"I can make a site with specific requirements layout and otherwise that will look the same in IE and Mozilla using the same CSS code and same JS code. Yet, I can't do that with IE, Mozilla and Opera because Opera's rendering is too different."
Then you are doing something wrong. Let me guess, you use browser sniffers, don't you?
"Opera does not render standards compliant material either correctly in my opinion or the same as other browsers."
And now the Firefox fanboy says that IE is more standards compliant than Opera! Great move. Now everyone will take you seriously!
So now your "no end of sites" has changed to "internal development sites"? Interesting.
"IE and Mozilla are a lot closer to rendering like each other than Opera is to them."
Nope. That depends entirely on what you are looking at. Opera and Mozilla's CSS box models are similar to each other, while IE gets most of it wrong. IE is the odd one out, not Opera.
"So, please get off your high Opera horse and look at it from a practical development perspective."
So what you are saying is that you are allowed to spread FUD about Opera, but I am not allowed to point out the fact that what you are saying about Opera applies equally to Mozilla?
Sure it is. It is now so simple and streamlined that even your grandma could use it.
"They fixed that sort of with version 8 (now there are only like 2000 buttons)"
Really. Opera's default interface has seven buttons on the address bar. Firefox has six. On the other hand, Opera shows six menus by default, while Firefox shows seven.
"but i still disable pretty much everything but the tab bar and the address bar."
In other words, all browsers have too many buttons according to you.
"I'm one of those guys that thinks my http/https browser should used for http and https, you know, "the web"."
So you never use your browser to download stuff? You never come across FTP links? That's fine, but most people will probably disagree. I'm glad that browser support FTP downloads.
"Call me crazy, but I think that anything that isn't related to "web browsing" really doesn't belong in a "web browser"."
Better uninstall Firefox with its FTP support then.
"Of course, I could point to no end of sites that work just fine in Firefox and IE, but not in Opera."
And I could point to sites that work fine in Opera and IE, but not in Firefox. Your point being?
"Sites that sometimes are 100% standards compliant."
Same with Firefox. Your point being?
"I'm not an Opera User"
Of course you aren't, since you are just repeating nonsense other Firefox fans have said.
"sometimes the "not working" part is because of a matter of interpretetive differences between the Opera team and IE/Mozilla developers."
You're just repeating what some other Firefox fan told you, aren't you? Those differences exist between all browsers. There are lots of sites that work in IE and Opera but not in Firefox.
"Whether or not it's still smaller than Firefox and whether or not you can still disable all the junk if you don't want it."
Most things are disabled or hidden by default, so there's no need to disable them. Just ignore them (you won't even notice them) if you don't want to use those features.
"when i read that it was going to be getting a BT client, i kinda thought, OK, you're starting to cross a line here, guys.... I honestly don't think i'll ever use it, just like i won't ever use the IRC thing or the mail thing or the RSS thing or the notes thing."
Opera crossed "that line" years ago. Even Opera 3 had a newsreader and a send-only email client.
And hey, when you start upgrading Opera using BT from Opera's own servers you'll be eating your own words;)
"thou cannot bundle unrelated software to the main software intended."
BT is a protocol, like FTP and HTTP, not "unrelated software" as such.
And as for your IE example, show me a modern (desktop) operating system without a web browser... It would be silly.
The bundle comment doesn't really make sense. Even Firefox has things built in that go beyond basic web browsing (tabs? Popup blocker?). Sometimes, adding things things make sense, and BT makes sense as an alternative to HTTP and FTP transfers. It made sense to support FTP, remember.
Of course, if you are one of the people who would say "if I don't need it, it's bloat", then this discussion is pointless. If you are like that, all software is bloated to you.
"When I click on a torrent in IE, Netscape, or Firefox my client opens up and starts downloading. How would this be better?"
Because now you won't have to download a separate BT client. Have you seen the size of those things? Most of the standalone clients are as big as Opera! You'll save time, bandwidth and resources.
Anyway, having it built in and making it easy to use (it works just like other downloads) is a good way to make it more mainstread. A good thing.
"Now if I were an Opera user I would be loading up a BT client whenever I use my browser even though I rarely use it."
The thing with Opera is that stuff you don't use won't take up any resources, so it's a win-win situation.
"Hey, have the Opera guys been hanging around with the MS Office guys?"
Why? Because they've packed Opera with useful features that don't get in the way in a download that's a lot smaller than Firefox anyway?
"Ok, is there an option I can uninstall the 'bundled' software?"
What for? Opera is still a tiny download (smaller than Firefox), and most features are hidden and/or deactivated by default anyway. The only time you'll notice the BT support is if you want to download something through BT, in which case... Well, you get the idea.
"a BT client needs to run continuously in the background, downloading and uploading the files."
You mean like HTTP and FTP downloads need to run continuously as well? And if you are worried about sharing, you can cut that off at any time.
"A browser's model is more one of "load the thing and show it" or "Stream the thing and show it". How does that map to BT, where you cannot even "stream" a thing (since you are getting the pieces out of order)?"
A browser downloads stuff from HTTP and FTP. Now it downloads stuff from BT as well. What's the problem?
"Will we see people who's torrent clients only serve the file while it is being downloaded, and then stops?"
"If you've paid for your browser then I guess you'll have to take what you're given! That's the choice of non-free software! Still, having paid for Opera at least you can make changes to the source and...no, sorry, it's software you don't pay for that you can do that with, isn't it!"
Actually, the vast majority of users won't have a choice whether it's open-source or not. Most people don't know C++. Heck, they don't even know HTML, much less XUL!
So most people will have to take what they're given even if it's open-source.
And actually, Opera is very easy to customize, and features are actually hidden until you want to use them. For example, you won't even notice the built in email client unless you create an account. Heck, Opera's customization is better than Firefox a lot of the time (no restart to change themes), and you can even extend Opera in various ways, by adding toolbars, User JavaScript, and so on.
"What's the point of paying for a browser again?"
You pay for it if if suits your needs. It has everything built in, but is still a smaller download than Firefox. It is also very secure, with zero known vulnerabilities, while Firefox has several. It's more convenient to use and more polished than Firefox.
The point is to support a company which continues to innovate.
"For a community that's so against IE's "bloat" it's amazing how many people welcome with open arms more *unnecessary* bloat."
Bloat? Opera with BitTorrent is a smaller download than Firefox, and BT downloads in Opera work exactly like HTTP or FTP downloads (there is no UI clutter).
Where is the bloat?
"Either you're with bloat in the browser world or you aren't. Which is it?"
I'm for making it easier and more convenient to do stuff online. I hope Firefox gets a built in BT client too.
BitTorrent is far from the only thing which sets Opera apart from Firefox. Speed, size, functionality, integration out of the box are some keywords. Of course, which one is better is a matter of taste, but some people prefer the way Opera works. No extension problems when upgrading, for one.
Firefox with BT support would be a good thing. For Opera too. It would move BT further into the mainstream, and that would benefit anyone who wants to use it. Opera probably has something in mind, such as distributing Opera through BitTorrent. Why else implement it?
Give it up already. Just because an organization defines something doesn't mean that they are correct, and can exclude everything else from the actual definition. They can exclude things from their licenses etc., but they can't redefine the English language!
To make matters worse: No. Free as in speech software is open-source. Free as in beer software can be closed-source. There are lots of closed-source programs available as free (as in beer) downloads.
"How can the court allow them to hijack your computer to do anything"
They didn't. They ruled that your decide what gets displayed in your own web browser.
"No, the court is applying the current American jurisprudence ideology: corporations can do what their directors want, and humans can't do anything about it."
Um, actually, this ruling states that humans can decide what their computer displays, and corporations can't dictate what your browser displays, and sue people for, say, blocking ads. Or installing software which replaces ads with other ads, for that matter.
This ruling has got nothing to do with spyware. It has got everything to do with the user's power to choose what gets displayed on his own computer.
"I see it more like a retial store placing their generic items IN SOMEONE ELSES STORE."
Are you saying that your computer belongs to someone else? Or that the webmaster of the site you are visiting has the right to dictate to you how you view his site? That it should be illegal to use an ad blocker to change "SOMEONE ELSES SITE" and remove the ads? That you shouldn't be able to make the fonts bigger if you have bad eye sight?
"I don't think they understood the mechanism at work here! It's more likened to WalMart placing their generic products on K-marts shelves!"
Actually, they understand it perfectly: Your computer, your choice. You run your own browser on your own computer. You decide how things are displayed. If you want something to replace all ads on a page, this rules that it's perfectly legal.
This ruling is not a ruling for malware and spyware. It's a ruling that says that you can do what you wish with YOUR OWN computer.
Way to miss the point! What I was trying to say is that Qt is open-source, since the source is, well, open and all. Quoting some random license or text doesn't make Qt closed-source.
Where exactly did you find that lame "definition" anyway?
People, let's keep both feet on the ground here! This ruling means that we (users) are allowed to make changes to pages we are viewing through our browser. In other words, it confirms that Firefox's Greasemonkey/Opera's User JS is perfectly legal. It confirms that the webmaster has no right to tell you how to display things in your own browser (removing ads, anyone?).
Now, spyware which installs itself on your computer and changes pages for you/displays ads is bad. But it would be terrible if we got a ruling saying that people aren't allowed to decide how pages display in their own browser.
If someone installs a piece of software and they are well aware of the fact that it will replace ads on web pages, then fine! It's up to the user.
What we need to deal with is software which tricks the user into installing ot, or which installs itself through the use of security flaws and similar things.
Also, replacing ads on sites is nothing like McDonald's replacing Burger King's posters with their own in a Burger King restaurant. Burger King is Burger King's property, remember? Like the browser on your PC is under your control? I would be more like McDonald's giving you glasses that detect Burger King posters and replace them with McDonald's posters in the display in front of your own eyes. In a way, at least:) You chose to put those glasses on, and Burger King has no say in what you choose to look at.
"Well, it certainly doesn't comply with the Open Source Definition. "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" and all that."
Er, that sounds like it's taken from a particular FOSS license. The source code is open, so it's open-source. GPL doesn't define all open-source software.
Slashdot Mirror
And as I have already explained: Firefox has rendering differences on the exact same HTML. What is your point?
And hey, when you start upgrading Opera using BT from Opera's own servers you'll be eating your own words ;)
And as for your IE example, show me a modern (desktop) operating system without a web browser... It would be silly.
The bundle comment doesn't really make sense. Even Firefox has things built in that go beyond basic web browsing (tabs? Popup blocker?). Sometimes, adding things things make sense, and BT makes sense as an alternative to HTTP and FTP transfers. It made sense to support FTP, remember.
Of course, if you are one of the people who would say "if I don't need it, it's bloat", then this discussion is pointless. If you are like that, all software is bloated to you.
Anyway, having it built in and making it easy to use (it works just like other downloads) is a good way to make it more mainstread. A good thing.
The thing with Opera is that stuff you don't use won't take up any resources, so it's a win-win situation. Why? Because they've packed Opera with useful features that don't get in the way in a download that's a lot smaller than Firefox anyway?So most people will have to take what they're given even if it's open-source.
And actually, Opera is very easy to customize, and features are actually hidden until you want to use them. For example, you won't even notice the built in email client unless you create an account. Heck, Opera's customization is better than Firefox a lot of the time (no restart to change themes), and you can even extend Opera in various ways, by adding toolbars, User JavaScript, and so on.
You pay for it if if suits your needs. It has everything built in, but is still a smaller download than Firefox. It is also very secure, with zero known vulnerabilities, while Firefox has several. It's more convenient to use and more polished than Firefox.The point is to support a company which continues to innovate.
Where is the bloat?
I'm for making it easier and more convenient to do stuff online. I hope Firefox gets a built in BT client too.Firefox with BT support would be a good thing. For Opera too. It would move BT further into the mainstream, and that would benefit anyone who wants to use it. Opera probably has something in mind, such as distributing Opera through BitTorrent. Why else implement it?
Not really, no.
"EFF has never won any significant legal battle it has taken on."
You are making yourself look silly with your unfounded attacks and lame claims and arguments.
Give it up already. Just because an organization defines something doesn't mean that they are correct, and can exclude everything else from the actual definition. They can exclude things from their licenses etc., but they can't redefine the English language!
This ruling has got nothing to do with spyware. It has got everything to do with the user's power to choose what gets displayed on his own computer.
This ruling is not a ruling for malware and spyware. It's a ruling that says that you can do what you wish with YOUR OWN computer.
Where exactly did you find that lame "definition" anyway?
Now, spyware which installs itself on your computer and changes pages for you/displays ads is bad. But it would be terrible if we got a ruling saying that people aren't allowed to decide how pages display in their own browser.
If someone installs a piece of software and they are well aware of the fact that it will replace ads on web pages, then fine! It's up to the user.
What we need to deal with is software which tricks the user into installing ot, or which installs itself through the use of security flaws and similar things.
Also, replacing ads on sites is nothing like McDonald's replacing Burger King's posters with their own in a Burger King restaurant. Burger King is Burger King's property, remember? Like the browser on your PC is under your control? I would be more like McDonald's giving you glasses that detect Burger King posters and replace them with McDonald's posters in the display in front of your own eyes. In a way, at least :) You chose to put those glasses on, and Burger King has no say in what you choose to look at.