He already said that it uses Qt for a couple of things, but those are exceptions. Opera's UI is not Qt based. It uses Qt for some things, but it's based on an internal toolkit.
"in a more intriguing release today that three of the corporate officers have sold 20% of Opera Software stock into a holding company that they own. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that mean they maybe they aren't planning on being officers much longer?"
Nope. It means that the socialist government in Norway is preparing to tax people who spend money, time and effort to create a new company and thereby jobs. The CEO has had to sell stock to be able to pay taxes (he isn't into this for the money) because his pay was so low, but he has a lot of stock obviously.
So there are new stock rules going into effect next year, but theres a loop hole which some primary insiders are now using to avoid getting taxed to hell and back for being stupid enough to form a company...
Ah, so that's how Opera has been around as a commercial browser for more than ten years!
That's why Opera's revenue is higher than ever, and why the company is growing rapidly!
That's why Opera has millions in cash in the bank!
Because there is no money in browsers! Just ask the Slashdot experts!
Seriously... How do people on Slashdot come up with these things?
Opera Software has, as I mentioned, been around for more than ten years, and they've never made more money than they do now! They've even doubled the size of the company in a short period of time to keep up with demand for their browser.
Now you will no doubt point out that there is competition, and you would be right. Even on mobile phones, where Opera currently reigns supreme, there is tougher competition on the horizon.
But this does not negate the fact that Opera is making money by developing a web browser! And just because there is competition doesn't mean that it will stop being a viable market. Opera has more experience than anyone else when it comes to browsers in general, and mobile browsers in particular.
"I wouldn't say "hands down," considering that Safari passes the Acid2 test, and Opera doesn't."
Just because the Safari devs rushed to fix those specific bugs just to pass Acid2 doesn't mean that they actually have better CSS support than Opera. I can write a program that passes Acid2, but supports nothing else apart from what's needed to pass it. That doesn't mean that my program has better CSS support than other browsers.
Those are well known examples. I also listed Yahoo. Just check out Opera's "Open The Web" forum where people report and discuss these sites. There are loads of them. So yeah, most of these problems are caused by browser sniffing. I don't know why sites do that, but they do, and anyone can verify it by spoofing as Firefox.
"Google gave Opera (and Mozilla foundation) a chunk of cash in exchange for Opera being totally free (as in no ads) and google being the preferred search engine."
No. They didn't give Opera any cash. But they offered a better search deal.
Ah, so that's why Firefox and Minimo (Mozilla's bloated "mobile" browser) keep ripping off Opera's features? Heck, just about all new features in Firefox 1.5 were nothing but trying to catch up with stuff Opera has had for years!
Opera might not be big on desktop, but it sure is on mobile, and Mozilla keeps borrowing heavily from Opera.
"anyone who has done extensive CSS/XHTML based design knows that Opera is not the best "rendering engine""
It is certainly no worse than others. But of course you will be biased against Opera if you are a Firefox user, and only check your code in Opera once you've written workarounds for bugs in Firefox...
"I just wish it's renderer was better; it produces goofy results too often."
That's usually not Opera's fault. For some reason a lot of sites use browser sniffing to single out Opera and specifically break it by sending it broken code, or simply leaving out important parts of the code. Both MSN and Hotmail have done this. And MSNBC. Yahoo does it today, AFAIK. Lots of sites do it. You can easily verify it by using a proxy to spoof as Firefox. Suddenly all those sites start working!
"If a user searches on Google for a topic for which AOL has content - like information about Madonna - there will be a special section on the bottom right corner of the search results page with links to AOL.com. Technically, AOL will pay for those links, which will be identified as advertising, but Google will give AOL credits to pay for them as part of the deal. They will also carry AOL's logo, the first time Google has agreed to place graphic ads on its search result pages."
"Bill Gates donated almost 60% of his wealth up to this day, and he said, that before he die, he'll donate 90%."
And how much is his stock in Microsoft worth?
Also, if I stole all your money and gave 60 per cent away to charity, would that make you happy, and would you praise me for being such a great and caring guy?
How many companies has Microsoft killed in its journey towards world domination?
"There are certain views which will always get modded up"
Sure. Let's have a look...
""Apple/Linux/Firefox are great!", "Tell me why I should use BeOS/Opera when I could used Apple/Linux/Firefox?""
Yeah, this gets modded up a lot. But guess what, I'm an Opera user, and I notice highly rated comments that are positive to Opera all the time on Slashdot. Heck, I've even posted pro-Windows comments that are modded up. I'm a Windows user (and an Opera user), you see. The key here is to not come across as an asshole. Don't post nonsense like "Linux sucks, that's why I use Windows". Be reasonable. You'll get modded up or left alone if you are reasonable, for the most part.
"Copyright infringement isn't theft""
Why of course. This is a simple (NPOV) fact. Why would it be modded down? On the other hand, people who claim that copyright infringement is theft should be modded down, because they are simply wrong. Worse yet, they could be lying and intentionally trying to confuse the issue. And before you reply: Yes, copyright infringement is against the law. I know that. We all know that. But it is not theft!
"[although amusingly, the one time I saw an exception to this when it was modded up posts saying that piracy of Apple software was theft - clearly the Apple groupthink outweights the piracy groupthink!]), and opposing views get modded down."
Wait a minute. Are you saying that the people who called this theft are the very same people who mod down people who call copyright infringement theft? Do you have any evidence of this? If not, why are you making a point out of this? Slashdot is a huge community, after all.
By the way, I notice that even your post was modded up. YOU ARE PART OF THE GROUPTHINK AREN'T YOU!!!!111
But Orlowski is well known for his "trolling" - as in writing articles that generate page hits.
Perverted-justice.com seems to be a front for some fundamentalist Christian organization or something which fights against factual representation of issues relating to sexuality.
I personally don't contribute much to Wikipedia, but I do find it to be rather useful. I'm not going to defend everything about it, and I wouldn't be pleased to find an article about myself there, but then again I'm not a public figure like Daniel "Google Watch" Brandt. This is the guy started "Wikipedia Watch", and then got involved in wikipediaclassaction.org, which is clearly a scam and an attempt to get Wikipedia in trouble because Daniel Brandt doesn't like being exposed as the nut that he is.
Wikipedia is useful. It exposes nuts like Daniel Brandt, and that can only be a good thing.
"but both have shown that they ultimately care more about marketing than about code quality"
Well duh! Other people are taking care of the coding. And face it, it's the marketing which has given Firefox ten per cent of the browser market.
"And I will tell my story to everyone who's interested in it so they'll be able to see through the marketing and the hype, too, which seems to be all that you are focussing on these days."
Gee. It's because of the marketing that Mozilla can make lots of money from Google searches through the search field, and thereby hire even more competent coders to improve the product.
"And then there are those of us who can't imagine why such a purchase would make sense for either company as far as business strategy goes, given the current status and relationships among Google, Opera, and Firefox."
See my comment about mobile browsers. Simply put, Mozilla doesn't have a mobile browser.
Re:WebCore vs. Opera on mobile phones? Heh.
on
Google to Buy Opera?
·
· Score: 1
Opera supports XMLHttpRequest, and the UI is a lot faster and more streamlined than Firefox anyway.
Re:WebCore vs. Opera on mobile phones? Heh.
on
Google to Buy Opera?
·
· Score: 1
"Please remember that Opera is years behind the times when it comes to CSS and DOM compliance."
You are wrong. Opera's CSS is better than other browsers, and Opera even supports DOM3, which I don't think anyone else supports yet.
"WebKit is by far the most compliant browser, and only WebKit can pass ACID2."
Actually, iCab beat it. And Acid2 doesn't really reflect real standards compliance. Anyone can rush to fix specific bugs, but that doesn't mean that they have fixed all the other problems Safari has with standards.
Look at the number of posts, every day. And read some of his posts. They are basically useless, and he often says stupid things like "my cock weeps for you", and... well, I can't be bothered to explain. Read his post for a while and you'll see.
"I personally think the Opera browser's interface is a bit cluttered out the box.."
Not anymore. Try Opera 8.5. It has like one more button in the address bar, and fewer top level menus than Firefox.
Re:Lets hope they open source it
on
Google to Buy Opera?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"Seriously, why would you choose Opera over Firefox?"
Maybe because it's smaller, faster, more polished, and gives you a lot of power without the need to mess around with buggy extensions?
"Additionally, I don't think you can get Opera in "just the browser" flavor. Last time I checked, it forced you to download this really crappy email client of theirs and address book and other things."
So what? It's still more than 1 MB smaller than Firefox on Windows (and that includes Flash which is 500K-1M!), and the e-mail client and other features are in fact hidden by default. And the e-mail client beats Thunderbird anyway.
"Um. What? Mozilla is open-sourced. You don't HAVE to buy it. Just take the code and do your own thing with it. DUH."
Maybe Google wants better quality/faster/more mobile friendly code?
"I have a hard time believing they're going to intentionally wedge the browser market even further rather than back more work and collaboration and progress behind the already great open source browser that we have."
So more browsers, diversity and choice in the browser market is a bad thing?
"Perhaps they just intend to buy it, strip it for some good stuff that they'll donate to Mozilla"
You can't strip away efficient code which runs fast and great with a small memory footprint, and magically make a different and bloated browser smaller and faster, my friend. Then again, maybe they would like to replace Gecko with Presto?:)
"Seriously though - seems like a waste of money when they can just branch off from Mozilla."
Yeah, except Mozilla is kind of bloated and requires a lot of memory to run. It's unusable on mobile phones.
Slashdot Mirror
The Mac version does not use Qt at all. Only Opera for Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD uses a tiny bit of Qt.
So again, Opera is not written in Qt.
He already said that it uses Qt for a couple of things, but those are exceptions. Opera's UI is not Qt based. It uses Qt for some things, but it's based on an internal toolkit.
So there are new stock rules going into effect next year, but theres a loop hole which some primary insiders are now using to avoid getting taxed to hell and back for being stupid enough to form a company...
Ah, so that's how Opera has been around as a commercial browser for more than ten years!
That's why Opera's revenue is higher than ever, and why the company is growing rapidly!
That's why Opera has millions in cash in the bank!
Because there is no money in browsers! Just ask the Slashdot experts!
Seriously... How do people on Slashdot come up with these things?
Opera Software has, as I mentioned, been around for more than ten years, and they've never made more money than they do now! They've even doubled the size of the company in a short period of time to keep up with demand for their browser.
Now you will no doubt point out that there is competition, and you would be right. Even on mobile phones, where Opera currently reigns supreme, there is tougher competition on the horizon.
But this does not negate the fact that Opera is making money by developing a web browser! And just because there is competition doesn't mean that it will stop being a viable market. Opera has more experience than anyone else when it comes to browsers in general, and mobile browsers in particular.
Those are well known examples. I also listed Yahoo. Just check out Opera's "Open The Web" forum where people report and discuss these sites. There are loads of them. So yeah, most of these problems are caused by browser sniffing. I don't know why sites do that, but they do, and anyone can verify it by spoofing as Firefox.
Opera might not be big on desktop, but it sure is on mobile, and Mozilla keeps borrowing heavily from Opera.
The guy has been running the company for ten years. He's had the chance to become filthy rich many times. But he isn't in this for the money.
"If a user searches on Google for a topic for which AOL has content - like information about Madonna - there will be a special section on the bottom right corner of the search results page with links to AOL.com. Technically, AOL will pay for those links, which will be identified as advertising, but Google will give AOL credits to pay for them as part of the deal. They will also carry AOL's logo, the first time Google has agreed to place graphic ads on its search result pages."
How is this "unethical", pray tell?
If Gates gives away half of everything he owns, he's still filthy rich.
If most people give away half of everything they own, they'll end up on the street unable to make ends meet.
Also, if I stole all your money and gave 60 per cent away to charity, would that make you happy, and would you praise me for being such a great and caring guy?
How many companies has Microsoft killed in its journey towards world domination?
By the way, I notice that even your post was modded up. YOU ARE PART OF THE GROUPTHINK AREN'T YOU!!!!111
But Orlowski is well known for his "trolling" - as in writing articles that generate page hits.
Perverted-justice.com seems to be a front for some fundamentalist Christian organization or something which fights against factual representation of issues relating to sexuality.
I personally don't contribute much to Wikipedia, but I do find it to be rather useful. I'm not going to defend everything about it, and I wouldn't be pleased to find an article about myself there, but then again I'm not a public figure like Daniel "Google Watch" Brandt. This is the guy started "Wikipedia Watch", and then got involved in wikipediaclassaction.org, which is clearly a scam and an attempt to get Wikipedia in trouble because Daniel Brandt doesn't like being exposed as the nut that he is.
Wikipedia is useful. It exposes nuts like Daniel Brandt, and that can only be a good thing.
And this comes from an Opera user.
Opera supports XMLHttpRequest, and the UI is a lot faster and more streamlined than Firefox anyway.
Please don't spread misinformation.
Look at the number of posts, every day. And read some of his posts. They are basically useless, and he often says stupid things like "my cock weeps for you", and... well, I can't be bothered to explain. Read his post for a while and you'll see.