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. "

8 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Some, certainly by hawk · · Score: 2

    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.

  2. Re:No thank you MDI by vluther · · Score: 2

    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.

  3. Theft by EnglishTim · · Score: 3

    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.

  4. Sadly, by Pudding+Yeti · · Score: 2
    ... this is true.

    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"
  5. choice is a Good Thing by tuffy · · Score: 2
    I just wonder which will get finished first, Opera or Mozilla? Both seem to creep along at a snail's pace. Graphical browsers are in short supply as it is, so the addition of Opera on Linux will be nice.

    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.

  6. No thank you MDI by shr · · Score: 2

    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.

  7. Re:Opera *may* be helping Linux. by exa · · Score: 2

    I'm a coder, I think I know how complex a web browser is. I tag them as "basic apps" because they are among the most common used. Think of a desktop manager, file manager, text editor, etc. Those are non-trivial applications, too. But I view them as "basic".

    --
    --exa--
  8. too little too late? by schmack · · Score: 2
    no to be too down on Opera, I mean they're already one hell of an underdog competing with Netscape and IE AND trying to get people to shell out their hard-earned clams for a web browser.

    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].