Opera Confirms It Will Follow Google and Ditch WebKit For Blink

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Opera Confirms It Will Follow Google and Ditch WebKit For Blink

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Wednesday April 3, 2013 @01:05PM from the jumping-ship dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Google on Wednesday made a huge announcement to fork WebKit and build a new rendering engine called Blink. Opera, which only recently decided to replace its own Presto rendering engine for WebKit, has confirmed with TNW that it will be following suit. 'When we announced the move away from Presto, we announced that we are going with the Chromium package, and the forking and name change have little practical influence on the Opera browsers. So yes, your understanding is correct,' an Opera spokesperson told TNW. This will affect both desktop and mobile versions of Opera the spokesperson further confirmed."

135 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So webkit != Blink! by Billly+Gates · 2013-04-03 13:09 · Score: 1

The real question is will the corps and users want to keep old versions of Chrome around for their web apps and sites?
Many with -webkit CSS extensions wont work if Chrome gets rid of them. If Google calls it -webkit then we will have 2 different versions and web developers will be confused and not know which is which when users report a site looks funny.

--
http://saveie6.com/
1. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, obviously the first thing they'd do is remove all of the useful functionality. You know they can keep the existing -webkit-* properties, and even add more assuming they're 100% compatible, right?
2. Re:So webkit != Blink! by yincrash · 2013-04-03 13:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  They are keeping legacy -webkit prefixes and are not adding any new prefixes. Please see here
3. Re:So webkit != Blink! by ChunderDownunder · 2013-04-03 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent, having gone back to firefox, webkit-only should be nipped in the bud.
4. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 13:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Until they decide to discontinue supporting them. Google is fickle.
5. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  I hope they don't keep -webkit-* enabled forever. The CSSWG agreement doesn't say anything about phasing out existing prefixed properties, but keeping them around with outdated syntax/behavior doesn't seem like a good idea. It was never good practice to use a prefixed property without its unprefixed version. So if removing prefixed properties breaks some pages, that means they were broken in the first place.
6. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Billly+Gates · 2013-04-03 14:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I hope they don't keep -webkit-* enabled forever. The CSSWG agreement doesn't say anything about phasing out existing prefixed properties, but keeping them around with outdated syntax/behavior doesn't seem like a good idea. It was never good practice to use a prefixed property without its unprefixed version. So if removing prefixed properties breaks some pages, that means they were broken in the first place.
  You must be new here :-)
  Things stay freaking forever in the industry once it someone or a corporation is dependent on something. IE 6 and XP is still being used with its users considering an open standard broken because it breaks and broken standard to them which is open. Logic is backwards but CMS never get replaced, sites stay, and users whine and blame YOU if something doesn't work. Never the product.
  This is a classic lesson on why standards are so important and why going proprietary is bad. Not a closed vs open debate more than a standard one. Stuff never goes away even if it is broken.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
7. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 14:19 · Score: 0
  
  It was never good practice to use a prefixed property without its unprefixed version.
  Except people were recommending exactly the opposite "best practice", e.g. "You should only use -webkit-poop-butt because the final W3C implementation may change...".
  So now there's a whole era of broken (mostly mobile) websites out there, which WILL be supported nearly forever. Think of how long it took to get rid of the BLINK tag...
8. Re:So webkit != Blink! by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2013-04-03 16:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  assuming they're 100% compatible
  The fact that this is a massive assumption once the codebases start diverging was the point of the GP post.
  
  --
  <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
9. Re:So webkit != Blink! by ozmanjusri · 2013-04-03 17:52 · Score: 2
  
  So? It's fully open source.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
10. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 18:03 · Score: 0
  
  On the contrary. For the moment at least, Webkit == Blink != Webkit2.
  Webkit's designers decided that you generally want a multiprocess architecture when embedding web content, for all the reasons that made Chrome great. So you want to have that in a nice and reusable fashion.
  Google had a choice. Scrapping their own multiprocess code and adopt Webkit2, or stick with the old Webkit and put a new brand on it.
  Although the first choice would probably have been cleaner from a technical perspective, Google wouldn't benefit at all from the first choice, since all their modifications to Webkit2 could easily be transferred (the reason why they couldn't fork before the architecture change) whereas in the second case changes to Webkit a.k.a. Blink are harder to merge to Webkit2 while reusing Webkit a.k.a. Blink makes doing multiprocess harder. A win for Google, if they have enough momentum.
  Since Opera is going to be essentially a reskinned Chromium, it is also stuck with Blink.
11. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 19:02 · Score: 0
  
  >Except people were recommending exactly the opposite
  Actually, that was a recommended way. Random blabbring of people who don't know what they are talking about, howeverâ¦ yes, they said that.
12. Re:So webkit != Blink! by TyFoN · 2013-04-03 19:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Blink is based on webkit which itself is based on KHTML which is as you might know is fully open source (GPL).
  They can't really change that license :)
13. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  That is meaningless for large projects. No single person can hope to do anything. You would have to hire a team of developers to maintain such a fork or do the impossible task for getting them to work on your fork for free.
  As a user of open source software, your options are limited in that its no different from proprietary software for practical purposes.
14. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 19:26 · Score: 0
  
  as a web developer, I found the backward logic very true.
  I'm always eager to test and implement new stuff the standards provide us... only to take it out few weeks later, because some end user called my customer and told their site didn't work in Mosaic 2.0 or some other rather old browser.... "Why didn't you test it properly" ... With a 20 year old browser? Right!
15. Re:So webkit != Blink! by UnknownSoldier · 2013-04-03 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  Standards keep the various vendor's implementations compliant.
16. Re:So webkit != Blink! by ozmanjusri · 2013-04-03 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh, this ancient FUD again.
  Here's a cluestick sunshine. The whole point of fee and open software isn't about everybody rolling their own. That's just a thoroughly overused ant-foss astroturfer talking point.
  When the source is open, and a product is desired by enough people and products, the community will pick it up. Open Office was forked when Oracle looked like being a threat, and that's a very substantial project.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
17. Re:So webkit != Blink! by hairyfeet · 2013-04-03 20:52 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Yeah because we've never seen that go wrong in the past...quirks mode anyone?
  Ya know the more crap like this they pull the more I distrust Google. Call me weird but even though I don't agree with the FOSS guys on a LOT of issues frankly I trust them more to put the user #1 over what is best for supermegacorp Google Maybe I'm wrong, and I honestly hope that I am but frankly I wouldn't be surprised if this "great new engine" just so happens, purely by accident of course, make it a royal pain in the ass to use something like ABP with it.
  I know a lot of the more hardcore here think of me as "Mr Proprietary Guy" but I really really REALLY don't like this feeling I've been getting of these supermegacorps trying to go back to the "good old days" of every damned thing on the web ending up needing or having to depend on some corp for the web. i thought it sucked when it was "Works best in IE" and I think "Works best in webkit" sucks just as hard but at least with fucking Webkit I don't HAVE to take Google's version, or Apple's version, hell I could make my OWN version from the source if I wanted to go through the trouble (I use the Comodo variant instead, after flirting briefly with SWIron and Chromium) but whenever I hear of a big corp like that suddenly switching gears like that all I can think is...what is the catch? I mean if they just want to remove some features for their mobile Chome they can do that NOW and if they changes work I honestly wouldn't be surprised if upstream would go along, so what is the angle?
  I have a feeling I KNOW what the catch is, its the same damned thing I have been saying for a few years when it first seemed like every company was trying to rip off not only Apple's thunder but their control freak nature, its that good old fashioned pain in our collective asses known as lock in. Google has the same kind of power MSFT had in the 90s so I have a feeling I'm gonna end up seeing "This site requires Blink x.x" in the not to distant future...man am I the ONLY one that has this sinking feeling in the middle of my guts that for the first time since i got into computers in the early 80s that computing is gonna get WORSE not better in the future?
  Because I don't know about the rest of you but I so do NOT want to end up locked into some corporate wet dream of "locked down, black box, kiss our appstore" cellphones and tablets that I have to toss every time the stock dips because "hey the web requires Blink! Version 4 and your device will only support Version 3, now get out there and consume you lazy peasant" kind of bullshit, but sadly that is what we're gonna be heading towards, hell you won't even be able to unlock the damned thing without running afoul of DMCA.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
18. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's this sort of dull, repetitive FUD that's killing Slashdot.
  There is NOTHING interesting about this comment. It is a straight regurgitation of Microsoft's "Scroogled" smear campaign which is being upvoted by their sockpuppets.
  It is dull. It is boring. It is commercially motivated. It adds nothing to the conversation. So fucking LAME!
19. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 21:29 · Score: 0
  
  I know a lot of the more hardcore here think of me as "Mr Proprietary Guy"
  Um no.
  You're a Microsoft mouthpiece. There's nothing inconsistent about your FUD. FOSS and Google are both fair game to your employers.
20. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Billly+Gates · 2013-04-03 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Where I am from there is only one standard. It is what the user uses that previously worked fine. If IE 6 works for Dell EMS then IE 6 is the standard and IE 10/Chrome break it according to my users and therefore are the broken ones. The browser is never blamed. And mentioning W3C is behind their comprehension.
  That is the point. Whenever someone uses something it is not the defecto standard and if it tries to do things the right way in future releases the user will consider that one broken so in the case of dropping -webkit in Android/Chrome for -Blink would be disastrous and make a lot of pissed off users or confused webdevelopers if 2 -webkit CSS deliver different results. Then the user will always blame the I.T. department and website administrators.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
21. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 22:24 · Score: 0
  
  less space than a nomad too.
22. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 22:34 · Score: 0
  
  That is complete bullshit and you know it Chromium devs.
  Make your own damn prefix so in 5 years time where won't be 2 damn -webkit- behaviors!
  Mind you I guess the argument of use of vendor prefixes is a good one. I see so many websites relying on the prefixes still, despite some of those features being main features now.
  But what could have been, stats on the behavior of features on certain websites, COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS AND OPTIONAL YOU PARANOID FREAKS WHO WILL PROBABLY COMMENT, would have been insanely useful to speed up development.
  Now it will be back to the boring Issues List outright, which is a failure of an idea already since the damn things never get fixed in any reasonable time because HUZZAH FEATURES.
  Doublest-edge sword indeed.
23. Re:So webkit != Blink! by FunPika · 2013-04-04 00:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  KHTML is LGPL, not GPL. While any modifications to the KHTML parts have to be open sourced, anything else linked to that can be under any license Apple, Google, Opera, or anyone else wants. If KHTML was actually under GPL, then while IANAL I am pretty sure that any proprietary code used in Safari, Chrome (not Chromium), or Opera (once it finishes switching from Presto) would be considered GPL violations. In addition releasing parts of Webkit/Blink under BSD (which is the case) would probably violate the GPL.
  
  --
  After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
24. Re:So webkit != Blink! by drinkypoo · 2013-04-04 00:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Standards keep the various vendor's implementations compliant.
  Laws prevent crimes.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
25. Re:So webkit != Blink! by uM0p+ap!sdn+ · 2013-04-04 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  Webkit is not GPL. There are pieces in LGPL, and the majority is a BSD license.
  That means that changes to the library itself must be open source. However, the program using the library may be proprietary.
  http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
26. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  When the source is open, and a product is desired by enough people and products, the community will pick it up.
  lol..
  There is no "community", you moron. Its companies paying people to work on products. Its their job. All this fantasy talk about awesome nerds hacking on code from their basement in their spare time has been thoroughly debunked over and over. Any open source project of moderate complexity and above would completely fail if people stopped working on it. No amount of desire or popularity would help unless someone paid a bunch of people hard cash to work on it.
27. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  At least both are true to some extent, and better than nothing. :)
28. Re:So webkit != Blink! by UnknownSoldier · 2013-04-04 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you point is that an inanimate object "Laws" prevent human behavior then yes, at times, you are correct.
  However your trite comment is trivializing, viewing the world in black and white, and comparing apples and oranges.
  e.g. We have a _standard_ about red traffic lights to _prevent_ crimes such as (traffic) accidents. We have laws (& penalties) so that motor vehicles have functioning brakes to prevent [future] crime. Standards provide a framework. If everyone just ignores the standard then there was no point having the standard in the first place.
  However, standards also empower people. If one vendor decides to not follow the standards then users can use the standard as a measuring stick to hold the vendor accountable to fix their broken stuff. (Now whether this works in practice depends on politics, but at least the option to get the process started is there.)
  Laws [generally] act as guidelines for people so that they will think about the consequences. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't (such as prohobition). And while [some] laws are orthogonal to ethics and morality there are also bad-laws and thus we have civil disobedience (such as Rosa Parks) to get the laws changed.
  The same can be said for standards. Having a bad standard is worse then no standard.
  If everyone held themselves to a higher standard there wouldn't even be a _need_ for Laws in the first place.
  If everyone agreed then we wouldn't have the need for "language lawyers" to "interpret" the "spec".
29. Re:So webkit != Blink! by hairyfeet · 2013-04-04 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  And...your point? You think the BSD is evil or something? How is it being BSD change a single word i said? Is BSD FOSS? Yep. Can I take the source and make my own version? Well looking at how many Webkit variants are out there, not to mention the fact I'm typing this on one of them I think the answer to that is obvious.
  People who forget their history are doomed to repeat it and while Apple and Google may pay varying degrees of lip service to "being open" never forget there are BILLIONS OF DOLLARS at stake here. Does anybody think if MSFT could royally fuck you and lock you into a platform that would keep the money rolling their way they wouldn't do that? so what makes you think Apple and Google is run by Tofu eating hippies? They'll fuck you JUST AS HARD if it means their stock jumps 30%, you can COUNT ON IT.
  Mark my words and mark them well, by 2015 HTML will have DRM baked in and Android will be locked down just like the TiVo was so that Android can play that DRMed content. Remember you can get the source for TiVo right now, its just not worth anything as you can't access the hardware. In less than a year after release you'll be seeing "This site requires Blink! V x" just like we saw with IE then and now with webkit extensions to pages, and I have yet to see Google talk about what license they are using for this "great new thing" have you? Mark my words while I'm sure the final product will benefit GOOGLE a lot how much it will benefit Joe Average will be dubious at best.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
30. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  Well duh!
  Fucking creepy Microsoft trolls.
31. Re:So webkit != Blink! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 15:48 · Score: 0
  
  People with intelligence and good sense, and maybe guns prevent crimes.
  And when seconds count, the police ("the law") are only minutes away. ::)
Forking by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 13:16 · Score: 1

Says it all.
1. Re:Forking by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Just Don't Blink, Blink and you're dead
  Don't turn your back ......
User configurable by sunderland56 · 2013-04-03 13:16 · Score: 1

Why not just make the choice of rendering engine user configurable?
1. Re:User configurable by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 13:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because it is LOL to fool with the rendering engine.
  LOL this looks great in IE7, looks like crap in IE8, doesn't work at all in IE9, and looks great in IE10. Why not extend that type functionality to all browsers?
  LOL LOL LOL
2. Re:User configurable by Billly+Gates · 2013-04-03 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Why not just make the choice of rendering engine user configurable?
  Yeah, that will work real well with clueless (l)users complaining why a site wont work to developers.
  What engine are you using IE, what version, IE, what setting, IE hey you are going to fix this or what!
  At least now you tell them about IE for the version. Or the logs will report it. Imagine if Firefox emulating trident IE 8 displayed different than IE 8, but was recorded as IE 8 in the logs?
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
3. Re:User configurable by NonSequor · 2013-04-03 13:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Even for the nonclueless users it would be kind of obnoxious. I'm not a settings minimalist, but I happen to think that if its hard to tell what flipping a setting has actually done, maybe it shouldn't be there.
  
  --
  My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
4. Re:User configurable by lilfields · 2013-04-03 13:40 · Score: 2
  
  New versions of IE 10+ are fairly compliant, in some ways more so than others. IE11 will be blocking scripts that are IE specific if I'm not mistaken to keep developers from making their sites look different on IE than say Chrome because older versions of IE weren't compliant when now IE11 is...but the user still suffers from the past IE sins.
5. Re:User configurable by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  None of Google's stated reasons for switching to a new rendering engine would apply to a user configurable choice of engines, because all of their code would still need to be compatible with WebKit.
6. Re:User configurable by larry+bagina · 2013-04-03 13:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Google says they're forking for technical reasons -- Google uses a different thread model and security model than Apple and making a hard break makes for easier maintenance. If they're going to keep both rendering engines around and updated then there would be no reason to fork in the first place.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
7. Re:User configurable by Billly+Gates · 2013-04-03 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  My fear now is Chrome is the new IE 6 of this decade.
  With things changing and mobile users monopolized on it this will get confusing as much as different versions of IE last decade which is why the corps all standardized on IE 6.
  Mobile sites will go through hell next and it might hurt Android and help IOS if the -webkit extension is removed or if W3C changes a standard that is different from the -webkit one. Look up IE boxmodel? This caused hell as IE 6 was ahead in this arena and W3C changed it and Firefox followed the other box model for CSS layout leaving IE 6 only webapps that still are in to this day.
  Many CMS are never updated as beancounters consider them a cost so they will still output the proprietary -webkit code even if it is slated to be finalized by the W3C. Yuck.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
8. Re:User configurable by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  And how is this different from UA-spoofing? For that matter IE8 had a 'quirks mode' (or whatever it was called) where it would pretend to be IE7, except that it didn't actually manage it perfectly.
  Even now, just about every browser pretends to be Mozilla to distinguish itself from IE5-, except when they pretend to be Safari because that used to be the webkit, and so on and so on. This will just be another instance where backwards compatability is broken and everyone scrambles to add another string to their UA to outwit sites that are trying to outwit yesteryear's browsers that were trying to outwit browsers from three years ago ad epoch.
  We are not browsing a vendor-agnostic web. IE6 simply had shitty enough CSS that, when IE7/8 corrected it, the bandwagon pointed at ACID3 and declared this the promised land of standards-compliance, ignoring that this is just a calm between storms. Mark my words, "Best viewed in" is returning, and it will be just as bad as you remember. You'll know it finally happens when jQuery gets fed up with an engine and takes sides.
9. Re:User configurable by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  I demand that Blink present me with an option on whether to use Blink or download one of the many alternatives like WebKit, Firefox, or IE. Otherwise I will sue them for 700 million dollars.
10. Re:User configurable by cheater512 · 2013-04-03 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  You can. You open Firefox if you want Gecko, Chrome if you want Blink, Safari if you want Webkit and IE if you get a brain disease and think opening it is a good idea.
  If you want them in one program its simply not possible. Too many interlinked rendering components.
  E.g. Firefox's entire interface is made with XUL which is rendered the same way as pages. Put webkit in it and webkit can't do XUL so you need Gecko anyway for the interface. Get the idea?
11. Re:User configurable by rgmoore · 2013-04-03 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  The whole point of forking is that there's something you don't like about the project you're forking from. As long as that's a technical decision rather than a political one, supporting both old and new versions undermines that technical justification, since it sticks you with all the problems of both versions. Not to mention that it adds the complications of making swapping possible. It's a terrible, terrible idea.
  
  --
  There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
12. Re:User configurable by MrEricSir · 2013-04-03 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Why not just make the choice of rendering engine user configurable?
  Does Google have a compelling business case for such an option? If so, please explain.
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
13. Re:User configurable by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  Sleipnir has this function if you are interested.
14. Re:User configurable by Billly+Gates · 2013-04-03 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  ""We are not browsing a vendor-agnostic web. IE6 simply had shitty enough CSS that, when IE7/8 corrected it, the bandwagon pointed at ACID3 and declared this the promised land of standards-compliance, ignoring that this is just a calm between storms. Mark my words, "Best viewed in" is returning, and it will be just as bad as you remember. You'll know it finally happens when jQuery gets fed up with an engine and takes sides."
  You mean how JQuery 2.0 wont support IE 8?
  That I am in favor of. The corps will whine and freak out how trajic it is to not use a 4 year old browser that thinks xhtml means emulate quirky HTML IE 5.5, but I am in favor of this on the desktop. ... on the cell phone end. Yes Windows Phone wont browse half the websites! They see mobile and feed -webkit crap sheets to it that it doesn't understand and not W3C HTML 5/CSS 3. After all webkit owns 95% of the mobile market so why bother targeting it? But IE 6... that thing sucks because its sooo proprietary yadda yadda.
  If we all switch to tablets in 10 years we might be in for some trouble if webkit becomes too dominate.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
15. Re:User configurable by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 19:08 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, I was referring to jQuery dropping support for a browser marketted as current, like icing Gecko because "too much work to optimize for an aging API" or something. But it's partially there.
16. Re:User configurable by Billly+Gates · 2013-04-03 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Jquery 2.0 supports all modern as in less than 2 current releases old. I hate to bring to you but, Firefox 3.6 is not modern. It is old, buggy, insecure, archaic, and now over 2 years old and should be dropped. Its marketshare is beginning to match IE 6 and is now below IE 7. I was a big firefox fan but even started playing with IE 8 at the beginning of 2011 as Firefox 3.6 was just terrible and felt more like old IE than its phoenix beginnings.
  But that has changed and it is a much improved browser.
  I use ESR Firefox which is based off of 17 and that is considered current.
  In addition JQuery 1.9 is almost done and is built exactly for older browsers with some back-ported features.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
17. Re:User configurable by Ash+Vince · 2013-04-03 23:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why not just make the choice of rendering engine user configurable?
  I have just been digging around and think I can answer this question. It seems that the reason for this is to do with the upcoming webkit2 Apple project taking a very different approach to how multiprocess stuff should work. They have some pretty diagrams here showing the differences: http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit2
  Google have long taken the approach it seems to just have entirely separate processes for each page talk to a webkit subprocess via api calls.The webkit2 project are taking a different approach by trying to put multiprocess stuff actually into the webkit2 api itself.
  Since Apple will probably throw webkit out the window anyway when webkit2 is ready it seems that everyone moaning about Google here may be a bit backward. It seems that when Webkit2 is ready then everyone except Chromium will use it. Chromium won't need to use webkit2 because it is already designed to do what webkit2 does anyway.
  I have to admit, I have a gut feeling here that wrapping the multiprocess stuff around webkit ala chromium is actually a better idea than trying to do what WebKit2 is trying so I think the chromium devs might be making a better choice from a technical perspective even though it probably is a bit more resource hungry.
  Of course much of this about Apple adopting webkit2 for Safari all pure speculation, but then it has to be when you are talking about a closed source product like Safari and don't work for Apple.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
18. Re:User configurable by am+2k · 2013-04-04 00:26 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Google says they're forking for technical reasons -- Google uses a different thread model and security model than Apple and making a hard break makes for easier maintenance.
  That's only half of the story - they're using a different thread model because they wrote it themselves and didn't allow Apple to merge it into the original code base. So the fork is not really based on a technical reason.
19. Re:User configurable by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. When will the EU finally stand up for all of the poor and disadvantaged and demand that all browsers offer an option to download and install other browsers? The EU cant really be blamed though, since this lack of choice can only be because of US corporate pressure - what can the EU do?
20. Re:User configurable by jvj24601 · 2013-04-04 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Of course much of this about Apple adopting webkit2 for Safari all pure speculation, but then it has to be when you are talking about a closed source product like Safari and don't work for Apple.
  WebKit2 is already used for Safari (desktop). At some point in the future, it is presumed they'll use it for iOS Safari as well.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_%28web_browser%29#WebKit2
The Angels have the Google by Snowhare · 2013-04-03 13:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Remember: Don't Blink
1. Re:The Angels have the Google by Tablizer · 2013-04-03 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Jar Jar Blinks
  So does Yoda.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
2. Re:The Angels have the Google by ChunderDownunder · 2013-04-03 16:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Ahem, I think you have the wrong franchise, and the OP was referring to Doctor Who
3. Re:The Angels have the Google by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  "Blink and you're dead. Don't turn your back. Don't look away. And don't blink"
Poor Opera by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 13:50 · Score: 0

Those guys at Opera are fuckin' lost. They don't know what to do anymore. Personally, I test Opera from time to time, and it's always lacking some very common behavior found in other browsers.
1. Re:Poor Opera by larry+bagina · 2013-04-03 14:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Opera is now Google's bitch -- dependent on Google for search bar revenue, dependent on Google for the Browser itself. They're Chrome with some slightly different, well, chrome.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
2. Re:Poor Opera by Archenoth · 2013-04-03 15:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I use Opera.
  I don't use it for it's rendering engine, but rather for all of the functionality it has by default that other browsers simply cannot do. (Even with extensions.) So, the fact that it is becoming more compatible with most websites is great news for me. It means they can continue to innovate like they have done for years. (Most modern browsers use things that were created by Opera ages ago.)
  They are not becoming Google's bitch because rendering was never their main feature, they are simply adopting the engine that everyone develops for while retaining the functionality that Opera users actually use. Sure, some of us will decry the switch because Presto was one helluva light engine and we lose the work done on it, but other then that, this is actually good news.
  
  --
  The arch foe.
3. Re:Poor Opera by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 17:37 · Score: 0
  
  True. They've already yielded what little authority they had in the standards process, and so they're basically just slaves to their UI now. They were the popular "they did X first" browser at one point (even when it wasn't true), and now they'll just be a fancy email client with a browser in it. Now they'll focus on the boring bits and fall to the wayside, while Google gets all the credit for the "ain't it cool?" crap that barely works.
4. Re:Poor Opera by TeXMaster · 2013-04-03 17:45 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm an Opera user myself and while I agree that (one of) the main reason(s) for this preference was the functionality of the whole thing, I did like the Opera rendering engine, and often found it to be more standard-compliant than other engines, even when it had less coverage. I'm a little afraid that the Blink switch will break some of the functionalities I've been relying on (such as the ‘presentation mode’ in full-screen).
  On the other hand, with the Blink/WebKit fork we are probably going to have three main engines again, and this is a good thing.
  
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
5. Re:Poor Opera by sgunhouse · 2013-04-03 18:10 · Score: 2
  
  Strange, I thought Bing was the default search engine.
6. Re:Poor Opera by Fjandr · 2013-04-03 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  It's lacking what, exactly? In many instances, it has more functionality by default, since it doesn't require plugins for things that should be standard.
7. Re:Poor Opera by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 19:21 · Score: 0
  
  Gecko, Trident, WebKit, Blink.
8. Re:Poor Opera by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 19:25 · Score: 0
  
  Opera is now Google's bitch
  And they are learning to like it!
9. Re:Poor Opera by hkmwbz · 2013-04-04 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Opera isn't dependent on Google for the browser. They just happened to choose a specific technology platform
  How do you know the chrome is only slightly different to Chrome?
  If Opera is Google's bitch now, that's not new. That must be because 1/3 of their revenue is from Google. But that's going to change since other business areas (such as ads) are growing very quickly.
  In fact, I would say that Opera is less of a Google bitch now than it was just 6-12 months ago.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
10. Re:Poor Opera by hkmwbz · 2013-04-04 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, they are lost are they? How so? And when did that happen, exactly?
  They seem to know exactly what to do, considering that they have more users than ever, and are constantly reaching new revenue and profit heights.
  What common behavior is Opera lacking, and won't that automatically fix itself with Webkit or Blink?
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
11. Re:Poor Opera by hkmwbz · 2013-04-04 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  How have they yielded any authority in the standards process? Have they been blocked from the W3C?
  Focus on the boring bits? Quite the opposite. Now they'll have time to do more cool stuff instead of always catching up with the other ones.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
12. Re:Poor Opera by hkmwbz · 2013-04-04 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, if Opera is Google's bitch now, it's less so than ever. Opera is getting more and more revenue from other sources than Google, and is probably more independent from Google financially than ever before.
  How are they depending on Google for the browser? They are basically letting Google do the ground work, and doing the easy and fun part on top of that. Seems like a win-win situation to Opera.
  How do you know that the UI will just be "slightly different"?
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
13. Re:Poor Opera by TeXMaster · 2013-04-05 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  My fault. I still have troubles in considering Trident a serious contender when talking about rendering engines and standard compliance in the same sentence.
  
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
Differentiation? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 14:07 · Score: 0

So, on iOS Opera can't create a browser that uses it's own rendering engine and are left to skin an existing browser, this seems suboptimal, but now they've decided to do the same on all other platforms too? I really don't understand.
1. Re:Differentiation? by SpectreBlofeld · 2013-04-03 15:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They're obviously hurting financially. By switching to Webkit (and now Blink) they were able to lay off over 90 developers, some of whom had been with the company for 15 years. This sucks - for the developers, obviously, but I'm sure nobody was happy about making that call; but according to salarylist.com, the average software developer salary is around $81,000/yr which times 90 developers is 7.29 MILLION dollars a year. Not sure if Norway dev pay is equivalent to the US average, but you get the rough picture. That sort of sum could make or break Opera as a company.
  I've been a fan of Opera browser for a very long time - I started using it right after it became free. Opera pioneered a great deal of features that are browsing must-haves today, implementing them years before any competitor. They remind me of another company that hailed from their land-mass-sharing-neighbors in Sweden: Saab. A car company that pioneered many innovations that were later incorporated in automobiles across the board. The first to do this, the first to do that - turbochargers on production cars, cabin air filters, very high crash safety standards, active seat belts (okay, that one didn't last long), active head rest restraints, refrigerated glove box (for taking that Chardonnay to the picnic of course), headlight washers, heated seats, the use of computers to automatically monitor and adjust the engine's operations based on the type of fuel used and sensor input, direct ignition, traction control, air conditioned seats, etc, etc, etc. Now compare to this list of Opera 'firsts':
  http://operawiki.info/OperaInnovations
  Saab was bought by GM. When that happened, all their cars were mandated to be cross-platform cars. They shared chassis with other cars; some models (and SUV and a hatchback) were blatant rebadges of a GM SUV and a Subaru (nicknamed the Saaburu). Now Saab is no more.
  Sounds like what is happening to Opera, unfortunately.
  I know 'car metaphors' are a Slashdot tradition, but I find this one particularly apt.
2. Re:Differentiation? by MightyMartian · 2013-04-03 17:46 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm sorry. I don't get car metaphors. Could you restate your argument as a superhero metaphor?
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Differentiation? by evilviper · 2013-04-03 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  Now compare to this list of Opera 'firsts':
  http://operawiki.info/OperaInnovations
  
  Opera really wasn't the first in most cases, and they implemented the features very POORLY, only to have other browsers eventually come along and show them the right way to do it.
  Tabs: Opera was second behind another little known IE shell, and their method of cycling tabs in LAST-USED order, and having those tabs appear as loose windows INSIDE of the Opera window was a nightmare that resembled MS Office 7's multiple open document windows, more than it does modern tabbed browsers. In fact, when Mozilla came out with tabs, OPERA COPIED THEM, so now Opera has TWO completely different methods of handling tabs. What made Mozilla's tabs great was the "open in background" option... With that, I'd be perfectly happy managing dozens of windows. It was the "new windows" opening in the foreground and having to be moved that was the real hassle, and the innovation.
  Pop-up blocking: Worked poorly in Opera. It blocked the majority of popups, but several still got through, and in the process it broke plenty of legit sites. Mozilla did it right. And everybody and their mother thought up pop-up blocking long before Opera or anyone else did it... The devil is in the implementation details.
  Fit to Window: I was crying, loudly, in public forums, for this feature on my PDA for YEARS and YEARS before Opera released it. Their implementation was over simplistic, more like disabling style sheets or removing the "<table" tags than what we use today. So they don't get credit for implementing the current smartphone browser zoom and fit-to-width methods (which do things much differently).
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
4. Re:Differentiation? by girlinatrainingbra · 2013-04-03 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  Very nice comparison, and I agree with you about the silliness of dumping quality engineers to increase the profit level or save a little money. It's a short term gain for a much worse long term loss. I didn't know about all of those Saab innovations. Thanks for the details.
5. Re:Differentiation? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 00:00 · Score: 0
  
  I would prefer a pizza analogy please (where's pizzaanalogyguy when you need him?)
6. Re:Differentiation? by Rakishi · 2013-04-04 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  A car company that pioneered many innovations that were later incorporated in automobiles across the board.
  
  Pioneering things means nothing if you can't make money in the process and by the late 1980s when GM got involved Saab wasn't making money.
  
  Saab was bought by GM. When that happened, all their cars were mandated to be cross-platform cars. They shared chassis with other cars; some models (and SUV and a hatchback) were blatant rebadges of a GM SUV and a Subaru (nicknamed the Saaburu). Now Saab is no more.
  Saab wasn't bought by GM at first, GM basically invested in Saab until they finally bought them out. The shared chassis thing is also BS since Saab ignored it for most cars or basically rebuilt the whole thing anyway. Saab was bleeding money the whole time GM owned them and things like the shared chassis were attempts to stop that. Which Saab ignored until going bankrupt.
7. Re:Differentiation? by tehcyder · 2013-04-04 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry. I don't get car metaphors. Could you restate your argument as a superhero metaphor?
  Opera's becoming Superman with a load of kryptonite stuffed up his arse? Chromium's the Silver Surfer with his cock cut off. IE is Iron Man without batteries. Firefox is Woody from Toy Story.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
8. Re:Differentiation? by hkmwbz · 2013-04-04 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't just skinning an existing browser on iOS (does the Opera ICE demo look like just a skin to you?), nor are they doing it on other platform. Using a browser framework doesn't mean you are merely reskinning another browser using the same framework.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
9. Re:Differentiation? by hkmwbz · 2013-04-04 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Hurting financially? Whatever gave you that idea? They've reached new profit and revenue highs every single quarter now for a long time.
  They didn't lay off 90 developers. They laid off 90 people in total, including sales and marketing personnel. About half were engineers, which includes testers. So the real number of programmers is probably around 20 or so, which is a very small number compared to the several hundred developers that are still working there.
  Being bought sounds like what is happening to Opera? Um, but it isn't. In fact, it's Opera doing the acquisitions.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
10. Re:Differentiation? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Basically what he is saying is is that because Norway (and Scandinavia in general) are not conducive environments for successful businesses (unless protected), eventually businesses that desire to keep growing can only survive if they get outside investment.
11. Re:Differentiation? by hkmwbz · 2013-04-04 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Opera did tabs right. They had proper MDI, while Firefox just had inflexible tabs. Opera didn't copy Firefox. They just changed the way they did MDI, but it was still proper MDI.
  Opera also did proper popup blocking befire Firefox came around and copied it.
  Opera also did proper fit to width, while Firefox didn't have anything like that. And yes, they did do the zoom and fit to width methods you see on phones today. They did it with the Wii browser, which came out before the iPhone, and they did it with Opera Mini.
  So as you can see, your version of history is false.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
12. Re:Differentiation? by evilviper · 2013-04-06 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  "Nuh uh" is not a rebuttal... I was there through the years, trying to use Opera. It sucked, for all the reasons I listed.
  If I was wrong, Opera would have a vastly larger user-base today, instead of being a tiny also-ran.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
13. Re:Differentiation? by hkmwbz · 2013-04-06 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  You are not a god who represents everyone else. Your opinions are not global. Your opinions are yours. I explained how I think your opinions are false. I pointed out that Opera actually did MDI right.
  Also, Opera is not tiny. It has more than 300 million users, and is quite big in parts of the world. It's always been one of the top 2 or 3 browsers in Russia and former USSR states, for example.
  What's been holding Opera back is that it's been ignored and blocked by sites, causing stuff to break. This makes it harder to retain users.
  But it did retain tens of millions of users because of the excellent usability features, such as tabbed browsing done right.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
14. Re:Differentiation? by evilviper · 2013-04-06 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  I pointed out that Opera actually did MDI right.
  No, you asserted that Opera did tabs correctly. Your opinion on the subject has no more weight than mine. Meanwhile, you completely discounted, and failed to explain away the FACT that Opera later directly copied Firefox's tab model (while keeping its old tab method as an option). You also failed to explain why opera's stupid method of cycling tabs in historical order is any better than letting the window manager do it, or how having multiple browser windows tiled inside of the larger Opera window, is EVER a good feature, for ANYONE, in ANY situation, and disallowing multiple full browser windows.
  You're free to hold your own opinions, of course. But disagreeing with me, asserting I'm wrong and your opposing opinion is right, without bothering to factually refute ANY of the points I made, just makes you a whiny child crying "nuh uh" over and over again, and nothing more.
  Since you don't seem to have the wherewithal to even hold a coherent discussion, I will try to remember to ignore you in the future.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
15. Re:Differentiation? by hkmwbz · 2013-04-07 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, you made the assertion. I merely contradicted your assertion.
  Opera never copied Firefox's tab model. It added an option between behaving the standard MDI way, or behaving the way other tabbed browsers did. Of course, later they merged the two, giving people the best of both worlds. Firefox copied other tabbed browsers.
  You are just trolling about Opera, so I decided to set the record straight.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
Google is so fickle. Don't build on their stuff. by aristotle-dude · 2013-04-03 14:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

They seem to cancel/change/fork things at whim so it is difficult to build on top of their code or services.
One of these days slashdotters will fall out of love with google and see them for who they really are. Don't be evil? Right... The evil say that much like how dictatorships are called "Democratic Republic of".

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Open source Presto? by linebackn · 2013-04-03 14:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is there any chance Opera would consider open sourcing Presto since they plan to drop it?
1. Re:Open source Presto? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 15:07 · Score: 0
  
  Ask them
2. Re:Open source Presto? by SpectreBlofeld · 2013-04-03 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I was hoping. You know what would be hilarious? If Google changed their minds and decided to adopt the then-open Presto as their engine instead!
  Really, though, I think Opera should have tried that first. They obviously decided to switch so they could lay off their 90+ engine developers (which they probably have to do for financial reasons)... but they could have open sourced the engine first and therefore get dev help from the community, instead of tossing Presto in the bin and walking away.
3. Re:Open source Presto? by arf_barf · 2013-04-03 15:40 · Score: 2
  
  A few years ago, I was in the market for a simple html rendering engine for an embedded project. There were only a couple of options: webkit, presto and one more engine that I dont remember the name of. The licensing fees that opera wanted were astronomical and only the likes on Nintendo could afford it. Needless to say, I used webkit even though Presto was more desirable.
  Anyhow, they should have open-sourced a few years back and snatched up a large portion of embedded market (which is actually quite big if you think about it)
4. Re:Open source Presto? by tlhIngan · 2013-04-03 17:19 · Score: 2
  
  A few years ago, I was in the market for a simple html rendering engine for an embedded project. There were only a couple of options: webkit, presto and one more engine that I dont remember the name of. The licensing fees that opera wanted were astronomical and only the likes on Nintendo could afford it. Needless to say, I used webkit even though Presto was more desirable.
  Anyhow, they should have open-sourced a few years back and snatched up a large portion of embedded market (which is actually quite big if you think about it)
  The problem was, a few years ago, Opera was making big money selling Opera Mobile (not to be confused with Opera Mini - Mobile is a portable version of Opera, and basically the best mobile browser). Until WebKit was ported to mobile, Opera Mobile was the browser to have on your phone.
  So naturally, Opera was riding high because well, being the best browser meant you also were embedded in a LOT of devices (I have many devices with Opera embedded in it).
  Of course, Apple just HAD to port WebKit and install it on the newfangled "iPhone" and ruin it for Opera...
5. Re:Open source Presto? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 23:05 · Score: 0
  
  They've said no; apparently it would take too much effort to clean up the code before releasing it.
6. Re:Open source Presto? by caspy7 · 2013-04-04 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  i.e. the comments and variables are simply too full of expletives and racial slurs to bother cleaning up.
Opera's appealing features by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 14:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm an Opera user, I use it mostly because I like its UI and sidebar panel. Killer feature I liked was the password manager, just hit the key icon and login onto a site, even if you have many popups of the same domain, logging into a single page logged you into all of them automagically. Firefox still bugged me at that time with a username/password per page and that was what drove me over to Opera.
Opera used to have SpeedDial well before Chrome and Firefox but both of them have similar versions now along with tabbed browsing etc...
Opera didn't always work on all sites, but it's UI and general features made it worth it. Hopefully they keep it, its sad to see Presto go but with Webkit/Blink I guess we get more performance and compatibility.
1. Re:Opera's appealing features by x_t0ken_407 · 2013-04-05 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Been an avid Opera user for many years now, though I've gone away from it from-time-to-time, I always end up coming back. The two huge features I'd like to see added are email encryption, and groups for speed dial. Once it gets Blink, I'd consider it the perfect browser! Currently, it's just "better than the rest" :p
Sad by fermion · 2013-04-03 15:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

I continue to see Opera fall. It started with the insistance on the MS WIndows ecosystem instead of bringing the incredible functionality of other OS. If it had focused on Mac and *nix it could have had those markets, because at the time there was that could compete with it, and even now it is a top browser. I had thought that the move to Webkit was a gutsy move because Opera could not put all it's resources on making a good browser instead of just reinventing and playing catch up on the rendering engine.. The technology has matured, and Webkit and Gecko are the engine. IE is an application front end rather than a general purpose browser, so Trident is always going to be a lesser engine.
Instead they are hitching their wagon to a convenient big horse instead of just being an innovative company. And i think that it will end badly. There is no reason to believe that Google will not increasing put closed source components into Blink. There is no reason for Google to eventual be civil with Apple, in the way that Apple was eventually civil with KHTML. At some point, unless Opera has some sort of secret agreement with Google, it can only be assumed that they will not have a guaranteed future.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
1. Re:Sad by eWarz · 2013-04-03 15:36 · Score: 2
  
  Opera was falling increasingly behind in the browser 'wars'. They have to back the strongest player. Apple may make the most short term profits but Google has the strongest staying power. Google will NOT attempt to close source it's effort, since doing so will rally support under Webkit2. This is not meant as a flame, but chrome is available on far more platforms (linux, mac, android, etc.) than safari is.
2. Re:Sad by Chance+Phelps · 2013-04-03 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that most developers simply ignore Presto because of its low market share, Opera had no choice. They by no means will cease being an innovative company. Like others have said, the main thing about Opera its users love is its UI and functionality. Now that they have a solid backend, they can concentrate on what they do best, rather than trying to convince the rest of the world to be standards compliant.
3. Re:Sad by dabadab · 2013-04-03 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  I continue to see Opera fall. It started with the insistance on the MS WIndows ecosystem instead of bringing the incredible functionality of other OS.
  
  Sorry?... I have been using Opera on Linux since the late 90's. FreeBSD and OSX are also supported as was Solaris for a long time. They are also present on cell phones since forever and the browser in the Nintendo Wii is also Opera.
  I just do not see that great insistence on the MS Windows ecosystem.
  
  --
  Real life is overrated.
4. Re:Sad by hkmwbz · 2013-04-04 01:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your comment doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
  
  I continue to see Opera fall.
  The other day, Opera announced that it has grown to 300 million active users, up from 200 million 1.5 years ago. And several quarters in a row now, they have reported record revenues and profits.
  How is Opera falling exactly, when all the numbers are pointing up?
  It started with the insistance on the MS WIndows ecosystem instead of bringing the incredible functionality of other OS.
  What are you talking about? Opera was the first browser company to focus on mobile (back when everyone laughed at them for thinking that anyone would want to browse on their phones), and they started working on Mac and *nix versions in the late 90s.
  
  I had thought that the move to Webkit was a gutsy move ... Instead they are hitching their wagon to a convenient big horse instead of just being an innovative company.
  Does not compute. The whole point of moving away from Presto was to be able to spend more time on innovation.
  How is Opera hitching their wagon to anything? They can fork at any time, or move to some different engine.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
5. Re:Sad by hkmwbz · 2013-04-04 01:08 · Score: 2
  
  Opera just reached 300 million active users, up from 200 million a little more than a year ago. Falling behind?
  They don't have to back the strongest player. They have to choose the technology platform that best fits their needs to keep growing.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
6. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry?... I have been using Opera on Linux since the late 90's.
  Unless you were a colleague of mine: No you haven't.
  The first public versions of Opera for Linux appeared in 2001 but weren't really usable until mid 2002.
7. Re:Sad by UpnAtom · 2013-04-04 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  I continue to see Opera fall.
  Opera 12.15 64-bit is the best browser ever produced, on Windows at least. Though the other browsers are catching up.
  
  There is no reason to believe that Google will not increasing put closed source components into Blink.
  If they do, Opera will just fork.
8. Re:Sad by tlhIngan · 2013-04-04 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Google will NOT attempt to close source it's effort
  Google can't close the source for a simple reason - WebKit's LGPL!
  See, WebKit was derived from KHTML, which was a LGPL'd rendering library. Apple took it to create WebKit. Apple released the source under their LGPL obligations. Apple got roasted for 1) not releasing the logs, and 2) not providing history, so KHTML guys were furious because they couldn't take the changes back. Apple relented and released it completely.
  All throughout, the core KHTML stuff has been LGPL, and it makes WebKit (and WebKit2) LGPL as well.
  Google could try to be a dick and do an Apple by releasing just the code without logs or history, making it difficult to reincorporate back to WebKit. Of course, given the backlash when Apple did it, I expect Google to get the same.
Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 15:08 · Score: 0

May just then run on MY OS ... god dammit them to hell.
Re:Google is so fickle. Don't build on their stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 15:11 · Score: 0

Well, it's to be expected. Now that Firefox is quickly catching up and all that impressive tech they've been sitting on for a few years is starting to stagnate, Google has to do something. So they'll move on to the "extend" phase of the cycle.
I can't say that bothers me, though. Konqueror is almost entirely dead after Safari and WebKit supplanted it, so it'll be nice to cull Safari as well in the same manner. I can see Opera taking over the project when Google stops caring about it.
Google's old news in the browser world anyway. Mozilla is making a comeback, and it's time for Opera to rise again. Heck, even Internet Explorer might survive to become something usable, and the BlackBerry browser is something else. Google has the market share, so they can afford to stagnate and be the next IE6.
Bad move. Opera should have stuck with Presto by kriston · 2013-04-03 15:13 · Score: 0, Redundant

Bad move. Opera should have stuck with Presto. Their recent and now fatal decision completely removes the whole point of using Opera at all.

--
Kriston
Re:Bad move. Opera should have stuck with Presto by Gavagai80 · 2013-04-03 16:33 · Score: 1

So you never cared about the Opera interface and features, just about making sure websites fail to render correctly?

--
This space intentionally left blank
already fallen out of love with google by girlinatrainingbra · 2013-04-03 16:48 · Score: 1

re: One of these days slashdotters will fall out of love with google and see them for who they really are.
:>)
This slashdotter already has fallen out of love with google. I've got no google accounts and google-crap is noscripted out and DNS-blocked. I only have to allow /. and fsdn to post on /. and I can't vote articles up or down unless I enable google-fu / google-analytics / google-api and I don't allow that.
Re:Bad move. Opera should have stuck with Presto by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-03 18:41 · Score: 0

So you never cared about the Opera interface and features, just about making sure websites fail to render correctly?
Correct, I use Opera simply because Gecko has font rendering problems on some Intel graphics under X11.
The Opera 'interface' is clumsy and illogical at times. For example, that persistent side-bar that remains after I have closed my bookmarks. I then haave to hit F4 to hide it. Or that fact that they ignored the fact that all other browsers used Ctrl-K to jump to the search box and intead assigned it to their own mail service. Or that I cannot disable searching suggestions in the seach box.
Re:Bad move. Opera should have stuck with Presto by Fjandr · 2013-04-03 19:05 · Score: 1

Ctrl+F12 > Search > Untick "enable search suggestions."
Sad by puddingebola · 2013-04-03 23:16 · Score: 1

I was already sad about Presto. Now this.
How many single authors left? by Herve5 · 2013-04-04 00:41 · Score: 1

In fact, apart from the venerable iCab on macs (and, much more recent, on ipads), is there just any rendering engine that's still developed by a single individual out there?
(before you start shrugging, let's remind iCab invented ad filtering some ten years before Mozilla was *born*)

--
Herve S.
Re:Bad move. Opera should have stuck with Presto by hkmwbz · 2013-04-04 01:00 · Score: 1

The point of using Opera is that it has the features you need. Presto was a necessary evil (since lots of sites didn't support it). You can probably count on one hand the number of people who used Opera because of presto.

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Blink is open source by UpnAtom · 2013-04-04 01:44 · Score: 1

If Google close it or do anything worth forking for, Opera will fork.
http://www.chromium.org/blink#participating
Re:Bad move. Opera should have stuck with Presto by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 01:45 · Score: 0

Ctrl+F12 > Search > Untick "enable search suggestions."
Already done; only disables searching results in the address bar, not the searching box.
Re:Bad move. Opera should have stuck with Presto by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 01:53 · Score: 0

If they fix some of the UI bugs lingered since 10.5 by switching engines..
Re:Bad move. Opera should have stuck with Presto by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 02:01 · Score: 0

Searching box? What's that? Is it that extraneous thing that takes toolbar space for no reason and duplicates part of address bar functionality?
Just type your query in the address bar to search using default search engine and use keywords in search engine settings for others - for example, "w word" looks up word on wikipedia for me and "ja word" looks it up on jisho.org.
I wasn't expecting that by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 03:49 · Score: 0

On the other hand, with the Blink/WebKit fork we are probably going to have three main engines again, and this is a good thing.
Gecko, Trident, WebKit, Blink.
We now have two main engines - Gecko, Trident and WebKit.
Three. We have three main engines - Gecko, Trident, WebKit and Blink.
Installation Information by tepples · 2013-04-04 04:19 · Score: 1

Blink is based on webkit which itself is based on KHTML which
is LGPL, not GPL
In other words, you claim that WebKit is based on LGPL code. I thought that like GPL code, LGPL code had to be made available for the end user to modify, and devices shipping with LGPL code had to ship with "scripts to control installation" (v2) or "Installation Information" (v3) to let the user install modified versions. So how do manufacturers of locked-down devices that use WebKit, such as Apple with its iDevices, get away with not shipping Installation Information? Or has all LGPL code been stripped out by now like the original parts of the Ship of Theseus?
Wonder if Opera knew about Blink by markdowling · 2013-04-04 05:06 · Score: 2

before pensioning off Presto...
1. Re:Wonder if Opera knew about Blink by hkmwbz · 2013-04-06 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Does it matter? Blink doesn't really change anything for Opera in practice. Opera did know about the fork before it was announced, though.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
Re:Google is so fickle. Don't build on their stuff by ahabswhale · 2013-04-04 05:11 · Score: 1

You're a retard. Chrome is the very definition of the OPPOSITE of stagnation. Google is very active in the development of Chrome and has been since their inception. You can thank them for spurring Mozilla and Microsoft to get off of their asses and make the web better.

--
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Re:Bad move. Opera should have stuck with Presto by Fjandr · 2013-04-09 12:32 · Score: 1

The search box allows use of the option to disable reuse of the same window, which allows searches to open in a new window. So it does provide extra functionality, and I have found nothing useful to take up the space that would be freed by the search bar. Always open to ideas for such though.
Re:Bad move. Opera should have stuck with Presto by Fjandr · 2013-04-09 12:42 · Score: 1

Ah, that's too bad. I had never used the option.