Slashdot Mirror
Latest on Opera web browser
Steelehead
wrote in to tell us that Opera Software's Project Magic
page has a Linux Port. From their page:
"The Linux port of Opera will be built on the new and
redesigned Opera 4.0 code....the entire front and user
interface in Qt...you, the Linux user, should have the
latest version of our code along with the Windows user.
"
Jim Boswell
Not a member of the Durango Owners Club!
/. should stop the pretense and replace the "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" with "News for linux nerds. Stuff about linux that matters" Doesn't sound as cool, but is more accurate. /. is a linux advocacy site, not a news site. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but I think its a shame as /. had the potential to be a good DIY news site.
Having used the windows version, I do tend to like
the MDI more than the create-whole-new-instance of
Netscape. (Ok, so maybe it isn't a completely new
instance, but I do find it irksome.)
However a feature that has been asked for, yes
by win* users, is an option to make the child
windows 'desktop windows' as in mIRC. Whether
this will be done I do not know, but I would
certainly like to have the option. Perhaps with
a *minimal* (and small, unobtrusive) toolbar, at
least navigation, on the seperate child windows.
This could allow the best of both worlds: MDI for
those who want it and yet not have child windows
locked inside a parent a window for those who find
that distasteful.
It's all about the enduser's choice and control,
is it not?
This leads to a big IF on their part. Will Opera be shipping before Mozilla is released to the general public? Will there be a compelling reason to buy Opera by the time it reaches completion?
I read the internet for the articles.
MDI would be the kiss of death for any web browser I use. I usually have two or three windows open on different desktops (under WindowMaker). For instance, I'll have the Netscape HTML reference on desktop 3, the web page I'm currently working on in desktop 2, and several xterms with my current work on desktop 1. With WindowMaker's excellent ALT-# desktop switching, I find this a very efficent way to work. MDI would kill that by forcing me to stick all of the windows inside of a single window (on a single screen) and use some sort of clumsy ALT-TAB scheme or something to switch between windows.
I read the internet for the articles.
The UI is one of my favorite things about Opera. Being able to turn off images, change the background color of a page, zoom in/out, all from the toolbar (without going into menus) is really useful. Netscape and IE don't even come close.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
MDI is the main reason I use Opera. There's around 8 sites I check daily, and if it wasn't for Opera's MDI, my taskbar would be constantly cluttered with open Netscape windows.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Just because the free software browsers suck compared to Opera doesn't give you the right to steal Opera. Either live with Mozilla, or pay for Opera.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Mainly because, compared to Opera, Mozilla is still a big bloated piece of (something). I seriously doubt that the final version of Netscape Communicator 5.0 will be available in a 1.15 meg download, as Opera is.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, MDI is one of the main reasons I use Opera. I like opening Opera, and having slashdot.org, segfault.org, hackernews.com, and several other sites automatically begin loading. Not to mention that I don't like Netscape taking up 8 slots cluttering up my taskbar, compared to Opera's one.
As for "back," you have to go all the way to the menubar thing in Netscape and Mozilla too. In Opera, the "back" button is in nearly the same place as in Netscape. Plus, if you don't like that, you can press ctrl- to go back. Try that with Netscape.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
you can press ctrl- to go back.
that's ctrl-[leftarrow]
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, IMHO, Mozilla sucks compared to Opera. Not as badly as Netscape 4.5 sucked, but still not as good as Opera. Mozilla lacks useful buttons that Opera has such as the ability to toggle between the page's colors/fonts and user-defined colors/fonts without going into menus (to read those horribly designed pages), the ability to toggle graphics on and off without going into menus, and the ability to zoom in and out on a page (without changing your screen resolution).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That doesn't do me any good. Actually having the buttons in Opera, on the other hand, does do me some good.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by mathman100@geocities.com:
NS 4.0+ and IE 4.0+ come really close to supporting navagation completely via keyboard, if not completely. Also, i think some of theese browsers should offer customizeable keybindings. Then someone could set their own set of keys do things like bring you back x number of pages, add the current page to a specific folder in your favorites, or run a macro.
Posted by fling93:
What's wrong with the UI? I've found its configuration much more intuitive than Netscape or IE. As far as usage, what more do you use beyond the back/forward/reload buttons? The extra options for toggling graphics loading, toggling CSS, and zoom are highly useful. The keyboard shortcuts can't be beat.
The only thing that sucks is the buttons, but the later versions let you do your own or download others.
Well worth the $$. Still, I wish they'd make it open source!
I'll pay for it if it's worth it. Shouldn't that ALWAYS determine what software I will and will not pay for?
In my opinion, NS 4 is not worth paying for. It's slow, crashes often, and generally angers me. MSIE is not worth paying for either...it's a decent web browser, but all its extra baggage (active desktop, etc.) makes it ugly and not worth it either.
If Opera is good (and many comments about it seem pretty positive) then I'll pay for it.
Werd.
They're expecting people to pay for their software? To pay for a web browser? Some things boggle the mind.
The UI design, (or lack thereof in its case) in the Windoze version of Opera is an absolute Joke.
I'm trying to use it now...
Why the F*** did they think that the address bar should go at the bottom in an MDI application? The toolbar and Address bar are a whole screen height sway from each other
Oh, and how many menus???
John_Chalisque
Price had nothing to do with my buying linux. Not just a minor factor, but *absolutely* nothing to do with my choice. LyX (which I also would happily pay for, but instead occasionaly code for) is simply hands-down better then any of the alternatives on other platforms, and more than makes up for not being able to run quicken (the only thing I want that isn't easily findable. OK, and a decent spreadsheet, but try finding one of those since excel 4.0 stopped shipping . . .).
:).
I buy hardware. I buy software. If something better is available at no cost, of course I'll use it instead. If quicken isn't a disaster by the time they port it, I'll be first in line (though looking at the trends for products, I'm more likely to buy a mac emulator to run version 1 or 2
But I'm not likely to buy a browser. I still use netscape 3; 4.0 and later are too much trouble and missing useful features. And the only reason I use it instead of lynx is that it can pop open extra windows from links. I very rarely have a use for graphics--basically reading comics, whiyh pop-up with xv from lynx, and have none at all for java and javascript. And lynx' cookie handling is much better; junkbuster is unneeded. Once I have a couple of spare hours, I'll patch lynx to do this.
But the point is that, yes, the majority of the potential user base will pay for software. There is certainly the High Church of Emacs, which won't use anything that isn't GPL, or can't be assimilated by the GPL, but these are a minority now, and will become a smaller minority as linux actually gets purchased for the desktop--into the hands of people who have proved they're willing to pay for software, and will already have paid for linux.
I will pay for Opera/Linux. In fact, I am even willing to pay for v4 on Windows, even though I have already paid for v3 and don't need to pay again. Opera Software need our encouragement.
Static.
Bah, open source bigots are getting just as bad as Redmond.
I have tried posting stories about BeOS( I feel that it is a wonderful technology that many nerds would love if they get exposed to it) However none of the stories I have submitted have been posted, hence my assertion that this is Linux news site, not a "News for Nerds" site.
We do not have a bias against BeOS because it is not Linux, but because it its a closed source product. I get mail from Mac sites all the time talking about a new "product" they have comming out. This is not news it is advertizing. Microsoft has a whole department that does nothing but produce "news"!
In the meantime, I'll wait around for Mozilla. Netscape suits me just fine at the moment. ditto!
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Since they will link the binary statically (I guess) against Qt they also could have chosen a widget set that is somewhat more widespread in use. If they've used a more common set, they could have used shared libraries. We all know the trouble with statically linked programs, don't we?
Actually Shared QT libs are available in every single Workstation or Desktop Linux distribution. Even RedHat and Debian.
Opera is closed source shrink-wrapped per user licensed software. I really don't think the GPL compatibility of QT keeps them awake at night.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
you, the Linux user, should have the latest version of our code along with the Windows user.
They're probably not using the best words when dealing with the open source community. It sounds a bit like we're going to have access to the latest CODE, but somehow I doubt that's what they meant.
Will my windows license be transferrable? the simple answer (caveat: last time someone asked this question and i looked) - is no.
...i will check this out soon. the main reason i used opera is standards. opera has worked hard to comply with w3's standards. plus having mdi allowed me to have multiple sites open w/o having multiple browsers....
but i may be wrong.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
reasons to pay - justifications to pay
Opera do themselves a bit of a disservice here because the balence between developing a browser, keeping it complient to standards and release time is difficult. Is the oss community up to it?
Nothing is really 'free'. It is merely subsidized by other products. It is done in the interest of market share and domination, but not necessarily in the interest of the user.
i put this in for a laugh
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Please don't let /. turn into yet another BeOS News site with continuous reruns every hour! I use www.beoscentral.com myself since they report anything ALL the other Be sites report. There are like what, 20 BeOS news sites, that's more than enough for me.
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
Pay for a browser, that's crazy! I'd rather reboot and use IE than pay for Opera. Screw that. For those who say that they would happily pay for a good browser, do you happily pay for a good OS (i.e. Linux)? While you may buy a CD from Red Hat, I think you should all send in a $50 check to Linus himself. There are things that should be free: OS's and browsers! :)
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Get a monitor that can support 1600x1200. :) (I wish I could afford that...)
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I just bought vmware and when Q3A is out, I'll buy that too. Were there free (beer) vmware or Q3A clones out there I'd probably use those and keep my money. It's not what people would like to hear, and I'd like to tell them otherwise, but that's the truth. I'm almost certainly not going to buy something like Opera when there are good, free, alternatives available.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Look here for more ideas. :)
Today's English Lesson: Oxymorons
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
While I have nothing against Qt, I think it's a bit of a stretch for them to refer to Qt as "the leading toolkit on Linux."
That would seem to imply that it's used measurably more often than Xt, AW, GTK, and Motif, which I seriously doubt.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Hopefully at some point we can all agree on a kit that truly is elegantly designed, most efficient C++ lib. Unfortunately, Qt at this time is not it. (But neither is any other C++ kit.)
--Karl
My comparison is completely fair as I was comparing a signal/slot implementation with another signal/slot implementation from the Gtk--. Both have multi-callbacks. Both have signal concept. Gtk-- skips the slot concept, but any function can be used as a slot. One just happens to be 30 times faster. Since they do the exact same thing, I can definately say although Qt is a very nice library, it is not the most efficient C++ library out there.
For independent confirmation of what I have said please read this usenet post. That user found a 25 times difference between template based (gtk--) and string based (Qt) signal/slot implementations. We have improved since then.
But you are quite capable of testing it out for yourself. Grab my library, libsigc++. I think you will be surprised by exactly how much a callback system can do. Qt was only scratching the surface.
--Karl
FUDing by association is hardly a rational argument.
-Karl
Mwah.. taskbar design is stupid.. what if you want to have like 30-40 open xterms..? Don't make bad design decisions based on previous bad design decisions ;-)
;-) I don't need it.. I have virtual screens and a reasonably organized way of placing things.
Btw, I don't even have a taskbar on my desktop
Tal.
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
I purchased Civ: CTP from Lokisoft. I'll probably buy Opera (I use the Windows version at work and LOVE it). I bought Abuse from Crack.com when it first came out and was hovering over my checkbook waiting for Golgatha (*sigh*).
Of course, I'd prefer if everything was GPL'd, but some things it isn't necessary or possible. I'll try to avoid an OS that isn't GPL because my OS is too important to trust to someone else. But if I find something that I really want, and a similar product isn't available from OSS, I'll feel free to buy it.
I guess I'm rabid about somethings and not others.
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
The best thing, IMO, would be to use MDI, and have the option of spawning additional MDI containers as needed. That serves to keep related browser windows nicely grouped together, while allowing you to play the workspace game, too.
Bonus if you can drag windows between MDI containers. (hrm... potential "killer feature" for the Qt version? I know that'd be pretty painful to implement in Windows, so I doubt we'd see it there... might be easier with a from-scratch MDI implementation)
---
DNA just wants to be free...
it's something you either love or you really hate. I hate Opera because it uses MDI. I hate Netscape Messenger and all those email clients because they _don't_ use MDI (I use pegasus). I think someone will work on an MDI version of mozilla
---
what about news about open source apps for BeOS? We have news for closed sourced apps for linux...
---
my website lists some of the interesting ones: http://members.xoom.com/mozilla5/beos/ (oh and check out http://members.xoom.com/mozilla5/ while you're at it)
---
you don't need to spend $1900 to develop shareware on BeOS...
---
that's ridiculous: either free or expensive commercial apps? There's a role for shareware too
---
re: last paragraph. In Netscape there's close and exit. close closes that one window while exit closes all open windows. IE doesn't do this -it should be a windows standard but there's very little consistency in Windows
---
try doing alt left arrow to go back in opera like I do in Netscape. I mean who cares? Besides, in Opera there's alot of clutter on the button bar until you find the back button.
---
shouldn't be too hard to add those buttons
---
Ton writes: BeOS Blender is back! Last thursday (May 20) a delegation of Be inc. visited NaN. In the meeting Be took responsibility for the errors in communicating with NaN. In fact, there was no matter of disagreement at all. As a result of this meeting I decided to make a freeware BeOS Blender available by the end of this month, when BeOS 4.5 will be out.
---
heh.. i'm downloading it right now.. just to test it out.. but yea if it uses mdi.. dunno if i'll be usin it a lot.. not used to it or nuttin.. but i remember win3.1 when MDI was like.. AWESOME.. butnow we have taskbars... don't we ?
MDI is nice for Ultraedit.. but for a browser ?
bleh.
Alt-left arrow seems to work just fine, though(and Alt-right arrow for forward)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
With Opera if you buy Version 3.x you are entitled to any version of 3.x that comes out. I assume that the same will be true of version 4.x.
So you get some upgrades for free, but not forever.
I've used Opera for Windows. It's quite good actually. Speed would be it's major advantage I'd say. But who is Opera Software really targetting with this release? Mozilla will (hopefully) be out by the time this is fully released. Why would anyone want to choose Opera over a easily expandable, up-to-standards Mozilla? While I do applaud the efforts of Opera porting the browser to Linux (about time... they were "looking" into this" about a year and a half ago I think..) it may be a little futile.
Have it spawn additional MDI containers or be able to take them out of the container entirely, ala mIRC. A window-bar wouldn't be a terribly bad design either.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Looks very nice, but wow is that text jaggy. Are we ever going to see antialiasing? A little bird tells me that X already has antialiasing with the XAA extension, and a font that heavy on diagonal strokes is in sore need of it indeed.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
What library would you suggest as being in more wide-spread use? isn't Motif still the most widely used?
The Trollish licence issue aside, installing GTK and Qt is about just as much pain. But you need both, because some of your favourite apps require GTK and some require Qt. The good thing is: We can have both. That's no problem.
Using Qt was also a predictable decision for several reasons:
- Try to get an external company to develop a GTK version. Sure, there are a lot of volounteers that would gladly do this if Opera open-sourced their browser, but they have chosen not to do so.
- Since both Opera Software and Troll Tech are norwegian companies, the choice was probably made even easier. Being able to get in touch easily helps the development process.
- Troll Tech is actively trying to make Qt more wide-spread. Therefore I think they might do this port virtually for free, just to show of what Qt can do.
- Qt is also available for other platforms. A good Qt version may find it's way back into windows as well.
Just my few thoughts on the subject, though. I hope Opera/Troll manages to get a stable and fast version. Netscape is starting to crash just a wee bit too often lately.- the Crazy Fraggle
The BeOS, Epoc and Mac versions of Opera have also progressed, with the Epoc and BeOS versions nearing beta.
/. has a big Linux bias, but really! BeOS is about to have it's first ever 3rd-party browser released, and it's not even mentioned?
Now, I know that
Personally I love having MDI on my browser. The only thing I don't like is when one of those annoying ad boxes pops up and takes up the whole window over the top of whatever I was viewing...
However, it wouldn't suprise me if MDI is an option on future versions of Windows Opera, and I aslo wouldn't be suprised to find that many of the other versions of Opera run SDI anyway.
Okay, I agree, the 'You make me sick' was over the top. I apologise.
However, I still feel my original point was valid. I *do* understand free software. I also understand that free software is a choice. If someone wishes to keep their code which they've invested considerable resources into proprietary, then that's their right. If someone wishes to release their code under an open source license, then that's also their right. Good for them. However, it's also not proved (yet?) to be a feasible buisiness model for software development, and I suspect that in many areas it will stay that way (Games development springs to mind...)
cheers,
Tim
I really don't see what's wrong with charging for a web browser. It's just another piece of sofware, after all. Opera's success will hinge on whether it offers sufficient advantages over it's free competitors for people to pay for it. If you don't think it's worth it, fine; use one of the other browsers. At least this way you get a choice - if Opera was free we wouldn't *have* Opera. The programmers working on it would we working on something else to support themselves instead.
In what is Opera not helping Linux? Opera software is producing another alternative browser for the system. The only reason we view browsers as 'basic applications' is that we've become accustomed to them being given away for free due to the MS/Netscape war. Browsers are fairly complex programs, which take a lot of time to develop - Netscape and IE were (and are) developed off the back of other, non-free software.
I just don't see how increased choice can be bad for Linux users.
So let me get this straight... You're advocating cracking the Limux version and then distributing it for free? Otherwise known as 'Software Piracy'? Just because you happen to think that Open Source software is the Way To Go, doesn't give you the right to steal their intellectual property. Jeez, here comes a small company, trying to make a good browser so that you don't have to feel stuck with the weighty IE or Netscape, and all you can do is encourage people to fuck them over.
You make me sick.
I don't even worry about the accuracy of the banner, though, since the beauty of the web is the sheer mass of fine-grained information available. It forces the individual to be a better and more discerning information consumer, though.
Anyone even marginally clueful will look around Slashdot for a day and see the biases are writ large for all to see, both in terms of editorial choice and in the comments posted. Every specialty site is like that, and we all ought to be sophisticated enough to know that the 'price' of micropublishing in whatever form is less compulsion to even appear unbiased.
The only real danger here is nothing we haven't all seen before: people who latch on to Slashdot as their sole source of 'news.' On the other hand (and this is not a slam on Slashdot, which I read plenty in the context of a healthy media diet composed of plenty of other sources) people like that will develop the stunted world view they've got coming to them, and the rest of us will learn to ignore them when they actually venture into the real world with their woefully narrow perspectives.
ObOnTopic: I'm looking forward to Opera for Linux. I ran it on a Win95/5x86-133/16 meg box some time ago and loved it. Much more nimble than the competition.
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
"A horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"
It's even one of those things they like to brag about on their website. Dunno about the 4.0 support, but I'd imagine that's pending too. Opera likes to pride themselves on standards support, which is nice to see in an ever-more-proprietary world.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
I'm sure we don't all use the same mail reader, or news reader, or text editor, or desktop clock, so why should we have to use the same web browser? Not that I have anything against Lynx, but more competition in this area is long overdue.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Actually, there are so many different perspectives on Slashdot that I think it gives pretty much all the news you need, as long as you read the comments. Certainly both pro and anti-Linux viewpoints are well represented there, and there are plenty of mainstream "FUD" articles listed.
I first found out about BeOS from a Slashdot story, and I subsequently bought and installed it. I quite like NetPositive - I wish they'd add a decent JavaScript implementation to it. It's small, lightweight and fast, while not being totally retro like Lynx.
Be lovers will appreciate my ironic story, by the way. I had Be installed on a system with Windows, and it was working great. I finally transferred the things I needed Windows for on that machine to another, and enthusiastically gave Be the entire disk. The network card then stopped working, rendering the system unusable - and the only way to get it to work would have been to boot Windows on the machine that no longer had it!
Oops.
So now that system's running Linux. One of these days I want to restore Be since I think it's a truly fantastic environment. I even like a lot of the oddball commercial software created by tiny companies (like BeProductive).
So Be, I'll Be back.
Jean-Louise Gasse must have a strong stomach to withstand all these awful Be puns!
D
----
Well Opera and TrollTech are almost next door neighbours if you check their adresses.
:)
So that might be a contributing factor for choosing QT/TrollTech.
Anywayz if their parking habits is something to go by, the BETA is long way of. Its now 15.25 CET and both the Opera and TrollTech parking spaces are empty
A lot of people - myself included - have happily paid for the Windows version, because it's fast, small, featureful, and not made by Microsoft.
You see, not everyone feels software should be "free" through cross-subsidizing from sales of other software, like the Big Two are.
Well practically every Windows-originated app is MDI, the exception being Notepad. So it's quite natural, really...
I prefer having multiple windows inside one app window rather than a Windows taskbar with two pixel wide "buttons" because of an excessive number of top-level windows.
Use "simple" button bar, then you only have six buttons.
Plus, I've become too accustomed to keyboard navigation using Q/A (link navigation), Z/X (back/forward), W/S (heading navigation) and +/- (zooming) to ever switch. The customizability is hard to match, too.
Since it is closed source we have to wait for them to make upgrades, and we are dependent on them to write the software the way we want it. If we had a GPLed browser we could give it the features that geeks want, keep the code slimmed down, and not have to worry about the issues of closed source and proprietary software.
Then use Emacs/W3. It supports CSS1, frames, and whatnot - if your Emacs is up for it, and not if it's not.
What I don't like is how the space bar mapps to whatever the mouse last clicked on
Blame Microsoft accessibility guidelines: The space works as the mouse button.
Apart from the license question I am not in favor of programs using a library that is almost exclusively used by one set of programs.
Since they will link the binary statically (I guess) against Qt they also could have chosen a widget set that is somewhat more widespread in use. If they've used a more common set, they could have used shared libraries. We all know the trouble with statically linked programs, don't we?
Anyway, thanks a lot! Can't wait to have this little gem.
belbo. I support zero score posting.
--
"Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."
PS: I really wish Gimp would have an MDI option!.. .. and more Photoshop-like in general
Looks like they're only 25% done or so... no mention of when even a beta will be available.
bp
The signal/slot mechanism is slightly superior to message maps in MFC, however they are merely a kludge, they don't fit at all in the C++ object model. (Hint for framework developers: If your language is class based, try to use its class construct) What is more, the classes in QT are convenient for a couple of apps, but that's it; they're no thicker (?) than MFC stuff.
Qt does use the C++ class construct... Qt classes are C++ classes, with a macro thrown in. The macro, and the code created by the moc (meta-object compiler) just creates some standard functions, and framework, to allow the signal/slot system to work. Here's a quote from Qt 2.0's qobjectdefs.h
// They are used, strictly speaking, only by the moc.
#define slots
#define signals protected
#define emit
moc uses the signal and slot definitions to decide what to put into the moc code. You may call it a kludge, but the only other way to conveniently add that functionality to all objects independently would be to modify the compiler. And that may be theoreticallly possible for gcc, but Qt aims to be a lot more portable than that.
(I haven't examined QT2.0 very closely, so you can attack from that angle ;)
How much have you actually examned Qt 1.x? Have you ever studied the output of moc on a non-trivial class?
So tell us what is your verdict ? Which GUI lib on Unix would be worth your time ? If you don't like QT then surely you must hate Motif or GTK ..
what else is there ?
I if you think that QT code is ugly then it is obvious that you have no idea about C++. C maybe but not C++. ... and trust me , GUI and C don't mix well )
(btw I was there 2 years ago
I was encouraged by the buzz about Opera over a year ago, when Netscape was looking increasingly bloated and Microsoft was, well Microsoft.
But with Opera's choice of making their browser MDI (Multiple Document Interface: meaning one father window contains all of the daughter windows) they have made it a product I don't want to use.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love a nice browser for Linux; but IMHO MDI is not "nice". Give me an SDI option and I will gladly check it out, and pay $$ if I like it.
Are you refering to the article I posted or another earlier in the thread? If its the one I posted, I was simply posting the LATEST news [the news before my news was simply that Troll Tech was doing the port]. I've known about the linux port since Project Magic was started, as well as others here... appologies if i misinterpreted your post.
-- 100% MS-Free as of 4-4-1999, 11:47:38 PST. "The lapdance is always better when the stripper is cryin'" Free Kevin,
You may have misinterpereted my story submission, or I just wasn't very clear in my explaination. It wasn't intended to be an announcement of the actual Linux port, per se, but an update on the latest news on the progress of the said port. Previously, Linux users weren't even in the running for an alpha release, now there is a light at the end of the beta-tunnel, so to speak...
-- 100% MS-Free as of 4-4-1999, 11:47:38 PST. "The lapdance is always better when the stripper is cryin'" Free Kevin,
I thought Opera was meant for people who disliked Netscape for being a big bloated piece of (something),
and IE for being a big bloated piece buggy Microsoft-style (something).
Assuming Mozilla will be out in the same time Opera does,
Why would I pay money to get the same speed and stability,
but not all the features I would get in an open project?
This doesn't make sence.
---
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
Heh.
Can't tell if that was an ironic comment, but I'm going to take it that way.
Just because there are some sub-par free options, does that mean people won't pay for a quality option? (Not that Opera for Linux will be quality, we'll see.)
Just because Linux is based on GPL software, will anyone who runs it pay for shareware/commercial programs? I'm not necessarily talking the philosophy of it all, which has been gone over multiple times on SlashDot. Just...would people pay? If Opera is good, will Linux users pay for it?
RTFM. Right-click, previous, like every other browser, or ctrl-left arrow.
But the point is that, yes, the majority of the potential user base will pay for software. There is certainly the High Church of Emacs, which won't use anything that isn't GPL, or can't be assimilated by the GPL, but these are a minority now, and will become a smaller minority as linux actually gets purchased for the desktop--into the hands of people who have proved they're willing to pay for software, and will already have paid for linux.
I have no intention of preaching right now, but I would like to point out a couple areas where I think you missed the mark a little. First, even if you are willing to pay for a binary-only license, I think that with a bleeding edge system like Linux, you should insist on an upgrade clause which will give you some insurance against premature obsolescence (relative to software for Windows, Mac, or even OS/2). Second, as with you, price is largely irrelevant to people who insist on running free software. Having source protects you against problems like the one I just mentioned much more than an upgrade clause in a binary-only license ever could.
see above.
Blar.
Well... I just have to add my coupla cents.
:-)
When I first got Opera, I'll admit I wasn't terribly impressed with the MDI way of doing things (to understate just a bit
And it was exactly the same with a number of friends who I have since introduced Opera to.
But. Having said that, I have to add that one gets used to it very quickly. I will often have 10 to 15 browser windows open at the same time. Just the idea of doing that in Netscape, or some other browser which opens a separate window per session makes me shudder. And again, it is the same with all of my friends who also now use Opera.
I agree, the whole MDI thing is a bit of a kludge, but dammit, it just works!
And using the hotkeys is a very good way of quickly switching between windows. In Linux (where I'm forced to use an inferior browser, a.k.a. Netscape), my Gnome-panel is always filled up with more Netscape icons than I can easily keep track of. And having to use the mouse all the time is beyond annoying. I'm a keyboard-centric worker. Both my hands stay rooted to the keyboard, and only wander to the mouse when needed. Unfortunately, under Netscape, that is far more often than I'd like.
Finally, I like being able to just minimize my entire browser with a single click, rather than having to go around and minimize every open browser window, as I have to do in Netscape. I like my desktop to be uncluttered. Opera's MDI helps me achieve that goal.
Opera and MDI: Ugly but it works!
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Sure it's little. That's what makes it great (as you pointed out).
:-(
Late? Well... maybe a bit.
But CSS is alreay there, and HTML 4.0 with be there in Opera 4.0 (which will be the first one to hit Linux).
They've been fairly consistent in matching the Opera major version numbers to the HTML standard level they support (ie: Opera 1.x supports HTML 1.x, Opera 2.x supports HTML 2.x, and so on...).
Ok, so maybe they aren't quite bleeding edge, but how many sites require that anyway?
As far as I'm concerned, if Opera won't render a site, that site ain't worth going to for me.
(Ok... one exception: Microsoft Support Pages -- required for work)
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
...and will pay again.
I paid for two 3.x licenses... one for home and one for work.
I fully intend to pay for the 4.x upgrade for work and any upgrades for the 4.0 version for Linux for home (when it comes out).
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
> and the people who are likely to fork out for a browser are not the kind of people who'd be ideologically opposed to QT.
Umm... not necessarily. Free beer, Free speech, yada, yada, yada...
(PS. Having said that, I'm not obsessed with either, really. GPL is good. Non-GPL ain't the end of the world.)
(PPS. Yeah, I know. Opera ain't free either way. But that's not what you said.)
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Ok... so the interface doesn't work for you.
(With the latest -- 3.60 -- I believe you can change the position of the button bar, but I could be wrong.)
It happens. For me, the interface works brilliantly. I just turn the URL bar, the scrollbars and the button bar off entirely. I use keyboard only. Love Opera for the fact that I can run it without ever even touching the mouse.
Alt-Left and Alt-Right navigate forwards and back. Up/Dn and PgUp/PgDn for scrolling. TAB to the proper link or imagemap or whatever and hit spacebar to activate.
For mouseless navigating, it works like a charm.
Now, Netscape, I hate. Especially the Linux version.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Some people take every opportunity to bash Qt. I don't know why. Is it the name? The country of origin? The fact that it will also work in the hated Windoze environment?
Opera is a commercial, closed-source project. They used a commercial, open-sourced library. The license question doesn't have anything to do with it! Why did you even bring it up? They could have used a one shot widget-set, but instead they used an extremely common widget set and library that is included in all medium to major Linux distributions.
It took Troll Tech something like three days to write the COMPLETE gui for Opera. If you think this could have been done with motif, you need another cup of coffee!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
(Warning: righteous indignation ahead!)
So, you're advocating the theft of Opera? I bet you steal quarters from your grandma's purse too!
Instead of doing something constructive and worthwhile, like helping out with the Mozilla project, you want to destroy someone else's code. Just because it's not free. You make me sick! You're not part of the free software community, you're just a leech hanging off it's foot! You're not even worthy to use free software!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
There is one interesting point here, are they going to use QT in the version for Windows too? If so, it shows other companies that using QT will ease porting to Linux -- which might bring even more comersial product to us... :-)
MFC also uses a preprocessor heavily, though in this case it's the C pre-processor - witness the very heavy use of macros in areas such as the UI binding code.
Also, whilst parts of the MFX are simply a C++ veneer, other parts really are quite abstract from the underlying Win32 API, or in other cases totally unrelated.
-- I'm drinking myself to sleep again...
This is great. Not only is Linux getting more software (choice is good), but it is getting a decent browser that allows you to navigate via the keyboard. The only other browser that allows this is Lynx, and it has some obvious limitations. I agree that MDI is a pain, and there are other things Opera does poorly, but I am willing to overlook all that just so I can navigate without using a mouse!
My only complaint about Opera's keybindings is the Ctrl+arrows. Ctrl+left and Ctrl+right do the same as Alt+left and Alt+right (back and forward) which is redundant and a pain. I would prefer to have the ability to go to the link left or right in a web page that has tables. Limiting navigation to previous and next is a pain on some web pages.
Does anyone know if Mozilla will fix this as well?
I think the guys at Opera soft. are over confident in their little product, it's a usual web browser after all. It doesn't seem to have its source code opened up for the free software community, so I am not going for it. And they've talked as if the QT library is the state-of-the-art in UI. I seriously doubt it because QT resembles a lot to Microsoft stuff: both in program structure and in look/feel. (You know I had to code with disgusting MFC once) If any cracker wants to help their hacker pals, he can crack the Linux version of Opera and distribute it in the usual fashion.
--exa--
1. On Qt: Really? I hadn't noticed the moc! It doesn't matter how you implement an auxiliary class mechanism, the one in QT just reminds of the CObject model in MFC. The signal/slot mechanism is slightly superior to message maps in MFC, however they are merely a kludge, they don't fit at all in the C++ object model. (Hint for framework developers: If your language is class based, try to use its class construct) What is more, the classes in QT are convenient for a couple of apps, but that's it; they're no thicker (?) than MFC stuff. MFC is even better in some aspects, although it has the worst design on the planet. The both so-called GUI frameworks suffer from lack of elegance, they are *built on* ad hoc solutions. (I haven't examined QT2.0 very closely, so you can attack from that angle ;)maybe that one patches things better than I think)
2. On crackers: Yes, I used to be in the company of crackers, but I don't necessarily approve of "piracy".. Nevertheless I don't think that Opera is any good to top the browsers bill, and make us throw bucks in the process.
ppl love to flame, don't they! is your cerebral substance engaged?
--exa--
Okay, but the decision of GPL developers is not the same. It's because the license was mandatory. It is a prime element of the success of GNU/Linux systems today. So the "fair decision" is arguable. They are not helping the free software cause since they are trying to get some bucks off the most basic application: web browser. While your argument would hold for a program of less general utility, it cannot survive in the question of a most general purpose program. Furthermore, a Redmond based cracker group would be immediately noticed and banished. Remember, it is the rebels against the tyranny...
--exa--
:) Okay, I don't claim to be a judge over these subjects. Nonetheless, I oppose to incapable, sluggish and ugly GUI frameworks. I think MFC is leading the edge here (at being anti-elegant), but QT has its fallacies too.
About Motif, I don't know if any of you like 3.5 Mb statically linked binaries and easy-crash-slow-motion programs. On the other hand, I like GTK+ because it is a good compromise on productivity versus design. I personally endorse use of libgtk--, and the choice of language bindings is favorable.
In general, a robust and scalable GUI framework, in C++ or a prominent OO language like Ada9x, is very desirable. Of course it would have to attain other design goals like uniformity or comprehensibility, making use of clear design paradigms like MVC. In that respect, hardly few libraries seem to suffice. (I hate Java but swing has a somewhat nice design) Many of which I tried just didn't give the right feel.
Well, perhaps we should ask slashdot about GUI frameworks!
--exa--
The Windows version of Opera is lean, fast, and far superior to both Navigator and Explorer for those same reasons. I liked it so much that I bought version 3.50 when it was released.
I have a number of questions:
1. Will my windows license be transferrable? I have a sneaking suspicion that Opera for Linux will be released as a time-limited demo version that can be "unlocked" by entering the appropriate serial number, just as the windows version is. I'm not at all sure how this will fly with the linux community, given that a few good choices are already available.
2. The linux version of their browser was demoed at the Linux Expo, and Troll Tech ported their gui to Qt...these seem like newsworthy events, I suppose. But the "progress meter" on their site has been hovering around the 25% mark for half a *year*. Why, then, have slashdot et al pounced upon this like the information came out yesterday?
Slow news day? Not informed? Who knows.
--JM
I sure hope it's more stable than their windows version, which can hardly be called more than a beta.
I still use it cause I'm low on ram on this laptop, but the crashing every 20 minutes starts to get on my nerves after awhile.
the problem is, be they small in download and [relatively] quick in rendering -- their engine is woefully behind the pace. No CSS support, no HTML 4.0 support [3.2 is their current level] -- doh!
BTW: here's a great article that looks at the whole browser deal. The state of Mozilla, the Netscape v. IE wars, iCab and Opera [and there's some spiel on Neoplanet who're supporting the Mozilla rendering engine if you didn't already know].
--
Rare Window - free your photos
Oh yeah? Go take a look here, boy!
This article was posted months ago I'm sure. If you're wondering why the QT library was chosen, have a look at who the partners doing the porting are - TrollTech.
I personally think it's a good move. The TrollTech guys showed they were able to port a browser quickly with QTzilla, and the people who are likely to fork out for a browser are not the kind of people who'd be ideologically opposed to QT. Horses for courses.
In the meantime, I'll wait around for Mozilla. Netscape suits me just fine at the moment.