That was once ahead of the curve, but now it's standard.
What other browsers have a chat and BT client built in?
But that wouldn't be integrated in the browser, but a seperate app that uses the same rendering engine.
Why wouldn't something that uses browser technologies/web standards be supported by a browser?
Who the hell uses that stuff?
Lots of people apparently.
They've had mouse gestures for ages, but it's not really what I'm looking for in a browser.
And yet it is one of the most useful features in Opera.
But it used to be ahead of the game, and now other players have caught up.
Not really. No one else has Opera's tight integration of multiple useful features without the bloat. And it's still faster on real sites, and the UI more responsive than other browsers, at least with 20-30+ tabs open.
It's just another one, which prioritizes security and new features over compatibility.
That's just plain nonsense. If you had actually read their compatibility info and blogs, you would have know that they spend massive amounts of resources on compatibility. Opera was designed from the ground up to be as compatible as possible, and they actively patch sites that break or sniff out Opera using useragent string spoofing, browser.js patching, etc., in addition to fixing compatibility bugs in Opera.
your phone will connect to their server via HTTPS, and their server connects to the remote site via HTTPS. Seems kinda... well... sketchy to me.
Are you drunk or something? Opera Mini is a "thin client". Opera Mini doesn't do any page processing on its own. How on earth are they going to support HTTPS without going through the servers exactly? There is nothing "sketchy" about it. Unless you are completely retarded. It's just the fact that Opera Mini is just a thin client and the page rendering takes place on the server.
In Opera Turbo, they don't allow compression (going through their servers) for HTTPS sites at all. So shove it with your paranoid nonsense.
Wow, aren't you clever. Leet DNS lookups and all that hacker-y stuff!
Yes, it uses servers to compress the data. This makes it faster on slow and laggy connections. They clearly state that it goes through their servers, and they also clearly state that it isn't much use if you are on a fast connection in the first place.
You are already filling up your ISP's cache with your browsing habits. If you can trust your ISP, you can trust Opera, which is based in Norway, which has some of the strictes privacy laws in the world.
It will be "fucked up in Opera" because you are designing specifically for other browsers first, and only at the end are you looking at it in Opera. If you had designed for Opera first, it would have worked there and would have been "fucked up" in other browsers instead.
That said, I've never had any problems getting stuff to work across Opera, Webkit and Gecko. IE was always the difficult one. You must not be very good at your job;)
Gaming consoles are 100% closed platforms. There's no way for Opera to make a version for those without approval.
And the DSi browser is Nintendo's call, as Opera has explained. Nintendo tells Opera what they want, Opera does it. Opera can't really make any decisions, only suggestions.
Opera will be available for PS3 when Sony realizes that Netfront is shit and licenses Opera instead.
YouTube support on the DSi? Hah, keep dreaming. The DSi doesn't even come close to the minimum system requirements for even Flash Lite!
It's too bad that SunSpider and other JS benchmarks are completely irrelevant since they only test a tiny part of JS, and JS only makes up a tiny part of even the JS-heaviest sites today. In a few years they will be relevant. Not today. Not for real sites.
The standards committee is sullen, fragmented, slow to react. Riven by ideological divisions that have become increasingly arcane and incomprehensible even to their adherents.
It's interesting that everyone else manages to move standards forwards, then. Standards processes take longer than knee-jerk "this must be a good idea, so let's do it!" because it takes longer to get things right. Microsoft's knee-jerk actions caused security nightmares and cost the market billions of dollars, remember? Better go with standards.
The others (so far) that have replied to your post seem to be arguing that either Firefox/Mozilla, or Google, are somehow entitled to exposure through Microsoft, and earn their existences through it, and that it is not fair that they not be included as default, or at least choice
This is a straw man. This is not about "entitlement", this is about ensuring competition in the market.
Is there anything at all preventing users from installing, and using, their choice of browsing application if they choose to do so?
Yes. Many sites still require IE.
Insisting that the supplier of the 'Blue E' should be compelled to alert end-users to brand-x browser is as silly as saying that when a user first starts FireFox that they should be alerted about the possibility of Internet Explorer as an alternative browser.
Nope. Microsoft broke the law. Breaking the law has consequences. Mozilla did not break the law. A thief loses his right to walk the streets freely, remember. Restrictions are applied and freedoms taken away if you break the law.
Not Microsoft's responsibility.
It's their responsibility that they broke the law.
Oh, poor me, I don't have any chance. Dirty rotten monopolist, woe is me.
So you are opposed to the free market?
Okay, we have firm standards! Unfortunately, they are not recognized, or respected by the entity that product most popular thing that our standards are designed for. I guess they are not really standards after all, are they?
They are, and the fact that Microsoft willfully violates them is just another thing that makes their bundling illegal.
Come on folks, this all a bunch of crying.
Yes, enforcing the law is "a bunch of crying". Indeed.
The Mozilla Corporation is in it to make money, actually. It's all funneled back to the foundation, but the corporation is a commercial entity in it for the green ones.
Can you show me the specific law which prevents anything MS did?
Stop being a complete idiot. Several people have explained this to your ignorant and dishonest ass several times. So why do you keep asking the same question over and over and over again?
Slashdot Mirror
Such as?
No such problems here.
Never seen that either. Opera is much better at memory handling than Firefox and especially Chrome.
Many do, though, and only Opera has that.
What other browsers have a chat and BT client built in?
Why wouldn't something that uses browser technologies/web standards be supported by a browser?
Lots of people apparently.
And yet it is one of the most useful features in Opera.
Not really. No one else has Opera's tight integration of multiple useful features without the bloat. And it's still faster on real sites, and the UI more responsive than other browsers, at least with 20-30+ tabs open.
Didn't Opera do that first?
Doubt it. I doubt they even knew about Netcaptor, and Opera had MDI agest before anyone else.
That's just plain nonsense. If you had actually read their compatibility info and blogs, you would have know that they spend massive amounts of resources on compatibility. Opera was designed from the ground up to be as compatible as possible, and they actively patch sites that break or sniff out Opera using useragent string spoofing, browser.js patching, etc., in addition to fixing compatibility bugs in Opera.
Are you drunk or something? Opera Mini is a "thin client". Opera Mini doesn't do any page processing on its own. How on earth are they going to support HTTPS without going through the servers exactly? There is nothing "sketchy" about it. Unless you are completely retarded. It's just the fact that Opera Mini is just a thin client and the page rendering takes place on the server.
In Opera Turbo, they don't allow compression (going through their servers) for HTTPS sites at all. So shove it with your paranoid nonsense.
Opera can't update the DSi browser anyway, unfortunately. All up to Nintendo. And besides, the DSi is probably too slow even for VIDEO.
Outdated? It uses the OpenOffice dictionaries! :D
Yes, it uses servers to compress the data. This makes it faster on slow and laggy connections. They clearly state that it goes through their servers, and they also clearly state that it isn't much use if you are on a fast connection in the first place.
You are already filling up your ISP's cache with your browsing habits. If you can trust your ISP, you can trust Opera, which is based in Norway, which has some of the strictes privacy laws in the world.
Um, overflow-y is CSS3, right? No browser supports all of CSS3. Opera supports other parts of CSS3 that no other browser supports as well.
That said, I've never had any problems getting stuff to work across Opera, Webkit and Gecko. IE was always the difficult one. You must not be very good at your job ;)
Netfront is crap, though. There's no reason what so ever to go with it instead of Opera. Unless it's cheaper to license of course...
And the DSi browser is Nintendo's call, as Opera has explained. Nintendo tells Opera what they want, Opera does it. Opera can't really make any decisions, only suggestions.
Opera will be available for PS3 when Sony realizes that Netfront is shit and licenses Opera instead.
YouTube support on the DSi? Hah, keep dreaming. The DSi doesn't even come close to the minimum system requirements for even Flash Lite!
It's too bad that SunSpider and other JS benchmarks are completely irrelevant since they only test a tiny part of JS, and JS only makes up a tiny part of even the JS-heaviest sites today. In a few years they will be relevant. Not today. Not for real sites.
This is a trivial and irrelevant issue, not a "major bug". The hyperbole in your post is pathetic.
Clue about what?
By the way, Google, Mozilla, Adobe, and many other companies joined the complaint.
It's interesting that everyone else manages to move standards forwards, then. Standards processes take longer than knee-jerk "this must be a good idea, so let's do it!" because it takes longer to get things right. Microsoft's knee-jerk actions caused security nightmares and cost the market billions of dollars, remember? Better go with standards.
This is a straw man. This is not about "entitlement", this is about ensuring competition in the market.
Yes. Many sites still require IE.
Nope. Microsoft broke the law. Breaking the law has consequences. Mozilla did not break the law. A thief loses his right to walk the streets freely, remember. Restrictions are applied and freedoms taken away if you break the law.
It's their responsibility that they broke the law.
So you are opposed to the free market?
They are, and the fact that Microsoft willfully violates them is just another thing that makes their bundling illegal.
Yes, enforcing the law is "a bunch of crying". Indeed.
The Mozilla Corporation is in it to make money, actually. It's all funneled back to the foundation, but the corporation is a commercial entity in it for the green ones.
KDE, Gnome, Mac OS, etc. are not monopolists. Special rules apply to monopolists like Microsoft.
Stop being a complete idiot. Several people have explained this to your ignorant and dishonest ass several times. So why do you keep asking the same question over and over and over again?
Nothing new under the sun, then.
No, that would not help at all.
Various Linux distributions have had package managers for years. No need for a webpage. Just a list of options.