are some specialized ones used by sizable number of people. But majority (90+ % from what I see...) use only a few common extensions, with their functionality built into Opera for a long time.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
78. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sznupi · 2009-11-24 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, toggle for plugins is in the same places as for js.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
79. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by orngjce223 · 2009-11-24 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  All new windows in tabs: Tab Mix Plus (okay, it's bloated, some people say - but you asked for it) has a Single Window Mode. It is what it sounds like.
  change skin without restarting the application: the Mozilla Labs folk have Personas. Also, should you be using Windows, AnyColor works even better.
  
  --
  Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.
80. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-24 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  The "block content" feature prevents javascript from loading if the url/filename matches your blocked rules.
81. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by TeXMaster · 2009-11-28 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  I was an Opera user for several years, even using the "ad-supported" version of their software, because I really liked it.
  Nowadays I run firefox. Opera would need to provide the functionality of the following extensions for me:
  ScrapBook: Capture pages locally, add comments and remove DOM objects.
  Not sure what you mean by 'capture pages' and 'remove DOM objects', but you can (1) save pages as .mht (2) add personal notes to any webpage and (3) block any content.
  
  Stylish: Change CSS of pages you visit
  In Opera you can do this at any particular time by editing the (local cache copy of the) remote CSS or HTML file, or programmatically using UserJS (in fact, this is something Opera does already to fix some b0rked sites that send bogus data to Opera).
  
  TinyMenu: Change the menu bar to a single "Menu" button and move the other control bars so that they occupy only one row in the screen.
  This is built in Opera 10.
  
  Tree Style Tab: Present tabs in a vertical tree (on the left of the screen).
  You can customize the tab bar placement in Opera too, on any of the 4 sides of the screen.
  
  DelIcioUS: Bookmarks
  Like adding the delicious bookamrks page to the Opera panel?
  
  DownThemAll: Mass Downloader/Download Manager.
  The 'Links' tab in the Opera panel does that pretty well.
  
  PriceDrop: Track amazon and bestbuy price changes and notify about them.
  That's probably missing, but it should be straightforward to make an Opera widget for that.
  
  The issue with Opera is that to get the same functionality of Firefox, it will either need to make use of addons/plugins or it will suffer the same fate as Netscape or other browsers who wanted to do everything.
  I disagree. The biggest issue with Opera is that people are not informed about all the stuff it can do. This post is an excellent example of it.
  
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
82. Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... by sznupi · 2009-11-28 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  In first line "a bit" and in second "much more"?...
  Anyway, it's a bit debatable...yes, adblock in Opera requires you to put one file in a directory and restart Opera. Afterwards it's actually much better than FF, with its GUI element hider, if you want to block something additional.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
Flock? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:26 · Score: 0

How is this different from the firefox based flock browser?
1. Re:Flock? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's nothing like Flock. Unite is a web server in the browser which is easy to use and add services to.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
Except in China? by tjstork · 2009-11-23 08:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

I love how all the computer companies have these new-age wonderful human mottos for their products, like "Unite", and then cut deals with dictators to try and make a couple of extra bucks.

--
This is my sig.
1. Re:Except in China? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 08:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Someone asked: "How does not having any kind of access to Opera Mobile/Google/etc helps the people in China, compared to having a censored version?"
  I haven't seen a response to that yet.
  What were Opera's alternatives?
  Refuse? They would be thrown in jail, and the Chinese office would be history.
  Pull out? How would that help anyone? It would just deprive the Chinese people of another way to access the web. The more ways to access the web, the more work for the government when they are trying to censor it. There needs to be as many ways to access the web as possible, because the more there are, the more difficult it is to police, and the easier it is to poke holes in the firewall. You are clearly blinded by your own ignorance.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
2. Re:Except in China? by tjstork · 2009-11-23 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Refuse? They would be thrown in jail, and the Chinese office would be history.
  Yes, that's what is called doing the right thing.
  
  --
  This is my sig.
3. Re:Except in China? by klapaucjusz · 2009-11-23 08:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  What were Opera's alternatives?
  They could have refused to do business in China, as long as the Chinese policy doesn't change.
  Just like IKEA have stopped doing business in Russia, for slightly different reasons.
4. Re:Except in China? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  Did you read the rest of the comment? Clearly not. How is it the right thing to deprive the Chinese people of yet another way to work around the censorship? The more services like Opera's, the more difficult for the government to keep on top of everything, the more holes in the firewall to exploit. If everyone pulled out and only a couple of services remained, the government would have an easier time enforcing the rules. Use your brain.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
5. Re:Except in China? by ShatteredArm · 2009-11-23 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Stop it with your "logic." Pragmatism is for communists, you communist!
6. Re:Except in China? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:18 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Sigh. Did you read the rest of the comment? Clearly not. How is it the right thing to deprive the Chinese people of yet another way to work around the censorship? The more services like Opera's, the more difficult for the government to keep on top of everything, the more holes in the firewall to exploit. If everyone pulled out and only a couple of services remained, the government would have an easier time enforcing the rules. Opera out = no way to exploit the "holes" letting Opera Mini users circumvent the firewall (yes, people have found a way to do it). Use your brain.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
7. Re:Except in China? by Threni · 2009-11-23 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  They get to help the Chinese dictators "Unite" pro-democracy campaigners in huge open prisons where they can serve their 20 years making cheap plastic shit to be sold in shops which are currently occupying the failed businesses which went bust trying to selling higher quality and longer lasting but slightly more expensive products.
8. Re:Except in China? by the+linux+geek · 2009-11-23 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  The PRC "government" aren't dictators, they're criminals. The legitimate government of China does not behave that way.
9. Re:Except in China? by sweatyboatman · 2009-11-23 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  The more ways to access the web, the more work for the government when they are trying to censor it.
  Except when companies (like Opera -- and many many many others) graciously cooperate in neutering their products so that they can access China's markets, that makes the censors' jobs easier.
  These companies are complicit in China's censorship. On top of that, they're also providing a nice smokescreen for the Chinese government.
  To wit, the more interesting question you're not asking is why does China government allow their people to use Opera or Mozilla (or Microsoft or Cisco or IBM or Dell, etc.)? Why not just force everyone in the country to access The People's Internet on The People's Computer with The People's Browser?
  My bet is that they think it wouldn't work as well. That the loss in productivity of using their in-house hardware and software would put them at a disadvantage in the global economy. And more, the people they rule over would be ever more envious of the rest of the world and resentful of the restrictions.
  
  How does not having any kind of access to Opera Mobile/Google/etc helps the people in China, compared to having a censored version?
  Providing a censored version of Opera HURTS the people of China by making the work of their censors easier. Working with the demands of the government censors HURTS the people of China by making the effects of censorship less apparent (and more pernicious).
  
  --
  It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
10. Re:Except in China? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 10:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Except when companies (like Opera -- and many many many others) graciously cooperate in neutering their products so that they can access China's markets, that makes the censors' jobs easier.
  They don't "graciously cooperate", they are forced to. And no, it does not make the censors' job easier. The more services, the more work to keep track of everything.
  
  These companies are complicit in China's censorship.
  No, they are forced to, and at the same time they are offering choice.
  
  Providing a censored version of Opera HURTS the people of China by making the work of their censors easier.
  I have just demonstrated using simple logi and fact how this claim is wrong. More things = more to keep track of = requires more time and resources = more difficult to control.
  
  To wit, the more interesting question you're not asking is why does China government allow their people to use Opera or Mozilla (or Microsoft or Cisco or IBM or Dell, etc.)? Why not just force everyone in the country to access The People's Internet on The People's Computer with The People's Browser?
  Exactly what you said. They don't want to cut themselves off completely.
  
  Working with the demands of the government censors HURTS the people of China by making the effects of censorship less apparent (and more pernicious).
  This is false. Because of actions like these, the Chinese become increasingly aware of what's going on, as do foreigners.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
11. Re:Except in China? by sweatyboatman · 2009-11-23 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  The more services, the more work to keep track of everything.
  You keep saying this. Even though my reply explicitly rebuts it.
  
  More things = more to keep track of = requires more time and resources = more difficult to control.
  Joe the Censor has to watch all sorts of things. But, lucky for him, he knows that 90 percent of the things he monitors are made by his friends. He asked his friends to make changes to the things so that he doesn't have to worry that they might be used for something Joe doesn't like.
  Joe trusts his friends because he knows they know that if he finds out that they lied to him, he wont let them sell any more things at all! (Boy, it sure is nice how his friends really like making money more than anything else!)
  Thus, Joe can spend his time just looking at people using the 10 percent of the things that aren't made by his friends.
  And, what's this? Here's a thing called "Opera" that's doing baaaad things! But Joe's not worried, because Opera likes to make money. So, Joe knows that they'll soon be good friends!
  Friends make Joe's job so much easier!
  
  --
  It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
12. Re:Except in China? by commodore64_love · 2009-11-23 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  And then the Chinese would be stuck with the hell that is Microsoft's Internet Exploiter.
  An Opera Censored is still better than that, especially if Opera can gain dominance (as they did in Russia and Eastern Europe), and lock-out MS from monopolizing the market.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
13. Re:Except in China? by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  What should they have done ?
  - rebelled and gotten their employess imprisoned ?
  - pulled out and deprived people in China from an alternative to whatever the government prefers ?
  How is any of the above better than comromising ?
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
14. Re:Except in China? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  You keep saying this. Even though my reply explicitly rebuts it.
  It does not such thing. You merely claimed that it wasn't like that without any kind of argument.
  
  Joe the Censor has to watch all sorts of things. But, lucky for him, he knows that 90 percent of the things he monitors are made by his friends. He asked his friends to make changes to the things so that he doesn't have to worry that they might be used for something Joe doesn't like.
  Google, Opera, etc. are not Joe the Censor's friend. Furthermore, the government is not a single person, but rather a huge bureaucracy, and the more they have to oversee, the less control. Huge bureaucracies are very slow and inefficient.
  
  And, what's this? Here's a thing called "Opera" that's doing baaaad things! But Joe's not worried, because Opera likes to make money. So, Joe knows that they'll soon be good friends!
  Unfortunately, your argument is as pathetic as you are. The government is not a single person, and companies like Google and Opera are not friends of the government. They are merely forced to comply with local laws and regulations to be able to stay. And it's a good thing that they stay beucase as I have shown, more services = more chances of loopholes.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
15. Re:Except in China? by AK+Marc · 2009-11-23 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  But, lucky for him, he knows that 90 percent of the things he monitors are made by his friends. He asked his friends to make changes to the things so that he doesn't have to worry that they might be used for something Joe doesn't like.
  
  If Joe has has only one friend, his job of watching that one friend is easier than if he has 10 friends.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:42 · Score: 0

I can't believe Opera doesn't support these tags even in v10.10 when they pioneered the introduction of them.
1. Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? by Yvan256 · 2009-11-23 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Great, another let-down from Opera. Are they supporters of real-world, widely used standards like H.264 and AAC or are they supporters of open-source formats that practically nobody uses like Ogg Theora?
  P.S.: I hate those open source projets names... it reminds me of the "Homer Car" Simpsons episode. Stop trying to sound smarter than the general public with your product names, maybe you'll have some luck (see: "FireFox"). "Ogg" sounds like the sound a caveman would make and "Theora" sounds like "theory" which we all know is always different than reality.
2. Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support
  It's in beta donkey boy. (You can download it and use it) Hopefully it will be part of the official build soon.
3. Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Opera will obviously support the open format. The other ones are full of patent crap, and you have to pay through your nose for it.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
4. Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? by VinylPusher · 2009-11-23 09:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You're dealing with nerds, here. Coming up with 'Ogg' was probably a defining moment in that young person's life.
  Rejected names were "ReallyGoodVideoCodec", "VideoOpenSource" and "dvxiddidvxd".
5. Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? by Yvan256 · 2009-11-23 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well, "Open Video CODEC" would have been "OVC" for short... not as tech-sounding as "H.264" or "MPEG-4", but still has a ring to it. Better than "Ogg".
  Even a vague reference to something nerdy could have resulted in a better name, such as the "QHG CODEC" or "SB1 CODEC".
6. Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  AAC is a horrible codec, and you should feel bad for mentioning it
7. Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? by zippthorne · 2009-11-23 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  I give Ogg a pass for as long as the big raster image editor project uses the name, "gimp."
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
8. Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? by yuhong · 2009-11-23 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, when Jimbo Wales decreed to go Ogg-only for Wikipedia back in 2004, there was many people saying something along the line of this. The support of Ogg in browsers for them is very good news, as it eliminated a lot of the pain that had existed for years.
For me, Opera is like Usenet by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Best kept secret.
Nice features with a target size small enough that malware that might go after IE or firefox won't touch.
I browse in a VM with Opera. Never lets me down.
Still a small size. Damn thing fits in less than 10 MB of disk space.
Stuff like this unite threatens this. I wish they would stop making it better so suckers will stay with IE and firefox.
The unite stuff rocks. Your parents could never setup p2p or ftp, but they can use unite. Better than some file sharing site when all your family has got FIOS pipes. Only possible downside is needing to setup a opera account to use the DNS to get the "myopera" addresses, but I believe it is just another port 80 server that you could point to directly via IP. And any filehosting site is going to require a login/email, but will probably only give you crappy throughput and make it hard to share large binaries.
1. Re:For me, Opera is like Usenet by sweatyboatman · 2009-11-23 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Only possible downside is needing to setup a opera account to use the DNS
  really? that's the only downside you can envision to setting up a web server on your parent's PC?
  it says it runs in a sandbox, but sandboxes can have holes. especially when they let independent developers write plugins.
  and, even if everything is 100% secure, what's to keep your dad from accidentally sharing that text file where he keeps his bank account passwords with the whole world?
  
  --
  It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
like the old slogan by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Dyslexics of the world, untie!
1. Re:like the old slogan by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  ahahah, fcuk yuo!
Forget "Unite"... how's Opera doing on CSS 3? by Yvan256 · 2009-11-23 08:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

It may sound silly and pointless to a lot of devs, but supporting things like border-radius and drop-shadow (even with the temporary vendor prefixes) would be nice.
That's one area where Safari is way, WAY ahead of both Opera and Firefox.
1. Re:Forget "Unite"... how's Opera doing on CSS 3? by easyTree · 2009-11-23 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  I've been an Opera user for years but one thing really irks me - their complete inability to render dotted and dashed borders such that the dash lengths are consistent all the way round the element. Argh!
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
2. Re:Forget "Unite"... how's Opera doing on CSS 3? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 19:39 · Score: 0
  
  ?? You can already use border-radius, outline-radius and shadows for text and elements in Firefox.
  https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/text-shadow
  https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/-moz-box-shadow
  https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/-moz-outline-radius
  https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/-moz-border-radius
  Not only that, there's also a more than three years old extension available that allows you to setup a web server with support for Server Side Javascript, PHP, Perl, Python and Ruby!
  https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3002
3. Re:Forget "Unite"... how's Opera doing on CSS 3? by Hurricane78 · 2009-11-23 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying that Apple realized, that their clients care more for looks than even for their friends?
  Who woulda thunk of that? ^^
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Breaks broadband service contract? by billwerth · 2009-11-23 08:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere, but this technology is sure to break many user's broadband service contracts. You are affectively running a web server, which isn't allowed under most plans. I wonder how this will be addressed?
1. Re:Breaks broadband service contract? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  This web server is nothing like the web servers those contracts were written to cover. Unite can't handle a fraction of the traffic of a real web server. So basically it's a non-issue.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
2. Re:Breaks broadband service contract? by VinylPusher · 2009-11-23 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Oh come on, farting at the table is probably against the TOS of some ISP's contracts. For the unclever, that's an exaggeration to illustrate that ISP's bung quite a lot of "Don't do this" clauses in contracts in order to cover their collective arses if they have to take the fairly ultimate step of asking a customer to politely piss-off somewhere else.
3. Re:Breaks broadband service contract? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  "This web server is nothing like the web servers those contracts were written to cover."
  Oh, do these ISP's EULA say no powerful web servers? Not mine. It says no web servers, period. And since they know your home account upload bandwidth can't really be a significant web server in the first place, why would it even be mentioned if wimpy web servers were okay when read between the lines?
4. Re:Breaks broadband service contract? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter. The EULAs say no servers, and yet people run all sorts of apps that can accept incoming connections. "Wimpy web servers" weren't even this easily available when those EULAs were made.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
5. Re:Breaks broadband service contract? by commodore64_love · 2009-11-23 11:26 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I guess it depends what the EULA means by "server". ALL computers serve at least some data, even when browsing the web. So what does the IPS consider too much data? 10 gig of uploading per month is okay, but 20 isn't? They never really defined it.
  For that matter, is running a bittorrent client that's constantly uploading considered a server? If so then most of us reading this forum are violating the EULA.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
6. Re:Breaks broadband service contract? by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not really relevant, IMHO:
  - at worst, you can switch Unite off, and just keep Opera
  - you can finagle that it's not a server, but a browser
  - the data volume is going to be so low that your ISP won't care anyway
  - it's clearly capable at best of serving some kind of personal page, not a high-volume, commercial web site, which is what your ISP doesn't want you to setup on a home line.
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
7. Re:Breaks broadband service contract? by HBoar · 2009-11-23 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. ISPs don't seem to mind about other p2p upload traffic (yes, my ISP does have a clause about not allowing servers, and I upload at least 10GB/month) so why would they care about this? If you're just sharing photos and a bit of music, the volume of data transferred will be negligible....
8. Re:Breaks broadband service contract? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  Your question about uploads can, as you almost said yourself, be said about BitTorrent and other P2P technologies. In fact, those are more likely to use bandwidth because there you constantly get new people downloading from you automatically.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
I don't need your steenking content by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:53 · Score: 0

Bite me. I'll fill my life on my own.
For me, Opera is like your girlfriend by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:54 · Score: 0

it sucks my balls
daily
1. Re:For me, Opera is like your girlfriend by easyTree · 2009-11-23 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Lucky you - all I get is a nice browsing experience :(
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:56 · Score: 0

Third Post ?
Linux can't do anything, linux developers though.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:58 · Score: 0

Of course Linux doesn't do anything, it's like saying "Browser doesn't do X".
However, Linux and open source software on it is largely developed by a group of large corporations, many of which do go out of their way to please chinese government.
No Privacy Concerns Here by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 08:58 · Score: 0

Move Along.....
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-11-23 09:31 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
ISP ToS Violation? by InfinityWpi · 2009-11-23 09:41 · Score: 1

And for those of us who's ISP's Terms of Service inclue a line that boils down to "Thou shalt not run a web server on your home PC unless you pay for a buisness-class connection"... well, what then? Just... don't use Opera?
1. Re:ISP ToS Violation? by amicusNYCL · 2009-11-23 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  what then? Just... don't use Opera?
  Don't start Opera, open the Unite panel, login to your Opera account, and enable the web server. When you install a new copy of Opera and start it up it doesn't magically start serving up all of your content.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
2. Re:ISP ToS Violation? by Slashcrap · 2009-11-23 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  well, what then? Just... don't use Opera?
  Well, that's something that about 99% of web users can already manage quite easily without even trying. Doesn't seem like much of a problem to me.
Fine if you have lax security by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 09:53 · Score: 0

Seriously, this thing seems to depend on you running UPnP. Anyone using that is a moron because it makes it super easy for an attacker to poke holes in your firewall.
Basically you browse to malicious site which then does a network request inside your internal network to your UPnP server (router) asking it to open a port which later can be used to connect to your internal machine.
UPnP is a dangerous thing, I always have it disabled.
1. Re:Fine if you have lax security by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Mmmm how does it require UPnP ?
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
2. Re:Fine if you have lax security by aAnaRchY · 2009-11-23 11:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No it doen't depend on UPnP. It's good to read the post made by other users and then post yours. Is basically a proxy service. As mentioned above by tomhudson "Check the documentation - your web browser is not really becoming a "web server" - your requests go through their proxy server at yourdevicename.yourusername.operaunite.com They've just wrapped xhmhttprequests (XHR) in their own custom javascript class, and provided a default proxy for it. http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-unite-developer-primer-revisited/#conceptsproxy [opera.com]"
3. Re:Fine if you have lax security by HBoar · 2009-11-23 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  It gives you the option of using UPnP, it does not require it. All you need to do is untick the "Use UPnP port forwarding from my router" box. Not too diffcult.
4. Re:Fine if you have lax security by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 18:13 · Score: 0
  
  Only if you choose to go through their proxy. Unite lets you choose the port (8840 is the defualt).
  You can access Unite by yourip:8840
  
  If you use the operaunite.com address it's akin to using something like dydns.org, which you could still also use instead of operaunite.com
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-11-23 09:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-11-23 09:57 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-11-23 09:59 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Makes sense to me by obarthelemy · 2009-11-23 10:33 · Score: 1

Unite makes a lot of sense to me:
- I keep ownership of my data. No more finding my personal photo used in an add, like happened to that woman a while back.
- I keep control of my data. No more entrusting it to some advertiser, their trainees, their subcontractors...
- I can easily backup all of my data. See the Sidekick debacle.
- Everything is in ONE location
- I have relatively fine control over who can see what, and can change content and rights at any time.
It currently is not very polished, though It IS very easy to use, much easier that setting up the same services with the usual software.
- not very good looking
- nor very feature rich
Hopefuly the design will get smoother, and addons will make it better... the idea by itself sounds very good, and the implementation is kinda OK, for a 1.0 version.

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
1. Re:Makes sense to me by HBoar · 2009-11-23 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. I'm already using it to share the my files relating to my thesis, so that if I *happen* to want to work on it away from the office, I don't need to keep a separate copy on a USB stick or something. Using the drop box add on, I can then save it back to my office computer. Very handy, and takes a matter of minutes (or less) to set up.
Holy retro Batman! (Win 98) by shking · 2009-11-23 11:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just tried it on a vm running Windows 98 and it works! Holy retro Batman! We don' need no steenkin IE 6

--
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
1. Re: Holy retro Batman! (Win 98) by KC1P · 2009-11-23 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Was this a fresh install or an upgrade? I just spent a very long couple of hours on my WinMe box trying to revert after the 10.10 installation yielded a browser that exploded on startup every time. I've been running Opera on this box for years (including 10.01). After a bunch of uninstalls of the dead husks of old versions (MAN you get a lot of crap lying around if you upgrade each time) and reinstalls of both 10.01 and 10.10, things seem to work again now -- and as usual for any Windows fix, I have no idea what I did that finally did the trick.
So much are the Chinese paying you? by tjstork · 2009-11-23 11:11 · Score: 1

This is false. Because of actions like these, the Chinese become increasingly aware of what's going on, as do foreigners.
You're defending this arrangement pretty strongly. Mind you, do you have a stake in it? I mean, I know a lot of companies and people make these kinds of claims and then trot out this line. I am leary of the conflict of interest. Are they really doing it to help the people of China, or are they really just helping themselves? I don't even think they see the difference.

--
This is my sig.
1. Re:So much are the Chinese paying you? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  So what you are saying is that you can't respond to what I'm actually writing, so you have to try and change the subject? Hint: Opera has an office in China.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
2. Re:So much are the Chinese paying you? by tjstork · 2009-11-23 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Hint: Opera has an office in China.
  Yes, and you've completely glossed over the point that it is Opera's choice to have that office in China. You've made it seem that the office is pure set of hostages, with poor Opera able to do nothing.
  The fact is, you demand a response, but to what? All of your points do nothing but cloud the truth. You deceive through omission. Let's re-add:
  1) Opera put those hostages there.
  2) They do not need to be there. Why do you need to have an office in China to sell a browser over the internet? Geez, I wonder.
  
  --
  This is my sig.
3. Re:So much are the Chinese paying you? by hkmwbz · 2009-11-23 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  Good job completely ignoring most of what I wrote, and twisting the rest. I just explained to you why more services like Opera Mini are a good thing for the Chinese: More services = more to keep track of = requires more time and resources = more difficult to control.
  Opera has a lot of business customers in China (OEMs, operators, etc.). Unlike you, they know a bit about business, and realize that they need to stay close to their customers. Yes, they do need to be there. Not as hostages, but to keep their business customers and build their user base. Also, they place Opera Mini servers in popular areas to make things faster. So since China has a lot of people, they needed servers in China to cope with the demand. You are evidently completely ignorant of Opera's business model, so I suggest you shut up about it instead of making assumptions.
  If anyone is being deceptive, it is you. You live in your little Commie world where anyone who runs a business is automatically evil, and there is no conceivable way that a company can be a force for good. Pathetic indeed.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
Unite is not enabled by default by grandmofftarkin · 2009-11-23 19:13 · Score: 1

Hence you could change that to, "Just... don't enable the Unite feature."
If uPnP is not enabled it can use Opera's proxy by grandmofftarkin · 2009-11-23 19:16 · Score: 1

It doesn't need uPnP but services can use it if it is there.
Revenue != Profit. by mjwx · 2009-11-23 19:23 · Score: 1

Actually making a better profit than Mozilla too, so I don't see why they wouldn't keep developing new things (and Opera has usually been the first one to actually develop new browser features)
Mozilla Foundation: Revenue $75 million (4 employees)
Opera Software: Revenue $89 million (675+ employees)
Revenue is not profit.

Revenue is income before expensive (usually before tax as well but this varies). Profit is money after expenses and tax. Having a higher revenue != a higher profit. Mozilla has 4 employee's to Opera's 675+, something tells me Opera's overheads are a bit higher then Mozilla's.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
'Sup Dawg by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-23 19:47 · Score: 0

Yo, we heard you like web pages in your browser, so we put a server in your browser so you can serve while you browse!
Copy? by Hurricane78 · 2009-11-23 21:35 · Score: 1

which allows users to share content directly between all of their own devices
What, Opera users couldn’t copy a file (or copy/paste content) before??

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Real deal will be the mobile version by Ilgaz · 2009-11-24 01:12 · Score: 1

I guess their real plan is put that technology to Mobile version of Opera. Opera 10 Mobile beta is already out and it is absolutely amazing. Why amazing? Well, it works with same engine as Opera 10 on my poor Nokia E65 which is absolutely unsupported :)
I am sure this "plugin" was written in highly (amazingly) portable way and it will end up in mobile devices/game consoles.
Nokia already has a Webserver for Symbian devices. Believe or not, it doesn't use that much battery and RAM. Less than a very high end multi purpose messenger. If you haven't heard about it, blame nobody else than Nokia.
http://mymobilesite.net/
It worked fine under 24MB RAM/200Mhz ARM powered E65.
not 24x7? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-24 01:46 · Score: 0

isn't every1s computer on 24x7?
bb tos unconstitutional by airdrummer · 2009-11-24 01:58 · Score: 1

they abrogate the 1st & 2nd amendments: freedom of speech & the right to keep & bear servers... 'bout time the b-o-r is given a 21st century interpretation!-)
Love it. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-24 03:10 · Score: 0

Opera is a fantastic browser. It's got the perfect balance between speed, relability, features, memory usage, usability.
Opera-Link is essential, Turbo works well on the move, 100% ACID3, Bittorrent, Mail/News/IRC/RSS/ContentBlocker/UserJS it's all in there, and manages it all in a 4MB binary. (Opera.dll)
where is ipv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-24 04:21 · Score: 0

I am hidden behind a NAT out of my control. I use 6in4 tunnel so my computers can be used as a server. I see no dancing turtle with Opera 10.10 but my other browsers can see him getting his groove on.
Still No QT4 by HermMunster · 2009-11-24 11:16 · Score: 1

Not interested in QT3 and not gtk. QT4 is where they should be now. This is silly of them to implement a depricating library.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.