Slashdot Mirror
Opera Browser for Linux/X11 Nears Beta
Samawi writes "Opera Software has issued this interview with cofounder and CEO Jon von Tetzchner. Highlights include screenshots, a new text only browser to compete with Lynx
support for Free BSD and other variants of UNIX/X11 (using cross-platform features of Qt). I can't wait to retire good 'ol buggy and bloated Netscape:-) " Its a bit thin on the details, but its nice to know that its coming.
I saw the whining over at Linux Today when they ran the interview.
1) Opera should be open source
Opera is a software company. They make their money by selling their software. Not service, not documentation, not brand name, they sell the software. If you think they could switch to being a service oriented company, please get real. Any browser that needs a lot of customer support is not worth using.
2) Opera should be free (beer)
Yes, I'm afraid Opera is going to have a thin time of it with Linux users unless Mozilla is seriously delayed or dysfunctional, simply because it will be free. Add to this the number of us that would use an open source product -- even if slightly inferior -- and it looks like a hard road for them.
3) I don't want to buy a commercial browser
This doesn't mean it's wrong for you not to buy it because it's not free. If you feel that strongly about it, it's entirely your choice. Mozilla will be here one day.
4) I hope they lose the sucky MDI interface
MDI is a culture thing. Microsoft practically shovels developers into the MDI model, recommending it in their "design standards" and making it the default AppWizard in VC++ (last time I bought the damn thing anyway -- quite a while ago.) I don't like it either, but I expect thats what Opera will be at first anyway. Let them concentrate on the system issues of porting for now.
5) I already bought it for Windows, why should I have to pay for it again for Linux?
I really think this is fair, Opera needs to recover the development costs of the Linux version whether you have already bought it for another system or not. IIRC, they are at least offering a discount for those that have bought another OS version.
I think Opera makes a quality product, and I wish them well. I hope people will be kinder to them than I expect them to be. Open source is good != Commercial software is bad.
Jim
Because Lynx doesn't preserve placement information, and so you end up having to wade through a bunch of crap that was meant to be in the sidebar to get to the text you're looking for.
it's not Linux, but BeOS. BeOS is so much better than Linux (it has journald FS and true pervasive multitasking) that many on /. with financial interest in RedHat feel it wouldn't be OK to promote anything but Linux, and possibly only RedHat Linux. DVDEZ, eeT sh0wZ!
And it isn't even free software. So, what do you suggest using? Don't say Lynx, because I need (not just want, need) a graphical browser.
First, the trivial:
now, I haven't seen Opera, but...I've used both Chamelean and Hummingbird's X emulation (at a couple of jobs, including the one I'm at now), and *both* of them have an option in the X setup that specifies all-in-one-window, or seperate windows. Doesn't Opera have this? Anybody know?
Now, the important point:
Text browsers are Good. I normally run Netscrape, with auto-image loading turned off. Last year, I b'lieve it was, I saw a study, done at Yahoo, or some equally huge site, and they found that 80%, I believe it was, of *all* the netsurfers passing through had their auto-image loading turned off.
*sigh*
Given that, the only explanation I have is that marketing types, or folks with less of a clue than Steph (from UserFriendly), since something like half to two-thirds of the web sight I run across, including places like DEC and M$ (of course), have NO ALTERNATE LABELS, and so, all you see is a bunch of freakin' boxes, and you have to load images, just to see which one says, "continue", or whatever (so you don't get dragged to some other idiotic sight which proceeds to eat your system with 55 browsers).
So, if Opera's going to have a text-mode version, tables, and other stuff are just fine...but can it take a jpg or gif of the word "next", and translate it to text? If not, what *can* we do about these morons?
mark
Care to name a few? I find this difficult to believe. It certainly wasn't the price or availability of Qt that brought them to Linux, so why would it cause them to leave. If you said that some ISV's avoided Linux because of the lack of an inexpensive, full featured GUI framework with a C++ interface, then I could believe it.
I do agree that Qt is quite overpriced, but they are in a much narrower market than Borland and can't possibly sell their product in enough volume to survive at $100-200 per license. But the least they could do is provide a good IDE.
Sometimes I like to split my GIMP windows across MULTIPLE DESKTOPS. Then I can have, say, the image I'm working on on one desktop, and my tool palettes on another. The end result is that I can work on a larger visible portion of an image without having to fight my tool palettes for screenspace.
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ on this. Yes, I know its probably not entirely IE5's fault that whenever it crashes it causes me to hard reboot, it probably has more to do with those blue screens I get once every few weeks telling me that 'my windows configuration is invalid', advising me to reinstall. Either way, I dont like having a browser pause on a webpage and stop my system. IMO, a browser simply shouldnt be tied that deeply into the OS.
Nick
Nick
Free/Open software programmers are NOT: "people who need motivation and because they do not get paid they write crap programs and they either want monay or help from YOU" (the YOU is global).
Free/Open software programmers are: "people who like programming and do this as a hobby and they would do it anyway even if their programs were never released."
You can't say "Contribute or do not complain"
This is wrong. Free/Open software is for hobbist developers with knowledge of how to write programs. You do not owe them anything and they are not on a holy mission.
Complaining is as good as feedback and that is the best thing you can do if you are not a programmer and you are disappointed with a free program. You do not HAVE to help either; If you are a good programmer write your browser and start a new project with your net friends.
I wonder who (??) started this new idea that: "Oh god, we gotta give monay to the hackers or they'll go away!". If tomorrow all the hackers disappear new hackers will come out. There are thousands of programmers in the world with free time and programming as their main hobby.
Hasn't it been hit home enough times by the open source community that there are better ways of making your money than selling software? For that matter, is Opera making money? Starving university students (like me) would never pay over CDN$50 for any shareware — haven't enough arguments for smaller shareware fees been written long ago?
Besides, it doesn't matter if you make money as long as Wall Street thinks you might someday.
I've been using Opera as my main browser on Windows systems for a few months, and I paid the $30 or $35 registration fee to help support the effort.
Early versions of Opera were weak and very skimpy on features like JavaScript and plug-in support, but the current version is great. It is smaller than Navigator and Internet Explorer and much faster to load and render pages. It supports JavaScript, CSS 1 and Netscape plug-ins.
Another thing I like about Opera is that it holds closer to standard HTML than the other browsers. It is less forgiving of bad HTML, so it's useful to have around when you're trying to create standard HTML that would pass the W3C HTML Validator.
Opera also has a button on the browser you can click to render a page in "easy-to-read" format, which helps when the designer has gone nuts with graphical backgrounds and text.
There are a couple of rendering things I don't like about Opera, such as the way it displays lists. For the most part, though, it handles pages as well or better than the other browsers.
Most tech journalists still describe the browser war as being Microsoft vs. Netscape/AOL. Some sites like BrowserWatch are reporting that up to 10 percent of its visitors are using Opera, so we may be reaching a point where it should be taken more seriously as a competitor.
To download a 30-day version, visit Opera Software.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
Emphasis on "some". Personally, I love MDI. Especially Opera's implementation of it.
:) )
:)
:) ).
('Course, I'm also using a slightly hacked version of Windows 98, so consider the source...
Nice thing about MDI from the user perspective is that it's a big memory saver - for example, in Opera you can have about twenty browser windows open at once with little or no performance degradation - impossible if you have a totally new window all the time, or at least it is in Windoze.
I suppose it's more of an advantage to us Windoze users then the rest of you folks, but I still like it. Nice way to keep all my browser windows/IRC windows/email windows nicely organized and in a central location, WITHOUT screwing with virtual desktops (which I hate, but that's another story
"I don't believe that there is one, single, perfect spiritual way and, in realizing that, obviously you become a lot more open."
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed.
Opera has the best keyboard support of any moreorless mainstream Windoze program I've ever seen. I use those functions all the time. I don't think there's any Opera functions you _can't_ access with the keyboard in a fast/efficient/timely manner...
:)
Research before you post please
"I don't believe that there is one, single, perfect spiritual way and, in realizing that, obviously you become a lot more open."
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed.
yeah, maybe you, but there are other people who are of a different opinion... for example, I too, hate MDI lame sh*t.
No, they're not the same code. Opera for Win 3.1 is 16 bit, the Win 95 version is 32 bit.
I did send in a short snippet when they released some news about some of the ports, and also when the BeOS-beta was released, but it never made the headlines I guess.
Other than lynx.
>Opera coming out with a text-based browser than >can compete with Lynx? Don't count on it. The >current Lynx has a 32-bit DOS port that can run >under MSDOS 6.2 on a 386. I rather doubt Opera's >text-based browser will be pulling this off >anytime soon.
So? From the screenshot, it DOES do tables, which lynx has failed to address (in any MEANINGFUL way) for years.
Excuse the ignorance but how can this happen since DOS is a 16-bit OS. (I use the term OS loosely)
Pork is not a verb
Hmmm, a friend of mind wanted to surf the net using only text to speach for output. The Opera formatting would make stuff a whole lot easier to navigate.
Ok, Opera is damn fast but this MDI system really sucks.
Just curious if there are any decent lynx ports for Windows or any specifically written text browswers for Windows and if anybody uses them?
Josh
Who is gonna be the first to whine about the license?
and the screenshot is even in PNG format. how ironic, considering today's earlier articles.
MDI on X11 is very uncommon and I don't like it. I wonder why they didn't change this, AFAIK the MacOS version will not have a MDI.
Why wasn't this reported on Slashdot? A not-yet-released Linux beta is hardly newsworthy.
Not sure what the deal is gonna be with XOpera, but at least on the Beta version of BeOpera, they removed the MDI and made it work like and other SDI program.
Thanks. I don't know what the previous poster's attack was based on - I didn't say much about how, or if, I contribute. Truth be told, I can't contribute much to Mozilla or Abiword except perhaps a bug report. I contribute in ways that I can, such as being a rabid Linux evangelist. :-) It's also made me want to become a better programmer so that I *can* contribute in that particular way.
But, I agree - there's nothing wrong with simply using free software. In fact, I think it's one of the best ways to support it. Ultimately, that's why it exists - to be used, right?
I do not have a Windows partition nowadays,
but one thing I miss from Windows is MDI.
It has many advantages:
1. You can have special window decorations
for child windows.
2. You can auto-arrange relevant windows in
a variety of ways.
3. This should be faster, at least as far
as Z-ordering goes.
4. If you ever used framebuffer with
split view, you love MDI and don't even
know it.
Still running Netscape, Comunicator 4.51 now and it's as unstable or worse than most other Netscape browsers. It's hard to convince people that Linux is stable when your browser keeps barfing its guts out.
Have tried several QT and GTK Mozilla releases. It's still a work in progress. No alternative there, yet.
Used Opera on a friend's Windos box. Looks good. I need an alternative browser on Linux, a viable one. I hope this one is it.
Oh, And I'll pay the 35 bucks for a decent browser. Free buys me shit right now. Some things are worth paying for, n'est ce pas?
-M
I've actually seen the beta of the text browser in action, and it's VERY fast, and it renders the page almost 100% like the graphics version would, except for images (it DOES however show where the graphics would be, with approximate size, which make the page design look much closer to what was intended), and except for different font sizes. It's really cool.
Well, that's nothing unusual. Have a look at the w3m browser which also comes with tables (hp is at http://ei5nazha.yz.yamagata-u.ac.jp/~aito/w3m/eng/ )
--
"Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."
Opera is currently my main browser.
Under Linux, I use KDE rather than to go with the bloat of Netscape.
As a former Mac fan, I am not specially fond of MDI, but I don't find it inconvenient either. It is NOT true that it reduces the browsing area, as the close box for the inside window is on the menu bar.
Just my 1c.
There's what you call the console window on the right. There's the big window underneath everything that looks like a file browser on its left side, and has the grey you speak of at the top. At least one part of the window has www.news.com.
But between those two is a third window which is probably Opera help or something.
And possibly a fourth window between the Opera Help window and the www.news.com -- Says XSL etc. You can only see the bottom, but that part also looks like an independent window.
--
Infuriate left and right
Being a web developer that rigorously adheres to standards and closely monitors and occasionally participates in W3C activity, and being knowledgable of browsers in general, I thought I'd take some time to give you all the skinny on this.
Despite Opera's reputation as "the standards compliant browser", it implements far less of current W3C standards than Netscape or in particular IE. Specifically, CSS-positioning (part of CSS2) appears to be completely non-existant.
Since Opera only implements a fraction of the Netscape/IE functionality, and until recently was completely unportable (Windows only), it's not too surprising that it is much smaller and faster.
Anyways, I'll list some of the pros and cons of Opera and some features/misfeatures it shares with its competition (Netscape/IE).
[Oh, one last thing before the list. MDI and SDI have been mentioned. For those of you who don't know what they are, basically:
SDI -- Single document interface. A limitation applying to an application program that only shows a single window giving a view of one document at a time.
MDI -- Multiple document interface. The ability of an application program to show windows giving views of more than one document at a time.]
Some pros:
That's really all of the pros. While only two items are listed, both of them are extremely important and make for a much different feel compared to the bigger fish. Anyways, the cons:
Anyways, my current favorite browser is IE5 though I almost never get to use it because I'm stuck in Linux with WindowMaker so that I actually have a productive and stable environment. IE5 really does implement most of the current standards and is quite fast (being seemingly hooked into the lowest guts of Windows), though Mozilla will be the true 100% compliant browser and smaller and faster to boot. I hate most of Microsoft's products, but a few things like their browser and Powerpoint (which Linus admits liking) are really okay.
So,
That's enough writing for now,
Christopher
Opera is nice for Windows. It displays fast, lets you know exactly what the time is being spent on (such as x/y images remaining) and customizable icons, for starters. Definately one of my favorites.
But having a "many little browsers in one big window" (the acronym-free definition) layout is annoying on X. My window manager handles them quite nicely, thank you, I don't need the "Opera Window Manager" cluttering up half my screen.
GZilla is another nice alternative. While far from feature-complete, I consider it better than Mozilla even in its infant stage and the final product should be quite nice. Maybe Mozilla will turn out nice, but the initial releases just don't seem to be emphasizing getting out a workable browser first and adding features later. At least GZilla is small and incomplete, as opposed to big and just as incomplete.
Enough ranting. At least the Opera curses-style looks quite promising. I'd kill for a text-only browser with good tables/frames support. The web is supposed to be for everybody from dumb terminals to fancy workstations - if only more browsers and web designers realized that.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
I think you have it backwards. Bigger monitors are ideal for windowed environments, smaller monitors are better for full screen aps.
/. user sucks.
See, big screen size, higher resolution, more real estate, more windows side by side.
Small screen, lower resolution, less real estate, fewer windows, or full sized windows.
Geesh, I'm used to explaining this crap to customer service reps, but to have to explain it to a
Wow, from the screenshot it seems as if the text browser does a much better job of handing tables than Lynx.
I have read the Opera porting newsgroups for sometime now, and it seems that all it is just people saying why Netscape sucks. What I don't undertsand is why Linux users, who use free software, would say this. After all, Netscape has made Mozilla open source. They care about Linux. Opera is just out there to make money off of shareware. They do not care about what is morally right.
You need to know some tricks to use the Mac OS's method well. The most useful is that if you hold down the option key while switching apps, the one you are switching from hides itself. I regularly run 10 or more apps in Mac OS (with multiple windows open in each) like this with no problems on a 17" screen. If things in the background are hidden you don't even know they're there, but choose them from a menu and all their windows just show up and pop to the front.
MDI is one of the major reasons I don't like Windows. BeOS and Linux do better, but if you do away with MDI it makes sense to put the menubar at the top of the screen rather than in the window, which Linux and BeOS (generally) do not do, though KDE supports it. Having the menubar at the top of the screen has the added advantage of making it easier to hit; just head for the top of the screen and then position horizontally. Much faster than hitting a 16 pixel high target.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
you tell 'em!
I don't see why they're implementing MDI in Linux. I've heard the BeOS version doesn't have it (I've never seen a BeOS app that did), and I'm almost positive the Mac OS version won't have it (Mac OS won't even let you do it, you'd have to write your own windowing system), so why are they forcing it on Linux users?
Oh well. Doesn't matter to me as I'm sure they'll never release PPC binaries! Arg! I hate that.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Just exactly what is your argument? That Qt isn't free? WRONG. It's 100% free for developing Free Software. So what if you can't use the free version to develop proprietary software. You can't do that under the GPL anyway. But you are free to develop commerical open-source and free applications. Or maybe you're pissed that Qt costs so much for commercial development. Think again. Price out some **real** commercial tools, not just motif/JBuilder/VC++. If it was overpriced no one would buy it and Troll would go out of business. But guess what, they're not out of business, so people are buying it. If it makes you feel any better, just think of all the money they're losing by not catering to the AC market.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
People keep saying how bad this MDI thingy is. What is it and what makes it so bad?
I'd rather GPL'ed software so I probably won't switch from lynx unless I switch to Opera from Netscape and their text browser is included. I'd much prefer an Xlib based GPL'ed browser. Are there any in the works? (Mozilla is not GPL) The w3c has a library ((L)GPL) for the guts of the `net communication; so with a proper renderer, the project is 'done'. Any takers?
I was trying to write a web browser (in GTK) awhile back, and it's *hard*. And the easy part is the network communication stuff... I wrote a multithreaded little program going which allows you to download web pages (up to 10 at once, and this limit is hard-coded and easy to change) and then displays the HTML code. But the hard part is the renderer... I just ended up giving up because I don't have the time to devote to something huge like that.
Matt
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
Bascially its a very windows-centric model, and I don't know why people like it. It seems to be just as easy to hit Alt-N and just get a new browser.
MDI is _not_ memory saver - it's just another method of presenting documents (instead of toplevel windows) and memory consumption of these methods shouldn't differ!
It's stupidity of programs that eats tons of MB, not idea of toplevel windows.
Opera was initially a windows-only browser. I think it started to get somewhat popular just about the time Microsoft made IE free and Netscape followed suit. At that point, open source wasn't nearly as popular as it was now. What distinguised Opera then was that 1. It wasn't coming from some behemoth company that tied in a bunch of marketing shit, 2. You had to (read: supposed to) pay money for it, 3. It was a hell of a lot faster (which was very important for the low end Pentiums).
Probably 99% of Windows users don't care if a product is open source. And probably 80% don't care that Microsoft and Netscape are giving them their browser only because they want them to buy other products. Opera really came at a bad time, because they wanted $35 and everyone else was giving away a browser for free. A few nerds appreciated it because of its efficiency and some of them bought it, I suppose.
Now Opera is trying to port to everything under the sun. But simply because they're going to have a Linux version doesn't necessarily mean that they adhere to the open source ideals that the Linux community has. They're a small company and a browser is a big project. Big companies can do a big project and not make people pay for it. Small companies can't. If it weren't for Netscape, we wouldn't even have Mozilla.
Opera is basically a Windows shareware company. It seems that this is becoming less and less popular (though that may only be my view, as I've moved to using Linux almost exclusively), but it's the only way Opera can make a browser. The open source fanatics are pulling for Mozilla, but some less fanatical nerds who've converted from Windows to Linux recently remember when Opera saved them from the bloat of Netscape and IE and think it's worth the $35 when their only alternatives are the crash-prone Netscape and the still unfinished Mozilla.
If Opera becomes more stable and usable than Netscape before Mozilla does, I'll be happy to pay the $35 to use a non open source browser. I like the philosophy of open source, but for practical purposes you can't expect a company to give such a valuable product away out of the goodness of their hearts. What really bugs me is Windows shareware hackers who expect you to pay $30 for their Visual C++ re-hack of Space Invaders and keep their source closed.
With 2.2 fbcon I'd prefer real (graphical) browser (without X) rather than text-only version. What do you need fbcon for? SVGATextMode offers lots of hi-res modes to make use of your big monitor (and text-only Opera).
MDI is great. You anti-mdi lamers can go ahead and spend 40 minutes moving all your Gimp windows one at a time from one desktop to the other, but us in the real world like to get things done fast! Long live MDI!
No no no...it's good. I like being able to have eight browser windows open at once without eight taskbar icons. A common method for me is to search for something, and CTRL-SHIFT-LCLICK any results that look mildly good, and go on to the next results, CTRL-SHIFT-LCLICK some more (this opens a new window and immediately minimizes it in the background), and when I'm finished I can look through the sites I found one by one, and immediately close the ones that are irrelevant. This technique is fun on Slashdot, because I just click on the links that are interesting and let them load in the background while I'm perusing the main page. When I'm done, the windows have loaded already. Modem users especially benefit from this method. It's also good for those sites that insist on popping up an advertisement window...it won't spawn a seperate instance of your browser.
Yes, I used to do data entry (shudder) back before I realized people would pay me to work on their computers. The worst jobs were the ones that you couldn't be efficient at, even if you tried. I mean, I guess the workers get paid the same no matter what, but it's still frustrating to TAKKA-TAKKA-TAKKA-TAKKA-TAKKA-TAKKA....click...... .....click...........TAKKA-TAKKA-TAKKA-T AKKA-TAKKA-TAKKA...............................cli ck............. And this is still with me ALT-TABbing whenever possible.
2) Has a "Toggle My Document Colors" button on the progress bar. Ugly colors and busy backgrounds become instantly readable with one click.
3) Has a timer that starts when you click on a link, and shows you how long the page is taking to load. Also shows total number of images in the page, number of kilobytes loaded so far, and even divides the kilobytes recieved by the time elapsed to give you a number. Good for those "dang this page just keeps loading and loading" pages. Lets you know that no, you're not crazy, the guy did put up 523k of graphics and banners and web rings on his home page.
4) Nifty special download window lets you do all your downloads on one window, instead of having separate windows for each download. Once the file is finished downloading, just double-click on the filename to "open" the file with its associated application (Windows-only feature?)
5) Good keyboard support. I use 'z' and 'x' instead of ALT-ARROWKEY. 'a' and 'q' move from link to link just like lynx. Matter of fact, Opera with images turned off is very lynx-like, in my OPINION.
6) It doesn't try to be an all-in-one solution for all your internet needs. There is mail and news functionality built in, probably due to customers asking for it, but the only time I tried the news support I ran screaming back to tin. I never used browser email clients so I can't comment on that one.
7) Good multiple window support, I can open up tons of windows and cascade them for easy readability without messing up my desktop. Also helps with those annoying "pop-up" windows that Geocities.com uses.
8) OPERA.EXE 1,282,048 bytes
9) When using the trial ("free") version, it gives you 30 days of use. Not a 30 day timer from when you installed the program, but 30 seperate days of use.
10) Those crazy Scandinavians...what will they think of next?
More code is good if it implements useful features. If you didn't believe this deep down then you would be using cp/m and Wordstar, and you would have no way to post on slashdot.
ummm and people complain about useless anon posts.
which version are you running?
what type of errors?
what winsock?
iv ran it on 3.1 3.11 95a b and c 98 98sr1 and 98se and nt4.0
and have had it crash once on some garbage javascript.
ps. netscape 4.0 crashed on it also.
oh and its not the same code think before you post.
The 9x version is 32 bit the 3.1 version is 16 bit.
Different api calls for allot of stuff ect. not a coward just hate cookies!
Okay, ya got me. I don't use Lynx. But why not just make Lynx better? This is OSS we're talking about here.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
I'm a legacy hardware (and software) addict, using a shell account, and Lynx is the only decent browser. With a shell account, it's really awkward to see graphics; you download to your disk space on the shell server, then use an sz command to send the image home. If you're lucky, you have enough RAM below 640K to permit rendering the image with an image viewer (Compushow 2000; gotta register it; VG for old video hardware.) // Lynx for tables? Sad story!
i use Windowmaker and it is very easy to simply select a number of individual windows or drag their icon to the dock for transfer to a new desktop.
Then came Results/Plus for Windows which requires a mouse for just about everything. Instead of recording 150 donations/hour, R/P lets you do 30/hour. The PHBs loved it because it was Windows, but the workerbees still hate it.
I duplicated its functionality with PHP3/Adabas, but I needed Netscape/IE as the front end. Both browsers blow chunks because it's a modern ta-da mouse based interface. Workerbees still hate it.
If Opera/text ever actually works, I and my customers can go back to touch-typist mode and get productivity back up to the bad-old-days of DOS. I'd gladly pop for $35 to Opera for a $1500 sale.
Graphic interfaces are great in Photoshop, but they don't work for data entry.
Qt sucks.
Opera Sucks.
MDI Sucks.
Non-free software sucks
Opera Sucks.
1. You can have special window decorations for child windows.
:-)
You mean you can't do that without MDI? A problem in windows?
2. You can auto-arrange relevant windows in a variety of ways.
Just as doable without MDI
3. This should be faster, at least as far as Z-ordering goes.
No, it is necessarily slower, as you introduce an extra window (the one containing the others). One extra window means more work for the windowing system.
4. If you ever used framebuffer with split view, you love MDI and don't even know it.
Huh?
All those features of MDI (except 4 that I didn't understand) is just as available without it too.
So - no need. The problem with MDI is how I have to choose between clipped child windows or obscuring an area of the screen not used for that app (but perhaps used by some other).
Both is really bad. I don't need a 'mother' window obscuring other things for me. If you get confused from seeing other stuff, maximize the window you work in. Fortunately, X has the means to make that mother window invisible - even if the programmers didn't intend it that way.
He likes Abiword because it is free, the source is available, and updates are made in a timely manner. He does not go into detail about repairing the bugs himself, but at least it is possible, rather than just releasing a binary (star office/wp8).
And as for mozilla, really.... let's stop beating a dead horse. Netscape/mozilla are very low quality compared to modern browsers. I would use IE for linux before I'd sink to mozilla ever again.
This is not meant to be insulting, I simply do not understand why mozilla chose to attempt to *improve*/redesign a bloated, sorry netscape. It seems like a huge waste of time to me when there are so many other viable solutions.
of course i've been moderated out by some Qt shithead at slashdot, but what the hell. I'll take you on.
> Just exactly what is your argument? That Qt
> isn't free?
I never said that, oh reading challenged Qt developer.
> So what if you can't use the free version to
> develop proprietary software.
so it's fucking illegal to write code and sell it to my customer! so it costs $1550 like my post said! no GUI builder, just the right to distribute libraries.
this is less than you get from MS, Borland, the open group or several other toolkit suppliers. The pro version of C++ builder comes with a damn nice gui for $250. No enterprise objects, but i don't need 'em. All the runtime distribution I want.
> You can't do that under the GPL anyway.
Bullshit. I can create and sell all the software I want using GPL tools and libraries. What I can't do is modify GPL source, then sell it without giving the mods back to the community.
Never will I understand why Qt thinks they can sell a product of moderate value for a Sun Microsystems price. No gui builder! Just the framework, documentation and libs. Pathetic. But I do admit it is of reasonable quality -- just radically overpriced for what you get.
If it was, say, $49 or so for unlimited distribution, that would be pretty nice. Add a gui builder for $99 would be nice, too. Does Qt understand how many $49 licenses they could sell?
Add enterprise-level database objects for $1500 or so, and that would be...so so.
I stand by my post, the SLASHDOT MODERATOR who shit on my post can go fuck themself, and you and the other person who replied are not swaying me a bit.
The Qt trolls can change their colors all they want, "Open Source this, Open Source that", but the fact is it's way overpriced on the commercial side, and people WILL remember once serious competition enters the scene for Linux object frameworks (Borland C++, hopefully).
I know several serious ISV's who only write in C++, and have left Linux because of the Qt pricing. They're only hurting themselves in the long run.
Lynx (recent revs.) does frames just fine, almost always. For tables, maybe following Al Gilman's FAQ (H key, when in Lynx (I hope!)), searching on the keyword "tables" will take you to some URLs with brief comments about what you'll find there. I like Bruce Guthrie's HTML-to-text converter (DOS); haven't used it much, but it rendered tables nicely. Try WayneSoft for some very nice DOS freeware. (Ought to run under DOSEmu.) Look for htmst###.zip.
Ricardo.
Why is everyone complaining about something that can be so useful when browsing? If I visit a site using pop-ups, in Opera, they will all be opened in one big window, so when I shut it down, they ALL shut down (besides that - you can tell Opera to block the window.open() anyway). ...) - if you want to. At last, it's got the best cache I've ever seen - screw IE, Netscape and Konqueror (though the last one DOES look very promising - if it just did a better job in general). And Mozilla - well, it's too early to say anything, but they still got a LONG way to go. And besides - it's already huge and blown-up compared to Opear.
And for those of you who don't like MDI - just click on it again (or run the command) and there will be another instance.
Besides all of that, Opera is definetely the fastest browser with the best CSS-Support (I know, many of you lynx-lovers don't like graphics at all, but if I cruise the net, wanna have some fun looking at the sites). The compatibility with Netscape plugins is great and you can have virtually everything in it you like (javascript, cookies, java,
If Opera on Linux matches nearly the quality of Opera on Windows, I'll pay for it: I'll save the money within one or two months by cutting off my phone bill.
This is just my personal opinion. Whoever else has got another one can keep it - but if he starts flaming, he should better have some REAL arguments to support his theories...
GNUstep has the same feature, and is window manager independent. Select "Hide" from the application menu and all windows of that application hide in their application icon.
It looks from the screenshot that they are doing the Linux version the same way they did the MS-Windows version, with many windows inside a larger one. I'd much prefer to have the windows be seperate entities, as that allows for a larger browsing space, while still leaving room for other applications. It also makes it harder to switch between other apps and a specific browser window.
The benefits are that you can have many browsing windows open without cluttering up, for instance, the taskbar in KDE, or simply without running numerous processes, which can be difficult to switch between. It also allows for such features as tiling and cascading only the Opera windows.
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to have multiple windows, especially with the multihomepages of Opera. I could open Opera and get a browser with slashdot, one with links to the comics I read, and one with google. Or somesuch.
What do you think?
---
END OF LINE
When WordPerfect for Linux first came out, I thought "whoohooo!" and went out and downloaded the whole mess. Same with StarOffice. But I fire it up, and I see some problems, some things I don't like, and maybe it crashes on me. I think "hm... wonder how long 'til THAT gets fixed..." And you know what? I haven't used either one in a very long time. However, I use AbiWord almost daily. Sure, it doesn't yet have as many features, but it's off to a good start, it's not bloated, it's done right - in short, it's Free Software and it's lookin' good. And I feel comfortable using it.
I won't whine about Opera's license, some people will be happy to pay for it, and more power to them. I personally will not bother with it, and I'll keep rooting for Mozilla. Someday my Lizard will come.... :)
opera is the fastest and most stable browser for the windows platform. /.
I hope the linux version maintains this quality! now if they would just make it freeware! but its worth the $ to buy it.
btw cookies and images off is the way to go:} so no account on
not a coward just hate cookies!
geez they really don't know how to make windows binaries :) are you just supposed to rename the .1 file to a .exe and run it.. thats what I did and it said it couldn't find a .dll .. which I guess is positive meaning.. well it ran.
Lynx (recent revs.) does frames just fine, almost always. For tables, maybe following Al Gilman's FAQ (H key, when in Lynx (I hope!), searching on the keyword "tables" will take you to some URLs with brief comments about what you'll find there. I like Bruce Guthrie's HTML-to-text converter (DOS); haven't used it much, but it rendered tables nicely. Try here for some very nice DOS freeware. (Ought to run under DOSEmu.) Look for htmst906.zip.
This site is news for NERDS, not news for LINUX users specifically. You'll notice there are MANY non-Linux related news pieces on this site. It just happens the news reporters, people behind the site, happen to prefer Linux to other OSs, so that OS gets more attention than other ones (besides anything MS related, which gets focus in a bad way...which I don't personally mind). But besides more bias towards one OS, the entire site does not revolve around it. Sorry to disappoint you.
Lynx rocks. It does everything i need it to do. I admit a console browser w/ graphical capabilities would be great, but that is not what lynx is about.
It's always struck me as odd that Opera isn't open source. I mean they're trying to pass themselves off as an 'alternative' to the gorillas (coincidentally rhymes with 'mozilla'?), which seems like the standard stance of Linux and many other open source programs.
It seems like GPLing Opera back when their CSS support was non-existant would have helped them catch up. Then again, the only people I know who use Opera strike me as being the type who only like playing with computers if it will result in improvement. But how could the Linux community ever get cosy with a browser that's so non-free it costs money!
For that matter it almost seems quaint that a company would try and sell a browser. Maybe if you had a clear superiority over the competition -- but with a market share so low it's off the charts? Opera, what are you smoking? Open source the Linux browser if not the Windows!
The Qt free edition licence
The KDE Free Qt Foundation
But Qt isn't free, is it?
Why not code a L/GPL'ed Qt clone?
Currently there *is* no good free graphical browser for Linux. Netscape crashes if you so much as look at it wrong. Mozilla and Mnemonic are still in pre-alpha development. KFM is illegal to redistribute thanks to the license fiasco. And every other program I've tried is simply not even close to a real replacement. So I'll be happy to get even a non-free browser that works, although I'd be even happier about a free one :) If I can at least (legally!) get Opera gratis I'll probably use it till Mozilla or Mnemonic release a working browser. If not I'll ignore it, I don't need to spend $30 on a browser. Daniel
I use Linux because it's the best software period, not for any religious or ethical reasons. All this political bs is just nonsense, I care about the code. If something is free but sucks it's not worthwile, and if something is commercial and is good code it is valid.
This is old news. I follow Opera pretty closely, and if there's anything newsworthy, I'd be the first to let you know.
CT
Let's hope that someone from Opera is reading this:
MDI is BAD! It is a kludge at best. If Opera is MDI based, I will not consider using it - Konqueror should be sufficient for casual browsing. At least give us an option to turn it off...
How about a poll....???? Rob?
"Multiple Document Interface" -- you know, where the app has one master window and all its document windows are stuck inside that window. It's widely regarded as a bad idea and annoys the hell out of some people.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Have to correct that Opera has great keyboard support much better that any other windoze browser.
Maybe because it came out before the Linux version?? Anyway, Opera for Be kicks ass!
Opera's text browser PNG is showing either tables or stylesheet formatting! This is a very good thing. Are lynx developers working on this?
And just a general note...
I'd rather GPL'ed software so I probably won't switch from lynx unless I switch to Opera from Netscape and their text browser is included. I'd much prefer an Xlib based GPL'ed browser. Are there any in the works? (Mozilla is not GPL) The w3c has a library ((L)GPL) for the guts of the `net communication; so with a proper renderer, the project is 'done'. Any takers?
Wouldn't a task-/window-list using an expandable/collapsible tree or a menu-with-submenues widget be nice?
-rozzin.
Actually I think the lynx way would work a lot better w/ text to speech. Let's say you have a side bar on the left and then content on the right. What would probally happen w/ a synth is that it would read a line from the sidebar, then from the content, then from the sidebar, then from the content, and so on. I know lynx works fine for text to speech because I used to have a friend who was completely blind (well he could make out shadows and bright lights at a distance of about 1 foot but that was it) and he used lynx all the time for web stuff.
-matt
I totally agree.
QT pricing is real bad. VC++ which comes with MFC(and full source - and it's basically like QT) is cheaper and ofcourse has a real nice IDE/Debugger.
I need a relatively full featured, stable browser on Linux NOW, not the promise of one in the future, and right now I really don't care if it's free. I'll pay money. I'll pay more than $35. I'd suck Bill Gates' dick for MSIE on Linux. I'm THAT desperate to replace Communicator. Bring on Opera. It _has_ to be better than Communicator.
I also have no faith in Mozilla ever reaching release. At the current pace of development, I'm willing to bet money that AOL/Netscape pulls the plug before it's finished. Unfortunately, there aren't enough outside developers to pick it up if that happens.
I think some of what you're seeing here is simply that Opera supports HTML 3.2, not HTML 4.0. I find this a frustrating choice on their part at times, but most of the time it isn't an issue. It does let out Dynamic HTML, though, and there are occasionally pages that I hit that simply don't render in Opera.
Opera 4.0 will theoretically support HTML 4.0 and CSS Level 2. We'll see.
As an unrelated note, Opera ports are in progress to a fair number of platforms. It's quite possible that the reason it took so long for them to start porting has less to do with code portability than it does with the nature of commercial software (particularly something as Quixotic as a commercial web browser)--you do ports when you (a) believe there's a market there and (b) have the resources to do so. They've addressed point (b) by contracting with other development companies.
Because of that (the subcontracting), people should probably nag the Opera Unix developers if they don't like MDI. The BeOS version of Opera uses standalone windows like other browsers do (and it still implements Opera's cascade and tile buttons, just in case someone wants to claim you need MDI to have that functionality).
I support free software, but sometimes you just need something that works so badly that you don't care. There are no stable, full featured browsers available for Linux, free or otherwise. Communicator does suck. It's HUGE, slow, and statically linked. It has memory leaks, it crashes often, and it sometimes floods my X server to the point of complete unresponsiveness requiring a CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE.
Maybe Mozilla will eventually develop into a decent browser, but right now it is irrelevant. I need a decent browser NOW, and I'll accept any cost and license terms to get one. I'd easily pay many times the current price for Opera if it were available on Linux. I'd pay for MSIE on Linux. At this point, I'll trade my car for a relatively full featured browser on Linux that is stable and doesn't use all my RAM.
The free software movement is about ensuring users have the freedom to use, understand, modify, and distribute their software. Once you start confusing that with morality, I think you have read more into the movement than RMS and its other founders intended.
Uh... why would anyone pay money for a text browser? Opera's thing is that they charge for browsers. So obviously their text browser is going to cost money too. So why would you pay money when Lynx is great, plus free (beer and speech)?
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
That a text based browser can do things that a graphical one does. I see real table support and everything... Maybe I can stop using Netscape now!
Very very cool
Poet
This will mean that the web will return to being a resource of information - not commercial banner-ad ridden media-blitzed MTV-styled hyphonated nonsense:).
I think it will be great. With the 2.2 fbcon, and a console browser that supports modern features, X might be worth dumping. I am sick of clicking on things like a blasted robot. I have a decent big monitor - so I want all my apps to be fullscreen anyway (who the hell thought "windowing" was a good idea?)
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better