So... An Osteoptath takes a "holistic" approach, and yet the treatment is only being used for certain musculosceletal conditions? How does only being useful only for that specific thing make an Osteopath more "holistic" exactly?
Of course, we haven't even gotten into the fact that osteopathy hasn't even been demonstrated to have an actual effect on musculoskeletal conditions...
- Cookies aren't remembered properly.
- The font cache corrupts and requires restart of the browser at regular interval (unless you like Chinese Unicode squiggles taking the place of your normal page text).
Works fine here, and I haven't seen anyone else with these problems.
The original coding team were ditched, the replacements were all new - the forums/blogs describing this were purged but you can still find them if you try really hard.
No, the original coding team is still there. There were several hundred developers. A handful left when they switched to WebKit. Some people were making up stories about entire teams being let go, but that turned out to be a lie.
That means that a tiny percentage of developers are actually new, which happens to be something that happens naturally.
By the way, if you can prove that the original team is gone, please do so. But it's weird that you claim the original team is gone when members of the original team are still at Opera, saying that they weren't.
People who start on new versions? If there are less of those than your ENTIRE existing customer base, you're losing out.
Maybe short-term but not necessarily long-term. The new Opera is apparently getting new users at a much faster rate than the old one and fewer people stop using it than the old version as well.
See replies to this post - a lot of old-time supporters, people who were buyers of the software over a decade ago and still using it, have left it behind.
Not really "a lot." When there are millions of users, a handful of people is not really relevant. Also, as they reported to their owners, the new Opera is growing faster than the old one ever did.
Bug reports used to be answered. Your snarky answer is precisely the problem - nobody cares about replying to them now. And most of them are literally WILLNOTFIX.
Bug reports did not get answers back in the day either. In fact, if you had read the forums you would have known that this is something people have been complaining about for years.
They removed the entire mail and chat clients, the integrated Bittorrent download, the bookmarks, the entire UI customisability (the strongest point of Opera), the kiosk modes, all the stuff that made them unique. Go download a 12.16 and look how many features there are that just aren't there.
They still weren't removed. Removing is taking something away. They made the new Opera from scratch so there was nothing to take away.
Nobody knows that the Desktop version grew. The only numbers you have are from Opera themselves. It was already a niche player.
Actually, Opera is required by law to report accurate information to its owners. The numbers from Opera are also audited. So yes, there is actual documentation on the growth.
The dev team CHANGED. It was announced several times on the forums. The old ones were shown the door, the new ones only broke the old codebase and couldn't advance it.
This is a lie. No such thing was announced on the forums. Why on earth would they announce something like this on the forums anyway?
If the old team was shown the door, how come all those people from the old team are still posting as Opera employees on the blogs and forums?
It was part of the reason they "started again" - they didn't know how to do anything else (and Linux, etc. clients were left in the wake of the change).
This is yet another lie. The old team is still there. In fact, the first Opera patch for WebKit was made by a developer who has been there for more than a decade, IIRC.
Breaking it? See bugs at top of page - not present in 12.13 (before the dev change), present
No, they rewrote the interface and made their own. They didn't remove any features because when you rewrite something there's nothing to remove. You have to add all features back.
I wonder which Opera Execs received the goodies from google for them to fold their companies uniqueness/any reason to exist.
Sites not working and a mess of confusing features and slow growth is a reason to exist? Remember, after they dumped Presto they've started growing users again.
They did not delete everything. They migrated lots of threads and posts from the old forum to the new one. Check the facts before making silly claims like that.
When exactly was it IE or nothing, pray tell? Was that before or after Netscape devolved into Mozilla? Was this on some magical timeline where Opera 2.0 was never released?
I think he's referring to sites blocking other browsers or not working. Mozilla and Opera weren't even relevant at all early on (no users = no compatibility). For a while after Netscape died there was basically just IE if you wantes to be able to actually browse the web.
they had the smallest, faster, most portable, most customisable browser which was *sold* as part of the Nintendo Wii launch (you call it The Internet Channel
And guess what, Nintendo dumped Opera when choosing a browser for the Wii U. Being small, fast and the most portable doesn't matter anymore. The hardware is fast enough to run just about anything anyway.
I'm suggesting that a company that makes MONEY by having users use it, should strive to keep those users. Rather than become yet-another-Chrome that even less people use.
Yeah, except Opera's reports to its owners indicate that the new Opera is growing faster than the old one ever did, and people who try it out are less likely to stop using it again.
They got bought out, they shipped off the developers that knew how to program, they ended up with a Windows-only Chrome frontend dependent on someone else to do the hard work of making them money.
Opera was never acquired. It's still an independent commpany.
They didn't ship off any developers, as most of the people who used to do development are still working for Opera.
Opera is not Windows-only. It was also released for Mac. and now Linux. And of course iPhone, Android, etc.
Someone else is not doing the hard work. Opera is one of the biggest contributors to the Chromium project.
But let's ignore the facts shall we...
And in the process lost a LOT of users, who are really their only revenue stream now that they DON'T pump out versions for other platforms like the Wii any more...
They didn't lose a lot of users. And besides, the new Opera is growing faster than the Presto-based Opera ever did anyway.
And of course, Opera's revenue has never been higher than it is now.
there hasn't been an update since the 15 series that actually did anything, and most of those updates broke stuff
What stuff was broken with updates after 15?
They are trying to play catch-up from an unnecessary code-base change to what they used to have.
If they hadn't changed, they would have lagged more and more behind. At least now they get the latest web tech.
The coding team has changed. The company has changed.
The coding team hasn't changed more than a team normally changes in a couple of years according to the teams themselves. The company has changed? All companies change.
There is no interest in preserving users any more.
Really? Because switching to Blink seems to be preserving users in a better way than the old version. Opera's report to its owners indicates that people who start using the new versions are less likely to move on to something else than versions before 15.
Bug reports get answered with "We haven't got around to that yet" or "We never intend to put that functionality back in.
You get answers to bug reports? That's new. When did they start doing that? Sounds like a massive improvement. On the other hand, bugs seem to be fixed at a much faster rate now than they used to.
They removed every major feature that did something useful, so it's now a very, very poor Chrome clone.
They didn't actually remove any features. They just started from scratch. It's far from being a Chrome clone. Just becase it's a simple browser doesn't make it a Chrome clone.
We hoped the company would see sense and start re-using that codebase after they realised their catastrophic mistake. It never happened.
A "catastrophic mistake" which made the desktop version grow faster in number of users than any versions before it? Right.
The only patches they ever put out to the "real" Opera codebase broke it along the way, presumably because they just don't understand the code at all.
Why would they suddenly stop understanding the code they wrote? Most of the same people who worked on Opera 12 are still working for Opera.
How did they break it when patching it? Got any examples? Or are you just making up things.
Funny thing is, simple changes in the old Opera often broke things. You know, when all the developers you mistakenly thought had left were still working actively on Presto.
Your links are all to denialist web sites. Those are not "the scientists" at all. The actual scientists are the ones publishing actual science in actual scientific journals. And that research shows man-made warming.
No idea what you mean by "their own experiments have lower confidence." Seems like you're parroting something one of your non-scientists said.
Yup, this was a glorious coup by company higher-ups.
Wait, what? Are you really saying that the people in charge of the company made decisions about the company?
Shock! Horror!
Even Wium Lie, the father of CSS and long-time Opera manager, backs the switch. But I guess he's part of the conspiracy too.
Grats, Opera management. You managed to kick out a good founder, kick out a good engine, and kick out any certainty that you won't be sold out to Facebook (Facebook, ffs!).
Facebook? Why? They said they weren't planning on getting aqcuired. Instead they've been making their own acquisitions.
You even made me wonder, between Tolfsen's account and the second engine change (from WebKit to Blink), if Google has simply stuffed your ranks with their management just to Elop the place.
Actually, there was no second engine change in reality. Opera used Chromium in the first place, so when the engine was forked it was automatically forked in Opera as well. There goes your crazy conspiracy theory.
But when we see them dumping their rendering engine developers instead of setting them out to do this
They didn't. Hardly any engine developers were let go. Of the 90 people who left or were fired in total (out of about a thousand employees), less than half were engineers. Engineers include testers and developers, so in reality maybe 20 or so developers out of several hundred actually left.
In fact, I read a while ago that Opera was one of the main contributors to Blink. How were they going to do that if they fired all engine developers? Obviously, they did not fire all of them. They fired maybe a fraction of them, if any.
we know that they have cash-flow issues, and apparently they're going to follow the death-march pattern that so many managers seem to choose when faced with such problems.
Whatever gave you that idea? Opera has been constantly been making record profits since a while before they dumped Presto. They are making money, and are growing fast.
Where are you getting your info from anyway? The Onion?
Since they changed to using webkit, they are, in my opinion, basically irrelevant now.
Since most people don't care about the engine, this is clearly not true. If more sites work they are more likely to get more users, and that makes them more relevant than before.
Say what you will about Presto not working on site x, y, or z, more diversity is good, and it helps keep real standard in check.
Yeah, but who is going to pay for it? They spent insane amounts of money trying to catch up with other engines.
I sent them an email or two with suggestions and bug reports and some of that stuff did actually find its way into the product. Seemed like excellent customer service to me, back then. So all I have going for myself is experience.
The problem is that you think that just because you said something to them, that was the reason why it was added in the first place. Also, they've been fixing bugs based on bug reports for ages, and are still doing so.
As for being paid for with google searches: that's adware. That's not a product. You know perfectly well how good adware generally is. Opera is just another example of how bad it is for everyone involved.
Yes, it is a product. All free browsers rely on revenue sharing from searches, including Firefox.
And the bottom line is that you did not have more input when you were paying. They're far more open and responsive to user needs now than they were when they charged for it. Also, had it not been free, Opera would have been dead by now.
The best I can tell, they get zero revenue from it. The money comes from the codebase they license to various embedded vendors, like Nintendo, for example.
Nope. Opera gets plenty of revenue from the desktop version. Every time you do a Google search, Opera gets money. Multiply that by tens of millions, and you get a nice amount of cash. How about reading up on Opera's finances instead of speculating?
I really can't fathom what's the use of desktop Opera other than browsing porn or similar image-heavy galleries
It's because it has tons of useful features that other browsers just can't match.
I would only use it as a main browser if there was a paid version available, where the users had some input into the direction the development is taking.
What makes you think paying for it gives you more input into the direction of the development? While Opera was payware you hardly got to give any input at all, and most releases were secret until the final version was out. After they stopped charging they started releasing early public test versions and set up a blog to gather feedback on those.
So where you got the idea that you had more input when paying, I have no idea. It's clearly not true.
Eh, the proxy data is showing historical data. It shows what the other guy said: "People suggested it, so they checked a millennium's worth of proxy data, and they showed a marked disconnect between the trends in solar and climate activity that appears in the last 100 years."
Don't try to run away by derailing the discussion.
Scientists controlling interpretation of proxy data? The data is free for anyone to interpret. Of course, it's been done properly and correctly, and the results speak for themselves. See above.
Except that isn't how science works. Science tries to falsify itself not prove itself, so your analogy fails on a very basic level. Furthermore, this is not just about one piece of scientific research, but about thousands of them by thousands of independent scientists. Denying that science is indeed being a denialist.
It is false that there has been no warming the last 15 years. However, much of the warming is currently going into the oceans. If the sun was responsible it would have been getting colder for 40 years since that's what's happened to the sun.
Actually, it does mean it exists. When multiple sources of proxy data show the same thing it's pretty clear what the picture looks like. Only if one insists on denying reality will one come up with stuff like "proxy data sucks."
So in other words, 16:9 displays don't even make sense for movies (consuming content). It's even less understandable why they are trying to force 16:9 on everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
So... An Osteoptath takes a "holistic" approach, and yet the treatment is only being used for certain musculosceletal conditions? How does only being useful only for that specific thing make an Osteopath more "holistic" exactly?
Of course, we haven't even gotten into the fact that osteopathy hasn't even been demonstrated to have an actual effect on musculoskeletal conditions...
Works fine here, and I haven't seen anyone else with these problems.
No, the original coding team is still there. There were several hundred developers. A handful left when they switched to WebKit. Some people were making up stories about entire teams being let go, but that turned out to be a lie.
That means that a tiny percentage of developers are actually new, which happens to be something that happens naturally.
By the way, if you can prove that the original team is gone, please do so. But it's weird that you claim the original team is gone when members of the original team are still at Opera, saying that they weren't.
Maybe short-term but not necessarily long-term. The new Opera is apparently getting new users at a much faster rate than the old one and fewer people stop using it than the old version as well.
Not really "a lot." When there are millions of users, a handful of people is not really relevant. Also, as they reported to their owners, the new Opera is growing faster than the old one ever did.
Bug reports did not get answers back in the day either. In fact, if you had read the forums you would have known that this is something people have been complaining about for years.
They still weren't removed. Removing is taking something away. They made the new Opera from scratch so there was nothing to take away.
Actually, Opera is required by law to report accurate information to its owners. The numbers from Opera are also audited. So yes, there is actual documentation on the growth.
This is a lie. No such thing was announced on the forums. Why on earth would they announce something like this on the forums anyway?
If the old team was shown the door, how come all those people from the old team are still posting as Opera employees on the blogs and forums?
This is yet another lie. The old team is still there. In fact, the first Opera patch for WebKit was made by a developer who has been there for more than a decade, IIRC.
No, they rewrote the interface and made their own. They didn't remove any features because when you rewrite something there's nothing to remove. You have to add all features back.
Not Chrome. Chromium. Which Opera is a major contributor to.
Sites not working and a mess of confusing features and slow growth is a reason to exist? Remember, after they dumped Presto they've started growing users again.
A skin is just a bunch of visual elements. Opera actually coded a new interface. Calling it a re-skin is just silly.
They did not delete everything. They migrated lots of threads and posts from the old forum to the new one. Check the facts before making silly claims like that.
I think he's referring to sites blocking other browsers or not working. Mozilla and Opera weren't even relevant at all early on (no users = no compatibility). For a while after Netscape died there was basically just IE if you wantes to be able to actually browse the web.
And guess what, Nintendo dumped Opera when choosing a browser for the Wii U. Being small, fast and the most portable doesn't matter anymore. The hardware is fast enough to run just about anything anyway.
Yeah, except Opera's reports to its owners indicate that the new Opera is growing faster than the old one ever did, and people who try it out are less likely to stop using it again.
Opera was never acquired. It's still an independent commpany.
They didn't ship off any developers, as most of the people who used to do development are still working for Opera.
Opera is not Windows-only. It was also released for Mac. and now Linux. And of course iPhone, Android, etc.
Someone else is not doing the hard work. Opera is one of the biggest contributors to the Chromium project.
But let's ignore the facts shall we...
They didn't lose a lot of users. And besides, the new Opera is growing faster than the Presto-based Opera ever did anyway.
And of course, Opera's revenue has never been higher than it is now.
What stuff was broken with updates after 15?
If they hadn't changed, they would have lagged more and more behind. At least now they get the latest web tech.
The coding team hasn't changed more than a team normally changes in a couple of years according to the teams themselves. The company has changed? All companies change.
Really? Because switching to Blink seems to be preserving users in a better way than the old version. Opera's report to its owners indicates that people who start using the new versions are less likely to move on to something else than versions before 15.
You get answers to bug reports? That's new. When did they start doing that? Sounds like a massive improvement. On the other hand, bugs seem to be fixed at a much faster rate now than they used to.
They didn't actually remove any features. They just started from scratch. It's far from being a Chrome clone. Just becase it's a simple browser doesn't make it a Chrome clone.
A "catastrophic mistake" which made the desktop version grow faster in number of users than any versions before it? Right.
Why would they suddenly stop understanding the code they wrote? Most of the same people who worked on Opera 12 are still working for Opera.
How did they break it when patching it? Got any examples? Or are you just making up things.
Funny thing is, simple changes in the old Opera often broke things. You know, when all the developers you mistakenly thought had left were still working actively on Presto.
Opera has been profitable for a long time. They've had tons of cash in the bank most of the time as well.
With more than 300 million active users and counting I'd say there are about 300+ million uses for it.
Your links are all to denialist web sites. Those are not "the scientists" at all. The actual scientists are the ones publishing actual science in actual scientific journals. And that research shows man-made warming.
No idea what you mean by "their own experiments have lower confidence." Seems like you're parroting something one of your non-scientists said.
Wait, what? Are you really saying that the people in charge of the company made decisions about the company?
Shock! Horror!
Even Wium Lie, the father of CSS and long-time Opera manager, backs the switch. But I guess he's part of the conspiracy too.
Facebook? Why? They said they weren't planning on getting aqcuired. Instead they've been making their own acquisitions.
Actually, there was no second engine change in reality. Opera used Chromium in the first place, so when the engine was forked it was automatically forked in Opera as well. There goes your crazy conspiracy theory.
They didn't. Hardly any engine developers were let go. Of the 90 people who left or were fired in total (out of about a thousand employees), less than half were engineers. Engineers include testers and developers, so in reality maybe 20 or so developers out of several hundred actually left.
In fact, I read a while ago that Opera was one of the main contributors to Blink. How were they going to do that if they fired all engine developers? Obviously, they did not fire all of them. They fired maybe a fraction of them, if any.
Whatever gave you that idea? Opera has been constantly been making record profits since a while before they dumped Presto. They are making money, and are growing fast.
Where are you getting your info from anyway? The Onion?
Since most people don't care about the engine, this is clearly not true. If more sites work they are more likely to get more users, and that makes them more relevant than before.
Yeah, but who is going to pay for it? They spent insane amounts of money trying to catch up with other engines.
The problem is that you think that just because you said something to them, that was the reason why it was added in the first place. Also, they've been fixing bugs based on bug reports for ages, and are still doing so.
Yes, it is a product. All free browsers rely on revenue sharing from searches, including Firefox.
And the bottom line is that you did not have more input when you were paying. They're far more open and responsive to user needs now than they were when they charged for it. Also, had it not been free, Opera would have been dead by now.
Nope. Opera gets plenty of revenue from the desktop version. Every time you do a Google search, Opera gets money. Multiply that by tens of millions, and you get a nice amount of cash. How about reading up on Opera's finances instead of speculating?
It's because it has tons of useful features that other browsers just can't match.
What makes you think paying for it gives you more input into the direction of the development? While Opera was payware you hardly got to give any input at all, and most releases were secret until the final version was out. After they stopped charging they started releasing early public test versions and set up a blog to gather feedback on those.
So where you got the idea that you had more input when paying, I have no idea. It's clearly not true.
They are not controlling anything. They are two of the organizations who have analyzed the proxy data. There are many more.
Eh, the proxy data is showing historical data. It shows what the other guy said: "People suggested it, so they checked a millennium's worth of proxy data, and they showed a marked disconnect between the trends in solar and climate activity that appears in the last 100 years."
Don't try to run away by derailing the discussion.
Scientists controlling interpretation of proxy data? The data is free for anyone to interpret. Of course, it's been done properly and correctly, and the results speak for themselves. See above.
Except that isn't how science works. Science tries to falsify itself not prove itself, so your analogy fails on a very basic level. Furthermore, this is not just about one piece of scientific research, but about thousands of them by thousands of independent scientists. Denying that science is indeed being a denialist.
It is false that there has been no warming the last 15 years. However, much of the warming is currently going into the oceans. If the sun was responsible it would have been getting colder for 40 years since that's what's happened to the sun.
Actually, it does mean it exists. When multiple sources of proxy data show the same thing it's pretty clear what the picture looks like. Only if one insists on denying reality will one come up with stuff like "proxy data sucks."
So in other words, 16:9 displays don't even make sense for movies (consuming content). It's even less understandable why they are trying to force 16:9 on everyone.
Do movies really fit on a 16:9 display? Don't most of them get a black bar at the top and bottom?