Opera 11 Beta Released, With Extensions Support

An anonymous reader writes "Opera 11 Beta has just been released and now includes support for extensions. Also new in this release Tab Stacking, Visual Mouse Gestures, performance improvements, new installer, and much more. Even with its many new features, Opera 11 is 30% smaller than Opera 10.60. That means that Opera downloads more quickly and installs in fewer steps. There are over 130 extensions and climbing including NoScript and AdBlock! Extensions can be found here."

Comments

I'll have to check it out

[IronSight]

I'm mostly a fan of opera though for their opera turbo function since it saves quite a bit of bandwidth when I'm running off my usb 3G modem on the road, making pages load up much quicker. It's good to see extensions added though to help against the tons of annoying ads and such. Cheers to the opera team for their hard work.

Re:I'll have to check it out

[Anonymous Coward]

And a hearty "welcome to 2005" for the browser that always seemed to be praised for its extensive feature set.

Re:I'll have to check it out

[perryizgr8]

i have opera on my pc just because xkcd is banned at my uni (dunno why) and opera turbo is easier than using crappy web proxies and faster than tor.

Re:I'll have to check it out

[sznupi]

Please make Randall (after current situation passes) /xkcd forum know, we might have some fun with this ban ;>

Re:I'll have to check it out

[perryizgr8]

its a strange situation. the wlan is supposed to be completely open. everything from porn to torrents works. every single website is accessible.
but for some strange reason, xkcd.com and shamusyoung.com just do not resolve.
and yeah, i'm in india, so i don't think randall would be interested.

Re:I'll have to check it out

[Anonymous Coward]

The only sites my uni ever blocked was 12chan (tee hee, don't look it up) and the sites it pulled its source from.

adblock extension

[Klobbersaurus]

its about fucking time

Re:adblock extension

[AnonGCB]

http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/

This is what I have used, it works fine.

Re:adblock extension

[bmo]

>about fucking time

Say what?

How bloody hard is it to copy a file? A text one at that? How hard is it to literally grab and drag a file from "Download" to where your local .opera directory is, or to directly save the file to .opera?

So now it's got a GUI wrapper? BFD. It actually makes it *more* complicated.

I swear that every complaint that "Hurr, durr, Opera had no adblock" is an intelligence shibboleth. Those that said it are stupid, without reservation.

Two best browsers on the 'net - Chrome and Opera. Hands down. The others aren't even close. Not Webkit nor Gecko based browsers. And IE is just a special case all to itself - a reminder of a bygone era when standards didn't matter.

--
BMO

Re:adblock extension

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox users in denial. That's only thing that explains it.

Funny really, when Firefox and its various add ons have taken most of their advances directly from Opera.

Re:adblock extension

[davepermen]

simple is always better. simply having to copy a file when ever there's an update means quite a bit more work than once click "add addon", and never have to care about anything anymore. and yes, copying a file to some special location is not a simple one click operation, it's quite a lot of clicks actually. and having to do it more often than just once is stupid, too. so i'm glad that opera got the extension. it's a big difference. i still stay with chrome, though.

Re:adblock extension

[sapphire wyvern]

Isn't Chrome a WebKit browser?

Re:adblock extension

[lxs]

As long as they don't take the render-pages-like-crap feature from Opera, it's all good.

Re:adblock extension

[aliquis]

Chrome is Webkit based.

But I agree.

Re:adblock extension

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh, don't rain on the zealot's parade.

It's not like this is the first line on Chrome's wiki page.
Google Chrome is a web browser developed by Google that uses the WebKit layout engine and application framework.

Re:adblock extension

[AnonGCB]

You mean according to standards?

Re:adblock extension

[aliquis]

It seem to render my web page* just fine! ;D

(* not very recent but not _THAT_ old ;), still: Renders perfectly!)

Re:adblock extension

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but opera adblock have always lacked usability. Downloading the text file to ~./opera does not help much as you can not even easily get it autoupdated. Right clicking the ad and selection "block" is not good neither.

How bloody hard is it for Opera fan to actually test out the Firefox/Chrome adblock addon/extension and find out how after single click (install on addon/extension site) gives automatic filter update, easy blocking per country and after that there is no need to even click any ads as all are gone?

I just updated opera, updated the filter file and still I get lots of ads. Now I just dont have behind right click any blocking functions.

"Chrome and Opera. Hands down. The others aren't even close. Not Webkit nor Gecko based browsers."

Chrome use webkit engine. And lots of webkit engine powered browsers are great. But as it is easy to notice from your text, you are a opera fan and your opinions are such. I just toke opera back to my default browser but it is not best or greatest.

Re:adblock extension

[hairyfeet]

No, comparing the HOSTS style block in Opera to ABP is like comparing a biplane to a jet fighter. Sure they'll both get off the ground but one is about 1000% nicer and more feature rich. for example: How do you block ONLY certain elements by wildcard? Domain? Subdomain? By extensions? with ABP if you can think it you can create a custom rule for it with "clicky clicky" ease. While I think Opera is a nice tool, especially for those on low bandwidth lines or low resource machines (although I prefer Kmeleon for low resource myself) it really doesn't compare to ABP.

Just as the script tool in Opera really doesn't compare to Noscript. everyone points out you can disable scripts, but with Opera it is all or nothing PERIOD. With NoScript I can run One, Some, A Few, Or All. I can tell a video to play while NOT allowing anything else. And considering how much "JavaScript malware o' the day" we see having that power is VERY important to me.

So while I wish Opera nothing but luck and hope the extension framework works well they really don't compare. In a way I'd say they are like a Mac and PC, in that one you pretty much take it as the designers intended it, the other can be "tweaked" quite easily with nice GUI clicky clicky add-ons. It really is a personal taste thing, but I just can't give up my extensions which I doubt most will even have an Opera equivalent. Oh and in case anyone asks the extensions I have is ABP/NS, IMGZoom, ForecastFox,Downloadhelper,downloadstatusbar, iMacros,Firefox Sync, cookieculler and FEBE.

Re:adblock extension

[the_womble]

Firefox and its various add ons have taken most of their advances directly from Opera.

Opera does not offer the functionality of most of the add ons I use (unless the new version or its add ons have copied them). What are the OPera equivalents to No Script (no, the built in functionality is a lot less flexible, and does not deal with plugins well), Its All Text, Long URl Please, Taboo, Certificate Patrol or Tree Style Tabs?

Those are just some of of what I use. Are you seriously saying Opera can also match the hundreds of extensions I do not use (but other people do).

Re:adblock extension

[Anonymous Coward]

"How do you block ONLY certain elements by wildcard? Domain? Subdomain? "

Right click, "Block Content"?

Re:adblock extension

[sznupi]

It's not about hosts, and could give you at least most of what you want. JS can be whitelisted and disabled by domains, that's a bit more than all or nothing.

As for you list (at least when it comes to those with descriptive names) - page zooming and fit-to-width works in Opera also for images, there was some weather widget and also way to put forecasts in the Speed Dial IIRC, downloader has a bit more features than is typical (maybe list of files on a given page and filtering, by chance? Similar with cookies) and sync is built-in - shared across different versions of Opera (Desktop, Mobile, Mini)

Re:adblock extension

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry, but opera adblock have always lacked usability."

How about right-click and choose "Block Content"?

Re:adblock extension

[sznupi]

It's perfectly fine with some (face it) niche ones. It gets old really, really quickly with majority of whiners, listing functionalities present in Opera for a long time... (or even pioneered by them)

Re:adblock extension

[lxs]

Is it according to standards that Opera often loads the wrong images when all other browsers seem to get it right?

I'm glad that there is such a thing as Opera. It is the only modern browser light enough to run on the ancient Win2K box I'm forced to use at work but rendering oddities and doing everything "the Opera way" can be frustrating at times.

Re:adblock extension

[sznupi]

http://blog.chromium.org/2010/03/does-your-browser-behave.html

^only about js, but it's quite characteristic and from a fabulous source.

Standards compliance of course might be a problem here and there, in places still not far from "best viewed in IE" - some pages unfortunately settled on "best in IE and FF" instead of targeting standards, not much of an improvement - but it's getting better. Especially where there's strong third or even fourth major player, as in most of CIS / ex Warsaw Pact (where BTW Opera is often actually at or near the top)

In fact, one funny thing: I keep an old version of Opera (9.27, a solid "classic" release) on an old dual PII 266 that I keep around and still boot sometimes. Lately many pages tend to work much better in it (despite obviously not targeting such old release, probably not even Opera generally) - I suspect due to dropping focus on IE6.

Re:adblock extension

[inightmare]

Chrome is WebKit based.

Re:adblock extension

[Anonymous Coward]

> Two best browsers on the 'net - Chrome and Opera.

Chrome is nowhere near Opera featurewise...

Re:adblock extension

[JonnnnY]

page zooming and fit-to-width works in Opera also for images

images, flash content and probably everithng else.
I love, when I can zoom some little flash game to the fullscreen...

Re:adblock extension

[tyrione]

>about fucking time

Say what?

How bloody hard is it to copy a file? A text one at that? How hard is it to literally grab and drag a file from "Download" to where your local .opera directory is, or to directly save the file to .opera?

So now it's got a GUI wrapper? BFD. It actually makes it *more* complicated.

I swear that every complaint that "Hurr, durr, Opera had no adblock" is an intelligence shibboleth. Those that said it are stupid, without reservation.

Two best browsers on the 'net - Chrome and Opera. Hands down. The others aren't even close. Not Webkit nor Gecko based browsers. And IE is just a special case all to itself - a reminder of a bygone era when standards didn't matter.

-- BMO

Your mentally challenged or just plain ignorant by mocking WebKit and praising Chrome. Chrome is WebKit with Google crap bolted on. Thanks to WebKit we have Chrome, Chromium, Epiphany, Safari, and other WebKit based browsers.

By the way, Opera 11 beta still blows chunks for HTML5 support. Wake me up when it's HTML5 Algorithm is complete and HTML5 Tokenizer, HTML5 Tree Building, SVG in text/html and MathML in text/html for HTML5 is supported. Their HTML5 Element support is garbage and their user interaction [Drag and drop, Undo History, Session History, Text Selection] at the rate they are going will take another 12 months to be covered.

Re:adblock extension

[Rockoon]

To summarize sznupi's link:

Opera 10.50: 78 failures,
Safari 4: 159 failures,
Chrome 4: 218 failures,
Firefox 3.6: 259 failures and
Internet Explorer 8: 463 failures.

Re:adblock extension

[Anonymous Coward]

You can set up a cronjob to do that for you without any clicks.

Re:adblock extension

[commodore64_love]

That's not Opera's fault. The web-developer looks at the browser code, sees "Opera", assumes it's a non-compliant browser, and then feeds it trash. Trash-in / Trash-out. It's the developer's fault.

It's also why Opera features "mask as firefox or IE" to trick the web-developer to feed proper code. Then it renders perfectly. I've found several pages that failed to render or gave me an "Opera not supported" feedback, but never found a page that refused to render properly after I used the "mask" option.

Opera passes all the ACID tests, which is more than Firefox 3.6 or IE8 could claim.

Re:adblock extension

[noshellswill]

Heh bytefyuck ... It's impossible cause who ever knew/knows where the feckin-A browser is installed. Why should Opera demand lusrland know that arcanae and tappatappatappa through all the keystrokes required to get there. Fecklin-A hoser go back to the howling-dawg Debiolian dweeb slobber-jaws and spit hex.

Re:adblock extension

[Yosho]

Your mentally challenged

Really? You're making this too easy.

Re:adblock extension

[Matt Perry]

How bloody hard is it to copy a file? A text one at that? How hard is it to literally grab and drag a file from "Download" to where your local .opera directory is, or to directly save the file to .opera?

Harder than having the computer do it for you. Humans shouldn't have to do what the computer can automate.

Re:adblock extension

[EricX2]

GUI wrapper is a BFD to almost everybody, if you don't care, don't act like it isn't a big deal to others.

My complaint with Opera. It's different, and not in a good way. Firefox improved over IE. Chrome improved over Firefox. Opera may have improved over IE as well, but it sure doesn't improve over Chrome in my opinion. If I had gone the other route I may like it, but it's too late.

Re:adblock extension

[TalksInMath]

Two best browsers on the 'net - Chrome and Opera. Hands down. The others aren't even close. Not Webkit nor Gecko based browsers. And IE is just a special case all to itself - a reminder of a bygone era when standards didn't matter.

You know that Chrome is based on Webkit, don't you?

Re:adblock extension

[Tubal-Cain]

I switched to Chromium because my PIII laptop doesn't choke on it.

Re:adblock extension

[Rockoon]

And doing my own tests on Firefox 4 and Opera 11:

Opera 11.00 Alpha: 74 failures
Firefox 4.0b8 Pre: 178 failures

Big improvement for Firefox's new javascript engine, minor improvement for Opera's.

Re:adblock extension

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the user JavaScript in Opera. Not as easy to work with for the Joe Blowjob, but it is there.

Re:adblock extension

[cbhacking]

For the record: IE9 public Beta: 80 failures. Puts it back in league with the others, although one would need to test against other beta browsers for a fair comparison.

Also, a lot of the failures looked like the kind of thing that the dead code optimizer might be removing. Not sure about that, though. Will be interesting to see when the RC comes out, or even the current platform preview (which I don't have).

Re:adblock extension

[Anonymous Coward]

And doing my own tests on Firefox 4 and Opera 11:

Opera 11.00 Alpha: 74 failures

Firefox 4.0b8 Pre: 178 failures

Big improvement for Firefox's new javascript engine, minor improvement for Opera's.

Nice bit of spin. You work for FOX news, right?

I would have put it this way: Firefox Firefox 4.0b8 Pre javascript engine - now only 2.41 times worse than Opera 11.00 Alpha javascript engine.

Re:adblock extension

[shutdown -p now]

From what I've heard, the problem with recent Opera releases (basically from 10 onward) is that they tend to overemphasize running the tests correctly over real world issues. To clarify, I don't mean non-standards-conformant websites rendering incorrectly, but rather actual bugs in Opera renderer and JS engine.

Personally, I used to be an avid Opera user, but have dropped it recently due to the quality of releases significantly declining in the last two years. It used to be that stable versions were actually stable; now, Chrome development releases crash less often for me than Opera stable ones.

Re:adblock extension

[rhomp2002]

My one reason for not using Opera is that I cannot copy and paste from Opera to anywhere other than the Opera browser screens themselves. I cannot copy and paste to an email or a pdf document at all. If I could do that then I would be using Opera all the time.

Re:adblock extension

[sznupi]

Seems they were caught a bit off-guard with sudden focus on JS, rushed changes too much between 9.5x and most of 10.x. Luckily, 10.6x releases seem to finally return to that nice feel of 9.2x.

But just to be more weird - for me the problems were never about crashing (though how I mostly disable plugins might help)

Re:adblock extension

[the_womble]

Listing counter examples is trolling? Opera fan boys have mod points today.

Extension not exactly needed for adblock

[sznupi]

Opera had adblocking built in for a long time, it just needed a list - yes, somewhat more basic (much more basic script blocking also there); but even with rare updates of the list I don't remember having to use GUI website element blocker.

Re:Extension not exactly needed for adblock

[interkin3tic]

Opera also makes it very easy to block ads as you encounter them. Right click, block content.

Script blocking however has been terrible in my experience. You can block scripts by default, and can make exceptions for sites, but you cant allow single scripts within a page, at least not that I've found. Noscript is really a huge plus.

Re:Extension not exactly needed for adblock

[batistuta]

You are right, but in my experience setting up adblocking on Opera has been been a pain compared to Adblock. So not exactly needed in the theory. But if users use another browser because of this, then for Opera, it is really needed. This has been the case with me at least.

Re:Extension not exactly needed for adblock

[rishistar]

I personally get by with Opera the 'Enable Plug-Ins' checkbox placed on the status bar and turned off by default. This stops any flash ads. This works for me as I follow the 'Ad blocking hurts the websites you love' approach, and its the flash ads that are the really annoying ones - YMMV.

Re:Extension not exactly needed for adblock

[commodore64_love]

What's the difference between the old Widgets and the new extensions? I found a lot of useful widgets like Youtube video downloaders and Image zooms..... do I have to stop using them now & find a new Extension?

I'm confused.

Re:Extension not exactly needed for adblock

[sznupi]

Well, UI integration of new ones should be more workable (being based on W3C standards might count to some, too...). But in large part - marketing?

Re:Extension not exactly needed for adblock

[Pseudonym Authority]

Preferences->Advanced->Content->"Enable plug-ins only on demand".
Whenever there is something asking for a plugin, Opera will display a place holder and only load the object (and only that object) when you click it. No need to reload or anything.

Re:Extension not exactly needed for adblock

[sznupi]

Yeah, that's actually close to how I browse for some time now (I do have a buddy who finds adblocking in Opera invaluable - who switched from FF a year or so ago and actually thinks the Opera one is very slightly better - so I can say it still works fine) - if ads on some sites tend to be obnoxious, that's a great reason to not visit those sites, to reward tactful ones (I wouldn't know with adblocker)

But - inevitably "Opera has no adblocker ... whah! ... whah!" comes out at the start of probably every discussion about it. What to do if not mention that it, in fact, has one for a long, long time?

Overhyped Opera?

[Anonymous Coward]

This company fired their entire India staff in a week, shut its office and left India. And it was covered anywhere either.

Re:Overhyped Opera?

[hkmwbz]

Left India? Not according to their site. Troll fail, eh?

Good job Opera

[cjeze]

I'm a long time Opera user since when they used to sell licences. I was always a happy Opera user because the browser suited my browsing style much more than any of the competitors.

Then came Chrome, after trying it for a little while I was blown away by the browser and its capabilities.

It was fast and robust and I really liked it, but it didn't get me to convert from Opera.

It wasn't until the "cool" guys at work started using it I decided to give it a proper try, so that's what I've been doing the last year. Evaluating Chrome. I have really been enjoying the experience, though noticed that it is not quite as robust and stable as I thought it would be + there is the compatibility issues because everyone build web sites for Internet Explorer explicitly.

With this release of Opera I'm probably going to go back using Opera again and leaving Chrome as my default browser. Even though I've enjoyed the time I've had with Chrome I've always felt that something was missing, small simple thing I took for granted when using Opera.

I tried Opera 11 beta for a day already and it feels like just right, better in all ways. It suits my browsing needs better. I feel safer as well.

But even though I'm reverting to Opera I'm still going to continue advocating Chrome for family and friends because I believe that it will give them a better browsing experience due to the fact it has superior user interface, browsing experience still similar.

I think Opera has lots to learn and could most definitively do something to their user interface.

Keep up the good work Opera I'm coming back, and as with Chrome I will fall back to IE for the sites that require that.

Re:Good job Opera

[Anonymous Coward]

you are an idiot, please shoot yourself!
Above you explain how Opera just feels better but you are using Chrome because the cool guys use it. Your stupidity does not here, NO you are going to recommend the browser you don't really like to family and friends .... what a dumb ass.

Re:Good job Opera

[Anonymous Coward]

Replying anyway

      "Above you explain how Opera just feels better but you are using Chrome because the cool guys use it."

It feels better to me because I'm used to it. Chrome I gave another try because friends in the office used it, and I'd thought I'd give it a proper try because they were raving about it. To properly try it I had to abandon the browser I was familiar with.

      "NO you are going to recommend the browser you don't really like to family and friends ...."

I'm not. Opera is wonderful to me, I know everything about it and its quirks doesn't bother me. It's a power tool, easy to learn but difficult to master. This is what Chrome does better, its easy to learn but not much to master. It is simple, fast and friendly.

Recommending Opera to my family and friends will involve in much more work on my behalf because I have to help them install and update the browser, explain functions when they do something wrong. You can get things done wrong easily and it might not be so obvious how to fix it.

I think I should rephrase my statement. It's the capabilities of my family/friend computer that will dictate what browser I will recommend for them.

Re:Good job Opera

[commodore64_love]

I installed the non-google Chromium 8 yesterday. It's okay but has various annoyances that make me want Opera or SeaMonkey instead. Like the "find" function is not as easy to use, and when you click on a Audio or Video link it doesn't open the link. It just sits there for a while with a little "tab" on the bottom and you have to click on it to open it up. It feels like an unfinished browser.

The one good thing about Chromium is the small size (about 40,000 kilobytes) in memory. Even SeaMonkey (120,000) isn't that small.

Aside -

Anyone know where I can find Puppy Browser (offshoot of firefox) for Windows? Or Mac? I have it on my linux laptop and would like to move it over to my Desktop PC.

noscript knockoff?

[interkin3tic]

I can't find noscript available. There's noTscript, which claims to be the same thing, but where's the real thing that I've been using for years?

Re:noscript knockoff?

[Anonymous Coward]

do you mean [f12] uncheck enable javascript?

Re:noscript knockoff?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:noscript knockoff?

[Jugalator]

I can't find noscript available. There's noTscript, which claims to be the same thing, but where's the real thing that I've been using for years?

It's unavailable, so if you don't want to use the combined Adblock + Noscript version, you're out of luck.

Re:noscript knockoff?

[Luchio]

Disabling javascript is an option integrated in the browser. Can be disabled per site. You can also disable plugin auto-loading, and load them on-click, as needed.

Re:noscript knockoff?

[interkin3tic]

I'm aware. That's not the same thing. I can't enable specific scripts on a page, I can only turn them all on or all off per page. Noscript also has a better interface.

Re:noscript knockoff?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please read the summary. It mentions Opera 11 actually has noscript, not just the press F12 option.

Farmville_support

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera 10.1 mobile for nokia reaches final stage as well. http://techshrimp.com/2010/11/24/opera-mobile-10-1-goes-final-for-symbianseries-60-phones/

Finally another usable browser

[flyingfsck]

Any browser that doesn't support Adblock is quite useless.

Re:Finally another usable browser

[SilentChasm]

By Adblock you mean Adblock Plus right?

It's the automatic list of things to block that you like, isn't it?
Opera has had a somewhat simple content blocker for a while now but you had to either ad things yourself or find a list online and add it to Epera.

Re:Finally another usable browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance is bliss. Opera's content blocker has been around for many years.

http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/

Re:Finally another usable browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera has had ablocking and noscript for YEARS.

All all Americans idiots?

Re:Finally another usable browser

[Anonymous Coward]

says the one who can't type... idiot

Re:Finally another usable browser

[commodore64_love]

>>>Any browser that doesn't support Adblock is quite useless.

I don't use adblock. I think if I'm blocking the ads then I'm doing the equivalent of stealing service from the Website Sysop. I'd rather see the ads, and help the owner pay his bills.

By the way SeaMonkey has a lot of the same problems as Opera. There are many addons available in Firefox, but not available in SeaMonkey, even though they both use the same base (Mozilla Gecko 5). Developers aim for the largest targets (windows and Firefox) while ignoring the lesser-used programs.

same for iCab...

[Herve5]

Yes, the same can be said from iCab (which invented ad filtering more than 10 years before FF!) -its interface to this feature does exists, but is very poor... and that counts...

Re:same for iCab...

[unapersson]

There was a poor UI version for ad filtering on older versions of Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape 6 as well. Hand editing userContent.css.

Has anyone mentioned ad blocking yet?

[pi8you]

Longtime Opera user here, continues to suit my needs, but the beta still needs a fair bit of work:

- The new Tab Stacks feature is almost what I've wanted for some time, needs some more depth to it (labelling, pinning, and loading sessions as stacks in particular), and to undo the wonkiness introduced to the tab bar behavior in general
- Nice to see Opera join the Extensions party, but slim pickings so far, need to see what gets developed for it to measure its worth.
- While the Mouse Gestures overhaul/visual feedback is a nice idea, it currently forces a much more rigid input of the gestures than what anyone seems to be used to.

Re:Has anyone mentioned ad blocking yet?

[hkmwbz]

The beta needs a lot of work because you have a bunch of feature requests? Heh. Well, one bug with gestures, but the other ones are basically requests. In other words, not much work needed at all (feature requests don't count).

Too little too late?

[Haedrian]

I don't know, I don't think that Opera is ever going to be anything better than that "Weird browser which few people use" - not on desktops anyway.

Addons are Firefox's deal - they are pretty locked down in that aspect (making FF an 'addon-platform' more than anything else) - I don't think its going to compare with FF's popularity.

I'm pretty sure Opera users will be happy with their nice addons now - but I don't see this drawing anyone away from anything else - if you want speed - you go Chrome, if you want addons - you go Firefox. If you want to be special - you go Safari - if you've been living under a rock - you go IE6.

I'm a bit sorry for Opera - they made a good piece of work by all respects.

Re:Too little too late?

[sznupi]

#1 browser in Ukraine, exchanging #1 spot with FF in Russian Federation, nearing 50% and far above other browsers in Belarus; generally a very notable share in most of ex Warsaw Pact. Some worldwide stats appear to be underreporting, by focusing on pages most likely to be visited by specific demographics / rarely visited by some others. How Opera is the #1 mobile web browser worldwide by website stats (despite most of its users being in places with expensive data access, certainly frugal about number of pages visited) might help one day, when those people shift to desktops.

Opera addons are at least based on W3C widget specs...

(if you really want speed you'd better not ignore Opera BTW - especially in cases when it really matters (slow machine, slow connection; this contributes to CIS popularity))

Anyway - they have healthy, rising profitability as is (also during the last 3 years)

Re:Too little too late?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I don't think that Opera is ever going to be anything better than that "Weird browser which few people use" - not on desktops anyway.

And yet everyone keeps copying ideas from Opera:
- tabbed browsing.
- "paste and go" in the address bar
- Opera Link (bookmarks stored online)
- Opera Turbo (speeds-up phone connections)
- Live Bookmarks
- Speed Dial (copied by Chrome)
- and on and on.

Opera is the innovator that everyone else copies.

Re:Too little too late?

[cp.tar]

>>>I don't think that Opera is ever going to be anything better than that "Weird browser which few people use" - not on desktops anyway.

And yet everyone keeps copying ideas from Opera: - tabbed browsing.

Say what?

Opera is not the first browser to implement tabs.
While I do recognize Opera’s inventiveness, it would not do to give them too much credit.

Re:Too little too late?

[chrisG23]

Which browser was? I say this honestly, which was the first widely available and useful browser to have tabs or something like it? From my dim memory, I was using FF as my default browser and sometime in 2005 or 2006 (I could be wrong with my years here) I downloaded Opera and it had tabs and ran better and was more useful to *me* (which is all I ever care about when it comes to software). I switched to Opera as my default browser with FF as the backup. Since my latest OS wipe and reinstall, I've been getting along fine with Opera as the default and Chrome as the backup browser, no FF on my system yet.

I continue to maintain that I like Opera more than any other web browser I have tried. Everyone else's opinions are free to differ.

Re:Too little too late?

[slapout]

It may not have been the first, but it had tabs long before Firefox for IE.

Re:Too little too late?

[Barsteward]

"The first browser to offer tabbed browsing was InternetWorks, created by Booklink Inc., and winner of the Comdex show's Rookie of the Year Award in 1994. The program was renamed GNNworks the following year when it was bought by AOL and incorporated in their online client. (The same development team then went on to develop AOL's Instant Messenger application.)" I first discovered tabs in Opera 5 - i just cant believe how no-one would jump from IE to opera when i showed it to them. What a choice.. all browsers pages in one program window or 5 million(-ish) open windows all over your desktop when that porn site went wild....

Re:Too little too late?

[LaissezFaire]

And the all_mail_in_one_folder M2 mail client, with "labels" so you can filter just the messages you want to see. Which Google copied into Gmail.

Re:Too little too late?

[tibman]

People use to talk about firefox/mozilla/netscape the way you talk about opera. Back when IE had something crazy like 90% of the market.

It was the guys using beta mozilla stuff that helped bring FF usage to what it is today. So don't be so quick to feel sorry for anyone using Opera. They might just be using the browser that everyone (the zerg) will be using a few years down the road.

Re:Too little too late?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Opera is not the first browser to implement tabs.

Not the first overall, but it was the first on Windows PC, Mac, or Linux.

First there was Mosaic/Ibrowse for the innovative and advanced Commodore Amiga in 1999, and then Opera in 2000 (with the release of version 4). Prior to that Opera did not use tabs but instead used a tiled interface to open several pages at the same time. So Opera was innovative in that respect as well. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MultiTorg_Opera.png

Those who say Opera has no relevance simply have no clue. Opera invents and others (firefox, chrome, ie) copy.

Re:Too little too late?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall rightly, it wasn't a tiled interface. It *could* be tiled, but it was a general MDI. If you wanted it to, it acted much like a modern tabbed interface except that the "tabs" were inside the Window menu instead of having their own toolbar (and some features of most tabbed interfaces were missing or elsewhere -- you couldn't rearrange, and the close button was elsewhere, etc).

Re:Too little too late?

[sznupi]

Though it does have MDI interface from the beginning, with the list of open pages not on some tab bar but in the Window menu. Fairly close / was probably a good choice in times of 640x480.

Re:Too little too late?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why "paste and go" in the address bar? Does it count as innovation somehow if you come up with a very specific implementation and say you were "first" to do it that way? Is IE a major innovator because it does things other people do, but in a browser with "Explorer" in the name?

Every Unix browser from the early days of Netscape accepted middle button paste of a URL into any non-editable area (ie all of most web pages) as meaning "go to this URL".

You can also thank Unix hackers for the fact that / automatically searches for text in a lot of browsers now. That's called "leveraging existing muscle memory".

Re:Too little too late?

[hkmwbz]

I don't know, I don't think that Opera is ever going to be anything better than that "Weird browser which few people use" - not on desktops anyway.

More than 140 million users are "few users"? Wow.

if you want speed - you go Chrome

Actually, Opera is currently faster than Chrome.

I'm a bit sorry for Opera - they made a good piece of work by all respects.

Why are you "sorry for Opera"? They are getting millions of new users every single month. They now have more than 140 million users.

mod 30wn

[Anonymous Coward]

successes 3ith the Sales and so on,

Opera has over 50 million users on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps not many in your part of the world but still. Hardly 'few people'. How doesn't Opera know how many users it has. Auto update checks. If the same machine checks for a new version and then checks again a week later. It is in regular use

Re:Opera has over 50 million users on the desktop

[Haedrian]

The average "global usage share" of browsers gives Opera as being a bit less than 2%.

I agree, its still a hell of a lot of computers. This is similar to the whole "Oh, linux users account only for 1%" argument. You're right, its a large number - and I'm sure many individuals will be effected (50 million or so in fact) - but given the 30% and 12% FF and Chrome have, its not too much.

Re:Opera has over 50 million users on the desktop

[hkmwbz]

The average "global usage share" of browsers gives Opera as being a bit less than 2%.

Of course, those "global stats" focus almost exclusively on North America. And fail to detect Opera properly.

And Opera actually has more than 140 million users, which translates to a market share of about 7%.

New dimension

[inightmare]

For feature like tab stacking I have long dreamed. I always end up with loads of tabs open during the day.

As for extensions, it's not something I really have missed, but a lot of my friends criticized Opera for not having extensions like FireFox does. They open a whole new dimension of possibilities for the browser.

Congratulations on the new wonderful release!

still no smart card support

[Freultwah]

It's not as if people have not been craving for smart card support (pkcs#11) for ages... But Opera just keeps ignoring the issue.

Re:still no smart card support

[hkmwbz]

Or maybe people just don't care. Maybe Opera has other priorities. Just because they aren't adding your pet features doesn't mean that they are "ignoring" anything.

Opera is great but can be buggy

[Liambp]

I love Opera. I use it on my dektop, my laptop and my phone. I love the way it all integrates together. I love the look and feel. I love the way it has so many useful features built in as standard (things like clone tab and view tabs side by side). I love the speed dial page that doesn't try to outguess you (looking at you Chrome). I love the option to enable server side compression very useful if you are on a slow network connection or subject to a download cap.

I love all of these things but Opera is the buggiest browser I have ever used. Version 10 was particularly bad in this respect with a number of serious bugs making it through beta and into live (incompatibility with many web forms for example). At this stage in 10's life most of the bugs have been addressed but I am worried it will start all over again with 11.

Re:Opera is great but can be buggy

[sznupi]

Seems they was too much rushing in the times of 9.6x-10.x. Luckily, lately it seems to return to the quite polished state of 9.2x releases.

Re:Opera is great but can be buggy

[hkmwbz]

Opera 10.0 was one of the most stable "major" releases of Opera, ever. Haven't had any major problems with any of the 10.x series, really.

Re:Opera is great but can be buggy

[hkmwbz]

Rushing? 9.6 and 10.0 were stable as a rock. No problems with any other 10.x releases either. Everyone was complaining about 9.0 and 9.2, though. So you apparently got it all upside down.

Re:Opera is great but can be buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved the 10.x series all the way to the 10.10. Then the 10.5 came and well, thanks to the GUI redraw bugs I had to revert using the browser in the same way (UI layout) as the competitors are used. As a result, I switched. Hopefully, the 11 goes again all the way to the 11 for me.

Re:Opera is great but can be buggy

[sznupi]

From where I am, everybody was complaining that post-9.2x dropped most of the characteristics which made Opera really worthwhile (and no crashes in either, it wasn't about stability in late 9.x and early 10.x)

Opera on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably could kill Firefox and chrome and any libwebkitgtk browser if they ported Opera to GTK+.

Re:Opera on Linux

[TeXMaster]

The last version of Opera is toolkit-agnostic, and it integrates with both gtk and qt visuals, afaik

Re:Opera on Linux

[armanox]

Which is also why it works on such a wide range of Linux distros, from F14 to RH9.

no adblock or noscript

[Cyko_01]

there is an adblocker and "notscripts" but they are not the same add-ons. Both opera extensions require you to change some settings before they will work.

Opera Slashdot!

[Hemogoblin]

Everyone always forgets the best feature of Opera; typing /. into the link bar is a shortcut to Slashdot!

Re:Opera Slashdot!

[chrisG23]

Whoah, it does! For a browser known for its lack of features compared to other browsers (which is partly true and partly false) it hasn't ceased to surprise me with the features it does have and that I have continued to discover since I started using it back in 2006.

To be completely honest, taking you to slashdot when you type /. in the link bar isn't really a feature as much as a Whoah! Thats pretty nifty! type of a thing.

Re:Opera Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's odd, I've always known Opera to be the browser with more features than any other browser out there - everything from a mail client, amazing flexible/configurable tabs, and gestures to desktop widgets and a bit torrent client. To name but a few. All included by default and always surprisingly svelte.

Re:Opera Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

How am I supposed to access the root directory's link to itself then?

Re:Opera Slashdot!

[shutdown -p now]

file:/.

Still not great

[Anonymous Coward]

It still scores terrible on the HTML5 tests. Considering it's a bleeding edge new version you would think it would support the latest HTML features.

With that said Opera Mobile is awesome for low-end devices like my S60 phone. Other than that I don't see Opera offering much.

Re:Still not great

[hkmwbz]

Those are not "the HTML5 tests." Those are a bunch of tests that aren't even HTML5, and it doesn't even test all of HTML5. Basing your opinion on Opera's HTML5 compliance on that page is just stupid. And as for "Opera offering much", clearly the other browsers think it does since they keep ripping it off.

OOoh, Opera is sooooo innovative

[Anonymous Coward]

So innovative they introduced extensions after Chrome did. Lamest browser around - ugly, bloated, proprietary. All software that presumes to know the needs of all users is a POS by default.

Re:OOoh, Opera is sooooo innovative

[Barsteward]

is "POS by default" your signature?

LastPass

[TheSeeker11]

Waiting for LastPass then migration will occur.

Re:LastPass

[TheSeeker11]

Waiting for LastPass then migration will occur.

Well whaddaya know - it's here! http://bit.ly/dQ4q9a

Re:LastPass

[lusiads]

LastPass Extension For Opera Released

Re:LastPass

[Shippu]

What's the difference between this and the wand?

http://www.famalegoods.com

[falas105]

welcome to: W W W ( famalegoods ) c o m The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,****, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal W W W ( famalegoods ) c o m jordan shoes $32 nike shox $32 Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23 Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15 ed hardy short_tank_woman $16 Sandal $32 christian louboutin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27 handbag $33 AF tank woman $17 puma slipper woman $30 W W W ( famalegoods ) c o m

It's not just about extensions...

[lusiads]

I can Ctrl+Click [to open link in a background tab] in any other browser BUT Opera.
There is no easy way to make this handy feature work without a hack because you cannot re-map ctrl left_click.

So you never ctrl+clicking or none of you ever actually use Opera at all?

Re:It's not just about extensions...

[tibman]

I don't know about Opera but almost all browsers support the "middle click" to open a link as a background tab. Try it..

You can also close any tab by middle clicking it. It's great.

Re:It's not just about extensions...

[Barsteward]

"Right Click - open in background tab" is 2 clicks - you can surf one-handed then

Re:It's not just about extensions...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

So you never ctrl+clicking or none of you ever actually use Opera at all?

Never control-clicking. Middle-click... otherwise I have to use two hands.

Re:It's not just about extensions...

[DaAdder]

As others have pointed out, the middle mouse button works. Otherwise, ctrl+shift clicking will also open a tab in the background.

HOSTS files are SUPERIOR to AdBlock (how/why)

[Anonymous Coward]

ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them, while HOSTS files only really consume "CPU cycles" during their loads (a programming data storage construct, which is an analog to a PASCAL record). Then, the IP stack uses the DNS client C/C++ structure, or possibly an object (not sure anymore, I'd have to see the BSD reference code again to be sure) to do the rest (that, or the local diskcache, because if you have a LARGE hosts file, you have to turn off the DNS Client Cache service, or your system will lag badly (I have notified Microsoft of this occurrence in fact, directly))!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano, vim (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY better secured via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOt just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)

10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold(er), too! Bonus...

---

(Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security")

APK

P.S.=> HOWEVER, SPECIFICALLY ON OPERA ITSELF and its advantages/superiorities over its competitors in webbrowsers? Ok:

Opera is also apparently lately AGAIN (as per usual mind you) the OVERALL FASTEST Browser there is per this test & article on /. recently, here:

---

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11/12/037241/Firefox-4-Regains-Speed-Mojo-With-No-2-Placing

You can turn FLASH on (BY SITE, not just globally)

[Anonymous Coward]

"I personally get by with Opera the 'Enable Plug-Ins' checkbox placed on the status bar and turned off by default. This stops any flash ads. This works for me as I follow the 'Ad blocking hurts the websites you love' approach, and its the flash ads that are the really annoying ones - YMMV." - by rishistar (662278) on Wednesday November 24, @05:51AM (#34329196) Homepage

One nice thing is, that IF you need to use FLASH (or any other addon, or javascript, etc./et al)? You can set what you have GLOBALLY for all websites, and yet you can also MAKE EXCEPTIONS too, so you have sites where you can use various addons or javascript etc.!

Additionally, it's VERY SIMPLE/EASY to do!

You do this simply by right-clicking on the webpage involved, and choosing the popup menu item "Edit Site Properties" where you can set an "exception" and allow whatever you WISH to allow, albeit for that site only (or others you choose to do this too). This aids security, especially in today's FLASH, Bogus Addons, & maliciously javascripted website ridden world today online...

APK

FireFox 4 Beta?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone seen FF4? It looks exactly like Opera. Opera in the 10.x series added a Menu button at the top left to replace all other options. Sort of like it's own start button. Makes the interface cleaner and smaller at the top.

Guess what? FF4 now has the identical thing!


Opera has always had the URL attached to each "Tab". Meaning there is a tab and under the tab is the URL, which is unique to each tab. As opposed to other browsers where there is just one URL above the tabs and then as you click tabs the URL just changes. FF users use to bash Opera for this.

Guess what!? That is how FF4 now works!


If you bring up FF4 and Opera at the same time, FF4 looks identical to Opera now. Other than the name.
If I was a FF4 user I would be embarrassed at the lack of uniqueness and ingenuity that has over taken FF. :(

OPERA IS FASTER THAN CHROME (recent)

[Anonymous Coward]

"if you want speed - you go Chrome" - by Haedrian (1676506) on Wednesday November 24, @05:13AM (#34329018)

Oh, really? See this below (CHROME LOST TO OPERA VERY RECENTLY ON THAT ACCOUNT, FIRST URL BELOW IN FACT, in javascript processing (where Chrome does well, but not well enough) & in HTML work? Opera's been WIDELY KNOWN as "the fastest webbrowser there is" for nearly a decade now... & the data below proves it in numerous tests no less - read on):

Opera is also apparently lately AGAIN (as per usual mind you) the OVERALL FASTEST Browser there is per this test & article on /. recently, here:

---

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11/12/037241/Firefox-4-Regains-Speed-Mojo-With-No-2-Placing

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/cnetuk/crave/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm

---

Additionally, this speed superiority is not only in HTML related work, where it gained its reputation as "the fastest webbrowser in the world" long ago, but also in javascript related work as well (see the top test in fact on that note & this older result as well on that note -> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/06/23/html5-native-third-ie9-platform-preview-available-for-developers.aspx ).

THAT'S 5 TESTS THAT SHOW OPERA CONSISTENTLY OUTPACING ALL OTHER COMPETITORS IN WEBBROWSERS SPEED, AND FOR YEARS NOW... CONSISTENTLY!

---

Opera's also wildly successful on mobile phones as well (widely known).

As far as SECURITY as well & not having unpatched vulnerabilities? Opera has had the least amount remaining unpatched of the "Big 4" webbrowsers over time:

---

Opera security advisories @ SECUNIA (0% unpatched):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/

FireFox security advisories @ SECUNIA (0% unpatched):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/28698/

GOOGLE CHROME 7 security advisories @ SECUNIA (0% unpatched):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/32718/

IE 8 security advisories @ SECUNIA (29% unpatched):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/

---

Opera also passed the "ACID2" test, for standards compliance (it is not alone here, but is over IE & FF, & it was the 6th browser to do so):

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/12/1416222.shtml

APK

P.S.=> Top all that off with the fact Opera's FREE, plus it has addons (along with widgets also mind you), and now has "tab stacking" also? Hey... beat ALL that, with a stick! apk

HOSTS must be that "1000% nicer" then (see inside)

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, comparing the HOSTS style block in Opera to ABP is like comparing a biplane to a jet fighter. Sure they'll both get off the ground but one is about 1000% nicer" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Wednesday November 24, @03:38AM (#34328516)

10 ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER ADBLOCK ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them, while HOSTS files only really consume "CPU cycles" during their loads (a programming data storage construct, which is an analog to a PASCAL record). Then, the IP stack uses the DNS client C/C++ structure, or possibly an object (not sure anymore, I'd have to see the BSD reference code again to be sure) to do the rest (that, or the local diskcache, because if you have a LARGE hosts file, you have to turn off the DNS Client Cache service, or your system will lag badly (I have notified Microsoft of this occurrence in fact, directly))!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1-2 BROWSERS ONLY... browser addons, generally are (adblock only ran on FF for ages). HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano, vim (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY better secured via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOt just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)

10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold(er), too! Bonus...

(It's kind of TOUGH to say what you have hairy, in light of what's shown above, point-by-point (in favor of HOSTS files vs. ADBLOCK)).

APK

P.S.=> Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security" (along w/ Opera's URLFILTER.INI too on Opera)... apk

More Opera SPEED & SECURITY data 4U sznupi...

[Anonymous Coward]

"if you really want speed you'd better not ignore Opera" - by sznupi (719324) on Wednesday November 24, @06:29AM (#34329418) Homepage

Agreed, 110%, and with a LOT of backing recent & past historical data on speed superiority of Opera (and security too as well & more... read on!):

Opera is also apparently lately AGAIN (as per usual mind you) the OVERALL FASTEST Browser there is per this test & article on /. recently, here:

---

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11/12/037241/Firefox-4-Regains-Speed-Mojo-With-No-2-Placing

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/cnetuk/crave/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm

---

Additionally, this speed superiority is not only in HTML related work, where it gained its reputation as "the fastest webbrowser in the world" long ago, but also in javascript related work as well (see the top test in fact on that note & this older result as well on that note -> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/06/23/html5-native-third-ie9-platform-preview-available-for-developers.aspx ).

Opera's also wildly successful on mobile phones as well (widely known).

As far as SECURITY as well & not having unpatched vulnerabilities? Opera has had the least amount remaining unpatched of the "Big 4" webbrowsers over time:

---

Opera security advisories @ SECUNIA (0% unpatched):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/

FireFox security advisories @ SECUNIA (0% unpatched):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/28698/

GOOGLE CHROME 7 security advisories @ SECUNIA (0% unpatched):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/32718/

IE 8 security advisories @ SECUNIA (29% unpatched):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/

---

Opera also passed the "ACID2" test, for standards compliance (it is not alone here, but is over IE & FF, & it was the 6th browser to do so):

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/12/1416222.shtml

APK

P.S.=> Top that off with the fact Opera's FREE, plus it has addons (along with widgets also mind you), and now has "tab stacking" also? Hey... seriously: Beat ALL that, with a stick! apk

Layer on HOSTS files 4 that too (& more speed)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Opera had adblocking built in for a long time, it just needed a list" - by sznupi (719324) on Wednesday November 24, @02:47AM (#34328288) Homepage

Thanks for the link sznupi, I've been looking to update my URLFILTER.INI... now, to add more "layered security" (and speed)? HOSTS files are great for added security AND added speed!

How so? Ok:

ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them, while HOSTS files only really consume "CPU cycles" during their loads (a programming data storage construct, which is an analog to a PASCAL record). Then, the IP stack uses the DNS client C/C++ structure, or possibly an object (not sure anymore, I'd have to see the BSD reference code again to be sure) to do the rest (that, or the local diskcache, because if you have a LARGE hosts file, you have to turn off the DNS Client Cache service, or your system will lag badly (I have notified Microsoft of this occurrence in fact, directly))!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1-2 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano, vim (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY better secured via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOt just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)

10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold(er), too! Bonus...

APK

P.S.=> Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"... apk

Re:Layer on HOSTS files 4 that too (& more spe

[Pseudonym Authority]

HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less

Browser:Oh look, I have this request to adserve.ng, I shall make a request for the IP!
DNS:Looks like a request.... Just hold a sec while I parse this large ASCII text file.... Ahha! an entry in the HOSTS, I shall just use that!
Browser:Oh how lovely, adserve.ng is 127.0.0.1, I shall make a request for /go.php?disp=346t235y2&refer=cheapwowgold.tk!
Browser: request!
Browser: derp!
Browser: seven!
Browser: Well, it timed out. 127.0.0.1 must not be running a web serve,. but I only wasted 30 seconds on it! Better luck next time I guess!

Re:HOSTS must be that "1000% nicer" then (see insi

[Anonymous Coward]

I really love to stick dildos in my ass and suck my puppies cock until I cum!

Yes, yes you do.

What I like and What I Don't like about opera

[star99]

With respect to Opera version 10.61 Many people are right-handed ( the ones who uses right hand more often than left ) ---- going from one tab to another ( CTRL+Tab left hand ) (as CTRL +PgDn or CTRL+PgUp is not working ) ---- What is more cookies can't be deleted in one go ---- Backup of RSS Feed ( remember Data ) can't be done. --- While Browsing Firefox - Chrome - Opera - IE only IE and opera gives *.mht ( single archive file based saving ) ---- Opera is the only browser which has in built download manager ----- Notes is another utility

Files cache into the diskcache (even HOSTS files)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just hold a sec while I parse this large ASCII text file... but I only wasted 30 seconds on it! Better luck next time I guess!" - by Pseudonym Authority (1591027) on Thursday November 25, @02:05AM (#34340318)

First of all, "/.-wannabe"? When the IP stack loads it loads HOSTS data, and because it is as you say it is, only a text file??

THE HOSTS FILE GOES INTO THE LOCAL DISKCACHE!

(... & doesn't do repeated reads again after its first load). Unless the file changes/is flagged dirty, that holds true (as it would with any file).

APK

P.S. => So better luck next time at trying to cut down even 1 of the points in the 10 that are in favor of HOSTS files over AdBlock, and learn a bit more about how computers really work nowadays, you noob... it always amazes me, these little noobs around here that think they actually KNOW a thing or two, and try to cut the points in that list down (and they ALWAYS fail, always)... apk

Small minor correction on MY part... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"(... & doesn't do repeated reads again after its first load)" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 25, @11:37AM (#34343366)

Correcting/amending that quote of mine above in the "bolded" part above - it SHOULD read this:

repeated reads from DISK

That's because after the IP stack parses the file ONCE (usually after the 1st request a user makes that goes outbound to the net), & since the HOSTS file is ONLY A FILE? Again - Its data gets cached to the local diskcache, and, if you do NOT change that file's content in %WinDir%\system32\drivers\etc? It stays cached and thus, fast, by reading it from RAM!

(Thus, speeding up reads/repeated re-reads just like the local DNS cache service would, albeit into a flexible/resizeable queue (which IS what diskcaches are, vs. the outdated local DNS cache client in Windows, which IS limited in size (bad design imo))

APK

P.S.=> Additionally, this is why with a relatively "largish" HOSTS file you have to turn off the local DNS client cache service in Windows - with relatively "smallish" HOSTS files? You can keep the DNS client running (though I don't know why really, since the local diskcache subsystem caches the entire HOSTS file into RAM anyhow for reference/re-references)... apk

Mod-down didn't disprove any of my 10 points

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line & realize 1 thing: You're modding my post down for totally b.s. reasons, and you're "StRaNgELy" (lol, NOT) unable to disprove any of the 10 points I put up in favor of HOSTS files vs. other methods... are you? Nope.

APK

P.S.=> Better luck next time boys... you're going to NEED it! apk