Nice irony there. You get frustrated... because you're right to see things in shades of gray and they're wrong to see things in black and white? Nice binary thinking mr analog!
It's a "Less critical" vulnerability - not really dangerous at all. Firefox still has equally important unpatched "vulnerabilities" - some of which date back to 2004. Retards.
...I mean "overflow: auto !important", and you need to apply the rule to something, probably every element, so "* { overflow: auto !important; }". Sorry, just woke up.
Actually, Opera even when identifying itself as internet explorer still has "Opera" in the UA string.
And no web browser blocks ads out of the box, as far as I can tell. I don't think any ever will, either - it would be tempting for a lot of large ad-supported content providers to block a browser that will never give them ad views anyway. I mean, you're running a website, and you know that anyone using Opera is sucking your bandwidth and not helping you pay for it. Why would you let them on?
There never was any spyware in Opera. Back when it was ad-supported, the information that was provided to ad partners was basically what was required to send you targetted ads. This page has the details.
They don't believe in patents at all - they especially disagree with anything that affect interoperability, but not only with what affects interoperability.
I think they always said that they weren't so much competing on features but on the integration of all those features in a complete package. Even though others have copied mouse gestures (a feature Opera was first to put in a web browser, but the idea of which they got from another piece of software), no other browser I've tried offered mouse gestures that worked as smoothly as Opera's, nor do they integrate with the panels and different subapplications in the way that Opera does.
Opera has taken features from other browsers. Other browsers have taken features from Opera. Who wins? The consumers. And unlike many other businesses, Opera ASA doesn't seem to mind that.
It's coming in Opera 9. Note that CSS3 is a work in progress (CSS3 selectors are about to become a candidate recommendation, I think, and everything else is a working draft.)
I think Opera's corporate vision statement answers this pretty well, particularly:
We believe in a patent-free Web.
Opera Software does not believe innovation in the software industry is protected or encouraged by software patents. In particular, we believe interoperability on the Internet should be encouraged, and we actively work to ensure that software patents do not stand in the way of interoperability.
From their financial statement: In September, Opera Software permanently removed the ad banner and licensing fee from its desktop Web browser. This was made possible by a gradual increase in revenue from search and service partners, including a new, revised search agreement with Google
Spoken like a true.NET retard. If you use ASP to output HTML, then even if you are not writing your HTML yourself directly, the page is still built in HTML.
But PHP isn't the same thing as HTML at all! It doesn't do anything remotely similar or share any purposes. You can't teach PHP as a replacement to HTML.
And the problem with the replacements to HTML aren't their complexity - it's that they are different for difference's sake. Apart from an expandable namespace in XML, the differences between HTML and XML are minimal, mostly unimportant, and just increase the chances older browsers will screw up - not to mention an hypothetical XML-only browser would be unable to display HTML, and there's a billion of web pages in HTML, most of which will not get updated before we get our first interstellar colony.
So browsers will always need to support HTML anyway, and XML isn't adding much anything actually practical and useful. It's only there so a bunch of purists can claim that their page is fancy valid XHTML, then serve it as text/html anyway because Internet Explorer tends to choke on XML MIME types. Fuck that shit, HTML 4.01 Strict is perfectly fine anyway.
This wasn't so much a lie as a misunderstanding. Firefox was not nominated in the "web browser" but in the "best software" category, so when Opera ASA saw that they were the only winner in the browser category, they made a news story about it. They retracted a few days later.
On topic, the vulnerability seems hardly dangerous. Not entirely sure why it deserved a news story...
No browser supports CSS2 in its entirety (only KHTML browsers supports text-shadow, for instance), but CSS2.1 is fully supported by Opera 7.5, and Mozilla supports about 99.9% of it (and the parts they don't support aren't really important - counters are nice but far from essential)
What a load of crap! CSS3 builds up upon CSS2.1, and even though CSS2.1 is still a candidate recommendation, it's being pushed as the standard by the W3C (as evidenced by the fact they are linking to CSS 2.1 in the navigation menu of their CSS page)
Of course, some people are actually in favour of IE not supporting CSS any better than it currently does - with IE7 being unavailable on platforms older than XP, and any attempted improvement to CSS being likely to add more than it's share of CSS bugs, it would just make another browser developpers need to work around. The evil we know might just be better...
They're not just making "borderline misleading statements" though. They are burying the information about the late fees very deep indeed (at least in the online advertisement). The initial Flash ad does not have any "certain condition applies" warning or somesuch - if you follow the "click here for more info" link, you get a customer service contact form and a link to their FAQ. The FAQ does contain a link to information pertaining to the restocking fee, but a) it is badly placed (it's the last question in the list) and b) there is another entry placed much higher in the FAQ that appears to answer the question ("Aren't you worried that you won't have enough movies and games if everyone keeps their rentals longer?") but does not contain any valuable information. That FAQ entry then contains a "related link" to the correct FAQ entry: "What if I return an in-store movie or game rental seven days or more past the due date"? That FAQ entry is definitely not clearly worded - for one, I have no idea how much a "restocking fee" is supposed to be.
Seriously, I think it's a good PR move by blockbuster to remove the late fees, and I like that system (I think... I'd have to see what the fees for a 7 days late film is first), but the way they are advertising it is quite deliberately misleading and entirely deserving of prosecution
CSS/Edge was written by a Netscape Employee (Eric worked for Netscape back then and was head developper for Dev/Edge IIRC) to show off the new CSS capabilities in the Gecko rendering engine. It was a completely biased test case!
It is true that at that point, CSS in Netscape was superior to any other browser; IE/Mac was second, and Opera had slightly better support than IE/Windows. There were no other CSS browsers worth mentioning (Omniweb, iCab and Netscape 4 didn't cut it), and Opera's CSS support was very decent in comparison to the other browsers available at the time. The competition from Mozilla spurred development from Opera, and they have since 2002 taken the lead when it comes to CSS (AFAIK, no other browser supports the whole of CSS 2.1 - for one thing, Opera is the only browser to support counters).
Hey, CSS2 was ratified in 1998, it's 2005! The Mozilla devs should feel ashamed they are lagging behind in compliance!
That page works perfectly in Opera 7. It didn't work TWO YEARS AGO, in Opera 6, but comparing Opera 7 to Opera 6 is like comparing Mozilla 1.6 to Netscape 4. Opera 8 is currently in beta, and you have obviously never tried it. Next time you want to make a statement like that, you might want to check on it first...
Lack of a full CSS2 implementation? Opera 7.5 supports all of CSS2.1 - what more do you need? It also has much a much better generated content implementation than Gecko browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice irony there. You get frustrated ... because you're right to see things in shades of gray and they're wrong to see things in black and white? Nice binary thinking mr analog!
It's a "Less critical" vulnerability - not really dangerous at all. Firefox still has equally important unpatched "vulnerabilities" - some of which date back to 2004. Retards.
Like measuring the diameter of the Earth 1500 years after Eratosthenes did it. That's a pretty fantastic discovery right there.
...I mean "overflow: auto !important", and you need to apply the rule to something, probably every element, so "* { overflow: auto !important; }". Sorry, just woke up.
Make a user CSS with "scrollbar: auto !important".
StarOffice 5 (and possibly other versions) had an internal desktop and it was mind-numbingly useless.
Yeah, patent trolls are not evil, they're just greedy, devoid of morals and will do anything to further their ambitions
Oh wait, THAT'S LIKE THE VERY DEFINITION OF EVIL. What kind of idiot writes those articles?
Actually, Opera even when identifying itself as internet explorer still has "Opera" in the UA string.
And no web browser blocks ads out of the box, as far as I can tell. I don't think any ever will, either - it would be tempting for a lot of large ad-supported content providers to block a browser that will never give them ad views anyway. I mean, you're running a website, and you know that anyone using Opera is sucking your bandwidth and not helping you pay for it. Why would you let them on?
There never was any spyware in Opera. Back when it was ad-supported, the information that was provided to ad partners was basically what was required to send you targetted ads. This page has the details.
They don't believe in patents at all - they especially disagree with anything that affect interoperability, but not only with what affects interoperability.
I think they always said that they weren't so much competing on features but on the integration of all those features in a complete package. Even though others have copied mouse gestures (a feature Opera was first to put in a web browser, but the idea of which they got from another piece of software), no other browser I've tried offered mouse gestures that worked as smoothly as Opera's, nor do they integrate with the panels and different subapplications in the way that Opera does.
Opera has taken features from other browsers. Other browsers have taken features from Opera. Who wins? The consumers. And unlike many other businesses, Opera ASA doesn't seem to mind that.
It's coming in Opera 9. Note that CSS3 is a work in progress (CSS3 selectors are about to become a candidate recommendation, I think, and everything else is a working draft.)
Opera Watch's take on this. See the comment where VirtuElvis (an Opera developper) says they probably got confused with the Opera Platform SDK.
From their financial statement: In September, Opera Software permanently removed the ad banner and licensing fee from its desktop Web browser. This was made possible by a gradual increase in revenue from search and service partners, including a new, revised search agreement with Google
Because if this was implemented as part of the browser, many websites would block Opera outright, and with good reason.
It is possible to do AdBlocking in Opera using URL filtering. See Opera equivalents to Firefox extensions. There's also a second part. HTH.
Spoken like a true .NET retard. If you use ASP to output HTML, then even if you are not writing your HTML yourself directly, the page is still built in HTML.
But PHP isn't the same thing as HTML at all! It doesn't do anything remotely similar or share any purposes. You can't teach PHP as a replacement to HTML.
And the problem with the replacements to HTML aren't their complexity - it's that they are different for difference's sake. Apart from an expandable namespace in XML, the differences between HTML and XML are minimal, mostly unimportant, and just increase the chances older browsers will screw up - not to mention an hypothetical XML-only browser would be unable to display HTML, and there's a billion of web pages in HTML, most of which will not get updated before we get our first interstellar colony.
So browsers will always need to support HTML anyway, and XML isn't adding much anything actually practical and useful. It's only there so a bunch of purists can claim that their page is fancy valid XHTML, then serve it as text/html anyway because Internet Explorer tends to choke on XML MIME types. Fuck that shit, HTML 4.01 Strict is perfectly fine anyway.
This wasn't so much a lie as a misunderstanding. Firefox was not nominated in the "web browser" but in the "best software" category, so when Opera ASA saw that they were the only winner in the browser category, they made a news story about it. They retracted a few days later.
On topic, the vulnerability seems hardly dangerous. Not entirely sure why it deserved a news story...
Err, you ever thought about piracy? I wouldn't be surprised if most non-registered Opera users just pirated it...
No browser supports CSS2 in its entirety (only KHTML browsers supports text-shadow, for instance), but CSS2.1 is fully supported by Opera 7.5, and Mozilla supports about 99.9% of it (and the parts they don't support aren't really important - counters are nice but far from essential)
What a load of crap! CSS3 builds up upon CSS2.1, and even though CSS2.1 is still a candidate recommendation, it's being pushed as the standard by the W3C (as evidenced by the fact they are linking to CSS 2.1 in the navigation menu of their CSS page)
Of course, some people are actually in favour of IE not supporting CSS any better than it currently does - with IE7 being unavailable on platforms older than XP, and any attempted improvement to CSS being likely to add more than it's share of CSS bugs, it would just make another browser developpers need to work around. The evil we know might just be better...
They're not just making "borderline misleading statements" though. They are burying the information about the late fees very deep indeed (at least in the online advertisement). The initial Flash ad does not have any "certain condition applies" warning or somesuch - if you follow the "click here for more info" link, you get a customer service contact form and a link to their FAQ. The FAQ does contain a link to information pertaining to the restocking fee, but a) it is badly placed (it's the last question in the list) and b) there is another entry placed much higher in the FAQ that appears to answer the question ("Aren't you worried that you won't have enough movies and games if everyone keeps their rentals longer?") but does not contain any valuable information. That FAQ entry then contains a "related link" to the correct FAQ entry: "What if I return an in-store movie or game rental seven days or more past the due date"? That FAQ entry is definitely not clearly worded - for one, I have no idea how much a "restocking fee" is supposed to be.
Seriously, I think it's a good PR move by blockbuster to remove the late fees, and I like that system (I think... I'd have to see what the fees for a 7 days late film is first), but the way they are advertising it is quite deliberately misleading and entirely deserving of prosecution
CSS/Edge was written by a Netscape Employee (Eric worked for Netscape back then and was head developper for Dev/Edge IIRC) to show off the new CSS capabilities in the Gecko rendering engine. It was a completely biased test case!
It is true that at that point, CSS in Netscape was superior to any other browser; IE/Mac was second, and Opera had slightly better support than IE/Windows. There were no other CSS browsers worth mentioning (Omniweb, iCab and Netscape 4 didn't cut it), and Opera's CSS support was very decent in comparison to the other browsers available at the time. The competition from Mozilla spurred development from Opera, and they have since 2002 taken the lead when it comes to CSS (AFAIK, no other browser supports the whole of CSS 2.1 - for one thing, Opera is the only browser to support counters).
Hey, CSS2 was ratified in 1998, it's 2005! The Mozilla devs should feel ashamed they are lagging behind in compliance!
That page works perfectly in Opera 7. It didn't work TWO YEARS AGO, in Opera 6, but comparing Opera 7 to Opera 6 is like comparing Mozilla 1.6 to Netscape 4. Opera 8 is currently in beta, and you have obviously never tried it. Next time you want to make a statement like that, you might want to check on it first...
Lack of a full CSS2 implementation? Opera 7.5 supports all of CSS2.1 - what more do you need? It also has much a much better generated content implementation than Gecko browsers.