"Once FF has extensions for it all, then, yeah, Opera is probably toast."
How do you figure? Even if Firefox manages to somehow emulate all of Opera's features, there's still the problem that they all integrate better in Opera, and there's no need to download thirty different extensions to get all this functionality.
Extensions are nice and all, but come on! I'm not going to maintain thirty different extensions just to emulate Opera! I'd rather use Opera.
No, why should they? Opera is still going strong there. It's always been a niche browser on PC, so it's not getting worse at all. In fact, Opera is stronger than ever on the PC.
Opera is growing in the desktop market too, you know. And these losses aren't related to Firefox anyway.
Firefox is actually irrelevant here, because Opera's main source of income is the mobile market, and Firefox does not exist for mobiles. The reason for the losses is that Opera has hired like mad to keep up with demand. And they have no debt and so much money in the bank they could go on with losses for many years.
"In the current market firefox is the end all solution for most people."
Wrong. Firefox is a solution to people who find that it suits their needs. It doesn't suit everyone's needs. I've found myself mainly using Opera because it's more convenient.
"Not only does opera not stand a chance"
How do you figure? Opera is packed with features, yet it is a far smaller download than Firefox. With Opera, I download it once and get all the useful features, including an e-mail client which Thunderbird is not trying to emulate... And when I upgrade, I know that I won't have to worry about extensions breaking.
Opera is very convenient, and I'll gladly pay for that. It makes me a lot more productive.
"Talk to an Opera Zealot or Opera developer and the answer has always been the same. The site is serving bad pages to Opera. And this is generally true."
Yes, that is true indeed. These sites specifically look for "Opera" in the useragent string, and then continue to send it broken code.
If the page had sent Opera the same as Firefox gets, it would have worked perfectly.
It's got nothing to do with zealotry. It's an explanation. You are rather rude to call people zealots just for pointing out this simple fact.
"I really wish they could have made more effort to handle errant pages than simply telling users to change the world."
The problem isn't that Opera can't handle badly coded pages. The problem is that many sites seem to block Opera on purpose for some reason. Even Yahoo Mail did this a while ago! It's explained in the Opera forums. You could change a single line of JavaScript which detected Opera to prevent it from detecting it, and everything would work fine!
"Browsers have been free for too long, and the fact is, people don't use browsers because of features...they use them because of compatibility."
Ahem. Opera has been non-free for nearly ten years. It's currently the oldest existing browser which is still in active development. Yes, it was started as an alternative to Mosaic, not to IE or Netscape.
"What exactly does Opera have that Firefox doesn't have?"
A smaller download, packed with features that are smoothly integrated. So there's no need to browse through loads of extensions to find the useful stuff. It's right there.
I don't quite see what Firefox's growth has to do with Opera's losses.
Opera's main income is from the embedded market, and Firefox is nowhere to be seen there. Besides, Opera's losses are due to hiring more people to keep up with demand. They recently started porting Opera to Windows Mobile.
In conclusion, Opera's losses are expected since they have to hire to keep up with demand, and Firefox is largely irrelevant since it is not available for mobile phones.
"It seems what THEY ARE failing to do is keep their operating costs under control."
What you don't seem to realize is that Opera has been profitable all year, but they've been hiring a lot of people lately, apparently to keep up with the demand for their products.
The actual loss last quarter is minimal. With the amount of money Opera has in the bank, they could go on with losses for years and years. But this is a strategic move to increase the staff, and thereby being able to deliver more products, thus making more money next year.
The management would be really silly if it didn't expand when the market is screaming for it. This company has been around for nearly ten years, remember, and easily survived the dot.com bubble.
Recently, Opera has been announced for Casio mobiles, and for the Windows Mobile platform. So it is rapidly expanding to new markets. That requires more development resources, obviously. In addition, it was recently announced that Opera is the default browser on a new smartphone Symbian OS, and the second biggest mobile operator in Japan is betting its money on Opera to get more customers.
The bottom line is that Opera has no debt, the revenues are rapidly increasing, and they look set to grow even further in the next few years because of all the major deals they are getting. They needed to hire people to keep up with all these new deals.
I don't really think this is the case. Opera has bugs, but so does Firefox. Remember, the creator of CSS works for Opera... Of course it's good at CSS! It's far better than Konqueror at most things.
"Opera is sweet, just not up to standards, quite."
In addition to my previous reply, I'd like to point this out...
People often forget that Opera is not just a browser, but an entire Internet suite.
It has an email client too, which Gmail was modeled after! Yup, Google borrowed from Opera when they decided on how to handle mail.
It also has newsgroups support, and a chat client.
So Opera and Firefox aren't really alternatives to each other as such.
I recommend Opera for email, by the way. It has insanely fast searches, and it is very flexible since it isn't tied down by folders. It makes things very easy and convenient.
In the end, though, you decide what you need. I personally like Opera because the browser part is faster than anything else on my PC, plus it's very convenient to have everything in a small package instead of having to install features manually. And when I upgrade, everything continues working...
Depends on your needs, really. They are two different approaches.
If you are happy with Opera, just continue using it, unless you want to check out what Firefox can offer.
Opera delivers everything in one package, ready to use. Firefox delivers a basic browser which can be extended to suit your needs.
Opera's extension possibilities are limited, but you won't have to go through hundreds of extensions to find what you need. Everything is right there, tightly integrated.
Firefox extensions have no limits really, so you can get a lot of useful stuff. On the other hand, all of this has to be updated separately, and setting it all up can take quite some time.
Two different approaches. Pick whatever suits your needs.
I'd say that he won because he's anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage, and made a point out of wanting to make it so for everyone, while Kerry didn't want to force his Christian beliefs on others.
"It's no more interfering with people's lifes than banning any other form of murder."
Sure it is. The fetus is a parasite in the mother's body if unwanted, trespassing on her property (her body). If you refuse the woman to control her own body, you have basically taken away her ownership of it. She no longer owns herself. This is one of the ultimate evils.
But hey, I'm fine with just remvoving the fetus without actually killing it. If it can survive outside the womb, fine. If it can't, too bad, but it is not murder. It was taken out while alive, and died of natural causes.
"there has not been a major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11"
What do you mean by that? How often are there major terrorist attacks on US soil anyway?
"We can't sit back and allow people like Saddam to plot against America."
Erm. Saddam wanted to trade with America. He didn't plot against it. America put him where he was in the first place!
And he was a secular ruler. He even had a Christian in his administration. So no link to Al-Qaida there.
So, let's see... Iraq has got nothing to do with the war on terror, terrorist attacks on US soil aren't actually common anyway, and you don't know if he has really kept America safe, or if the terrorist are right under his nose, planning new attacks.
You say the front lines have been moved. But Afghanistan was an international effort, and Iraq is irrelevant in the war on terror. So where does that leave Bush?
The point here is still that your point of view forces something on someone else, while my point of view doesn't force anyone to do anything.
Regarding cutting taxes, it would indeed be a bad thing to add either "cut taxes" or "don't cut taxes" to the constitution. Just like it would be bad to add "have an abortion" or "don't have an abortion".
The Constitution believes in individual rights, and the mother has individual rights, too. Slave laws go against individual rights. Abortion is a different issue completely, since we don't even know if the fetus does have ot should have individual rights, and in any case, by forcing the mother to not have an abortion, you are violating her individual rights.
Slave labor is immoral because it takes away people's individual rights, which is part of the foundation for the country.
Right to privacy and equal rights belong in the constitution, indeed. However, there's no reason to specifically allow abortion in the constitution, and specifically banning it is interfering with people's lives. It's their business, not that of the government.
The problem is, where do you draw the line? You could say that even masturbating is murder. You could say that removing any living part of one's own body is murder... It all comes down to your personal beliefs. Therefore, it is up to each person to take responsiblity for his or her own body.
"You don't seem to share my viewpoint, and feel quite justified in asking the government to pass a law that (as you see it) prevents others from infringing on your personal liberty."
You don't need a law to allow something. A law to force a woman to have an abortion would be equally wrong, though.
"If the government says that abortions are legal, that offends my sense of morality."
Well, I'm afraid it is none of your business whether the woman carrying a child wants to keep it or not. It is a personal matter. Her body, her property. If she does not want the child, the child is a parasite within her body, oris trespassing on her property, so to speak.
In addition to this, the fetus has no responsibilities, no opinions, no nothing. It does not have responsibilities, and therefore has no rights.
"It doesn't matter what the government does - one of us will be offended by what we consider immoral and unreasonable legislation."
You don't understand. You are trying to force something on someone else - to make a choice for them. I want people to make their own choices. See above.
"Don't ask me for a simple answer to the problem; if I had any inkling of an idea of how to solve something like this, I'd be running for office myself."
The simple answer is: Her body, her decision. You have no right to force another human being to sacrifice her body for someone else.
The even simpler answer is: If in doubt, don't make the law! Problem solved.
Is a person who has no responsibility before the law also protected by the law?
The child - remove it from its mother while it's still alive, if you don't want it to die. Then, if it is able to survive on its own, fine. If not, it will die by itself. No one murdered it, it died of natural causes.
Slashdot Mirror
Extensions are nice and all, but come on! I'm not going to maintain thirty different extensions just to emulate Opera! I'd rather use Opera.
No, why should they? Opera is still going strong there. It's always been a niche browser on PC, so it's not getting worse at all. In fact, Opera is stronger than ever on the PC.
Opera is growing in the desktop market too, you know. And these losses aren't related to Firefox anyway.
Firefox is actually irrelevant here, because Opera's main source of income is the mobile market, and Firefox does not exist for mobiles. The reason for the losses is that Opera has hired like mad to keep up with demand. And they have no debt and so much money in the bank they could go on with losses for many years.
"0wn3d" indeed... Sigh.
Opera is very convenient, and I'll gladly pay for that. It makes me a lot more productive.
If the page had sent Opera the same as Firefox gets, it would have worked perfectly.
It's got nothing to do with zealotry. It's an explanation. You are rather rude to call people zealots just for pointing out this simple fact.
You don't seem to understand the problem. Opera has an entire rendering mode for badly coded pages. Does that tell you something?The problem isn't that Opera can't handle badly coded pages. The problem is that many sites seem to block Opera on purpose for some reason. Even Yahoo Mail did this a while ago! It's explained in the Opera forums. You could change a single line of JavaScript which detected Opera to prevent it from detecting it, and everything would work fine!
Oh, and Pocket IE sucks, and is only available for one mobile OS. And mobiles are where Opera's main markets are
Guess people are different then. I always found Opera's interface to be far better than everything else.
A time saver.
Opera has tight integration and works right away.
Opera's main income is from the embedded market, and Firefox is nowhere to be seen there. Besides, Opera's losses are due to hiring more people to keep up with demand. They recently started porting Opera to Windows Mobile.
In conclusion, Opera's losses are expected since they have to hire to keep up with demand, and Firefox is largely irrelevant since it is not available for mobile phones.
The actual loss last quarter is minimal. With the amount of money Opera has in the bank, they could go on with losses for years and years. But this is a strategic move to increase the staff, and thereby being able to deliver more products, thus making more money next year.
The management would be really silly if it didn't expand when the market is screaming for it. This company has been around for nearly ten years, remember, and easily survived the dot.com bubble.
Recently, Opera has been announced for Casio mobiles, and for the Windows Mobile platform. So it is rapidly expanding to new markets. That requires more development resources, obviously. In addition, it was recently announced that Opera is the default browser on a new smartphone Symbian OS, and the second biggest mobile operator in Japan is betting its money on Opera to get more customers.
The bottom line is that Opera has no debt, the revenues are rapidly increasing, and they look set to grow even further in the next few years because of all the major deals they are getting. They needed to hire people to keep up with all these new deals.
What's the problem here?
People often forget that Opera is not just a browser, but an entire Internet suite.
It has an email client too, which Gmail was modeled after! Yup, Google borrowed from Opera when they decided on how to handle mail.
It also has newsgroups support, and a chat client.
So Opera and Firefox aren't really alternatives to each other as such.
I recommend Opera for email, by the way. It has insanely fast searches, and it is very flexible since it isn't tied down by folders. It makes things very easy and convenient.
In the end, though, you decide what you need. I personally like Opera because the browser part is faster than anything else on my PC, plus it's very convenient to have everything in a small package instead of having to install features manually. And when I upgrade, everything continues working...
If you are happy with Opera, just continue using it, unless you want to check out what Firefox can offer.
Opera delivers everything in one package, ready to use. Firefox delivers a basic browser which can be extended to suit your needs.
Opera's extension possibilities are limited, but you won't have to go through hundreds of extensions to find what you need. Everything is right there, tightly integrated.
Firefox extensions have no limits really, so you can get a lot of useful stuff. On the other hand, all of this has to be updated separately, and setting it all up can take quite some time.
Two different approaches. Pick whatever suits your needs.
If you look at the page the image came from, it is probably a fake. But hey, nice tits anyway! :)
Bush is far more dangerous, with his shameless flirting with fundamentalist Christians. The people who want to merge Church and State.
Bush lied to the people about Iraq too. Is that trustworthy? Is that smart?
I'd say that he won because he's anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage, and made a point out of wanting to make it so for everyone, while Kerry didn't want to force his Christian beliefs on others.
But hey, I'm fine with just remvoving the fetus without actually killing it. If it can survive outside the womb, fine. If it can't, too bad, but it is not murder. It was taken out while alive, and died of natural causes.
Problem solved, case closed.
Afghanistan was an international effort, by the way. And it went fine. Iraq, on the other hand...
And he was a secular ruler. He even had a Christian in his administration. So no link to Al-Qaida there.
So, let's see... Iraq has got nothing to do with the war on terror, terrorist attacks on US soil aren't actually common anyway, and you don't know if he has really kept America safe, or if the terrorist are right under his nose, planning new attacks.
You say the front lines have been moved. But Afghanistan was an international effort, and Iraq is irrelevant in the war on terror. So where does that leave Bush?
Regarding cutting taxes, it would indeed be a bad thing to add either "cut taxes" or "don't cut taxes" to the constitution. Just like it would be bad to add "have an abortion" or "don't have an abortion".
The Constitution believes in individual rights, and the mother has individual rights, too. Slave laws go against individual rights. Abortion is a different issue completely, since we don't even know if the fetus does have ot should have individual rights, and in any case, by forcing the mother to not have an abortion, you are violating her individual rights.
Slave labor is immoral because it takes away people's individual rights, which is part of the foundation for the country.
Right to privacy and equal rights belong in the constitution, indeed. However, there's no reason to specifically allow abortion in the constitution, and specifically banning it is interfering with people's lives. It's their business, not that of the government.
In addition to this, the fetus has no responsibilities, no opinions, no nothing. It does not have responsibilities, and therefore has no rights.
You don't understand. You are trying to force something on someone else - to make a choice for them. I want people to make their own choices. See above. The simple answer is: Her body, her decision. You have no right to force another human being to sacrifice her body for someone else.The even simpler answer is: If in doubt, don't make the law! Problem solved.
Is a person who has no responsibility before the law also protected by the law?
The child - remove it from its mother while it's still alive, if you don't want it to die. Then, if it is able to survive on its own, fine. If not, it will die by itself. No one murdered it, it died of natural causes.
Oops :) You are right. I jumped to conclusions based on the rest of the post. Sorry!
What and who are "closed-source hackers"? What does closed-source have to do with "balanced individuals" and "respect other people's property"?
Are you trolling? Moderators?!