It was named Oprah because it's the same browser available in multiple sizes. If you need help remembering which one the bloated one is, remember that it's Oprah with coffee.
"You're spinning it like MSN is simply unaware that Opera handles their site any differently. But... their site SPECIFICALLY CHECKS for the "Opera" string in the browser and gives it different files!"
No, I'm not. I'm spinning it like MS simply hasn't tested it.
I have no info on how they have their site set up, so everything I say here is just speculation. With the last web site I developed, I made a list of all the browsers I might care about and created generic style sheets for them. Then, I wrote some code to detect the style sheet and then automaticlly fire it down. The reason I did that was not because I was interested in supporting all those browsers, I did it because if there was a devastatingly bad problem I'd have easy access to fix it. It can be VERY hard to go back and retrofit your code so that you can fix a browser that's suddenly risen in popularity.
That site had a style sheet for Mozilla. I do not have Mozilla installed. I just worked under the assumption that it'd be compatible with Netscape's. They get a 'Mozilla' sheet, but I have never personally tested it. I never recieved an e-mail about it while that site was up, so I'm assuming it worked. But I really don't know that, nor would I have cared until my boss brought it to my attention.
I'm not saying I believe one point of view or the other. I simply don't know, nor do I care. I'm not providing opinions here, only insight. So please don't make accusations that I'm 'spinning' anything. Not only is that rude, but it also means you're completely missing my point.
I'm only responding to this part of your post. I was not defending Microsoft. I was pointing out some observations I made as an Opera user. I'm sorry you missed that little detail, if you hadn't you might have found my orignal post more interesting.
"Errr, in what way is this "wild?" After all, Microsoft _is_ a convicted anti trust violator who had big daddy Dubya pull the DOJ off so they wouldn't be split up into a few companies and actually have to start competing."
Heh. Your post is exactly what I'd define as "wild". "Dubya's" reasoning is conjecture, not fact. (I'm not saying you're wrong, Im saying you don't know. You assume.) Secondly, your use of the term "convicted anti trust violator" is being used as a blanket term to describe the behaviour of a very large and diversified corporation. There's little chance that every single division of MS is out to make sure MS is a monopoly. They're there to do business. Sorry, but it's a vague and tired argument. Don't believe me? Then how come IE or Messenger isn't on the XBOX? (That question is intended to make you think, I do not want an answer to it.)
"Several times before MS has modified their web sites to block out all web browsers except their own. And several web sites that MS has built for government sites and banks have refused to allow admitance to non MS Browsers. So, no, it is not weird."
Several non gov't or MS related sites do the same thing. Perhaps you didn't catch the part of my post about accessing my credit card account?
"Let's get to the heart of the matter here: the real bugaboo is pathetic web standards compliance, industry wide. I'd love to see the W3C start using the time-honored tactic of creating trademarked certification names and logos usable only by browser versions that pass a rigorous and public compliance suite."
Though I completely agree with you that this solution would have a very positive effect web-wide, I do not believe it's so central to this particular issue.
The main reason that WC3 compliance has a way of speed-bumping innovation and evolution in this particular area. On one hand, all sites work on all browsers, on the other how do you go about getting new features placed in?
There are rational/practical answers to my question. I'm not claiming it's unsolvable. The problem is that there's not a single motivation for every browser-developer out there to work from. Some want to make money, some want to make the net accessible to everybody, some want browsing to be an integral part of using a computer. When these things come into play, compliance to a standard is an inhibiting factor.
To put it another way, I don't think you're wrong. I just think that the practicality of it requires more participation than enough companies are going to want to give. The result is that we (we as in 'browser users/customers') really only have the option of treating the symptoms.
I hope I'm making sense, I'm on pain meds right now.
"Why would Microsoft care about Opera? Or think that misrendering the MSN home page is a good way to undermine it?"
Just wanted to say that I'm glad you took a moment to take a step back and and say "Why?" as opposed to jumping the gun and saying "Damn MS trying to enforce it's monopoly as usual". Frankly, I'm tired of the wild assumptions that MS works that way.
As an Opera user and a Windows user, you can understand that I've run across exactly this problem. I'd like to share with you a few observations I've made on this topic:
- As an Opera user, I find myself having to deal with a number of sites that just don't care about me. Having IE available as a backup is just part of my everyday Opera life. I don't see MS as being very different here. Some sites block me totally, like the site I use to send payments to my credit card.
- Because of my having to keep IE on hot standby, it doesn't even occur to me anymore to email MS (or any other site) and complain about lack of Opera testing. If they don't get feedback, they ain't gonna fix it.
- Website maintenance is a perpetual, priority based job. Often problems are ranked by how many people are affected by them. Truth be told, Opera's just not significant today in light of other things going on. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if nobody there had Opera installed. Anybody who's ever done web development at a Dilbert-esque corp would probably understand this.
- Wouldn't it be weird that MS would break Opera, but not Mozilla, Netscape, or other browsers?
- What possible benefit could that bring them? Despite my comment earlier, Opera handles the vast majority of sites(*) just fine. When I run across a site that doesn't work with Opera, it feels like the operators of the site were moronic, not that Opera is incompatible. In other words, MS's site not working right with Opera makes MS look incompetant, not Opera. * Sites that I personally have visited, other people's experiences may vary.
- MS's site is a marketing tool. Head on over there and you hear all about TabletPC's, PocketPc's, MS's latest server stuff, Windows XP, etc etc etc. Breaking their site means potentially shoo'ing off customers. I seriously doubt any PHB would want to do that.
If other Opera users share my observations, then it actually makes sense that MS just doesn't care. But the idea that they're doing it to enforce a monopoly is not so evident.
Please don't flame me for not jumping on the "MS is like OCP!!!" bandwagon. I'm just the type of person that'd rather look at all the details than try to find details to support a bias.
"...there has been a lot of talk about promoting more private investment in rocketry"
Attention: Please resist the urge to post the obvious "If MS made a rocket, it'd crash, herrr herr herr" joke. It's about as funny as a Windows user making USB support jokes about Linux. Thank you.
"Your friendly DSL or cable broadband provider could implement this technique to enforce their single-machine license clause."
Yeah, that pretty much sucks. There may be a silver lining, though. The more crap these ISP's pull to push their saavier customers away, the more demand there'll be for an uber geek-friendly ISP to come along. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but tell me it wouldn't be cool for a business to start up in order to cater to those of us that really like to play with networking. "Sure, go ahead and set up a wireless lan in your complex. We'll even let you pay to increase your bandwidth to accomodate all those users! Tell them that for $5 a month, they can each get a mail account or some other fairly interesting service."
"I dont really think he has a problem with that considering he probably has enough money to go swimming it like Uncle Scrooge Duck."
Yeah, you're right. It's hard to convince people in business like that that $20 is a lot of money. I make a decent living, I have plenty of nice things, but I still balk at paying $7.50 per person to watch a movie. I have to watch how much money is in my account every week. So why would somebody who could write a thousand dollar check and never feel the need to check his balance to make sure he can write it understand why not being able to make backups of DVD's is unacceptable?
Hmm, sorry about the run-on sentence there. I just think people like that should have their assets frozen for a year and learn to live off a 40k a year salary before they tell us we can't protect what we buy.
"Just noticed, but interestingly enough, the additional features [opera.com] listed for Opera 7 mention only free email support and an OperaMail account for six months. No mention of an ad-free version."
Man,you had me worried there for a sec. You're right: They don't show anything about the ad-free version! I was gettting a little miffed because it states very clearly that 5.x and up (as of June of 02) would have a banner free version. No matter where I went, no mention of it. I went to their forums, I searched the site etc, no luck in any of those places!
The browser is available free of charge with a sponsored advertising banner in the top-right corner of the user interface. To remove the advertising banner users must register their version for USD 39. Various discounts apply. Until March 1, users can also enjoy 14 banner-free days from the day they download Opera.
Like I said, you had me worried there. I'm shocked that Opera doesn't make that clearer, afterall the page you showed really should have pointed that out. Fortuantely, though, I was able to dig deep enough to find that info.
"That aint free. That's ADWARE. Crap I dont want on windows OR Linux."
Um. Why not?
The ads in Opera are not:
- Popups - Spyware - Intrusive
A small area of the interface has a banner. That's it. It doesn't do anything unless you click on it, and sometimes you even get cartoons up there!
I'd understand your attitude if the ads were like what Kazaa does, but that's not even close to the case here. It's no more than going to a site with a banner at the top. Only, in this case, the banner is up and out of the way and not part of the page itself.
My only nitpick about it is I wouldn't mind using that space to have more room for shortcuts etc. That'd be the big benefit to paying for it, really. The ads just aren't of much concern.
"Can somebody answer me why someone would buy a web bowser these days?"
I paid for Opera, and I have 0 regret about that. Opera has, in my opinion, the best user experience. (UI, etc...) Did I have to buy it? No. They have an ad-supported version for free. However, I would like to encourage them to continue down their road towards maintaining the best UI.
IE 6 is not significantly different from IE5. Though they're free, they do not provide the same evolution that Opera 7 has in relation to Opera 6. Unfortunately, when you aren't making money on your browser, what's your incentive to compete?
BTW, as long as you're using the Ad-supported version of a browser, you are, in a sense, paying for it. Might as well clear that up now.
"Does anyone know wtf he's talking about here? I seriously can't figure it out."
It's from the BBC show Red Dwarf. Though you may have heard of it, and possibly even seen it on Public Broadcasting, the last season (season 8) is (probably) a rare thing to have seen.
Kryten is a mechanoid house-keeping robot. In season 8, he along with the Cat, Lister, Rimmer, Holly, and Kochanski were thrown into jail for endangering the ship. One of the punishment tasks for Kryten was to launder something like 800 bedsheets. But since he's programmed to do that, he found the job quite pleasant as he waas completing his program. He couldn't understand why he was being rewarded. Hopefully that last line clarifies why I chose that reference to the article's poster, heh.
" I just found out yesterday that one of my very best friends is moving 1000 miles away for a morning show gig at the end of the month. I'm really going to miss both him and his wife. It's just been impossible for him to land a job since Clear Channel bought up all our local stations. He's had to resort to overnight news on the weekends and waiting tables to get by. It's sad considering how talented he is and how respected he was around town."
Wow. Well, of course I wish this person and his wife well.
Technology has a way of removing jobs traditionally done by humans, it's a pity that your explanation wasn't provided in the article. I think a lot of us at Slashdot could find ourselves automated or serviced out of a job.
If this article had come from your point of view, Slashdot could have had an insightful discussion about how to handle situations like that. I have my own semi-interesting stories (I'm not even close to doing what I was originally hired to do), and I imagine other people do too.
Anyway, take comfort in knowing that everything'll end up alright. At least with the internet, you're not going to be as far from those people as you might have been.
'Vaguest Description' goes to "Digital Celebrities""/ for this amazing performance:
"Carson Daly's simulacrum is the new Max Headroom. I guess this makes Clear Channel Communications the current embodiment of Network 23? Now we just have to wait for the blipverts to start making consumer's heads explode."
Not only were the pop-culture references so obscure that people were forced to demand assistance from Google, but they also had to RTFA in order to provide ANY useful insight!
Partridge was kind enough to send me his accepatance speech, it reads:
"I'm so pleased to accept this reward! I feel just like Kryten did when he was forced to wash 800 bedsheets as part of his sentence."
"If you work in the industry, the BFD is that one guy just did your job in 20 different cities."
Nothing insightful to say here, just wanted to thank you for explaining what the problem was. Now that I read the article, I can pick out where it said that.
Yeesh, you'd think that a.) the article'd be clearer or b.) the person that posted the article would have cleared up the problem in addition to the vague Max Headroom reference.
Slashdot Mirror
"I guess I need Oprah browser or something"
It was named Oprah because it's the same browser available in multiple sizes. If you need help remembering which one the bloated one is, remember that it's Oprah with coffee.
"You're spinning it like MSN is simply unaware that Opera handles their site any differently. But... their site SPECIFICALLY CHECKS for the "Opera" string in the browser and gives it different files!"
No, I'm not. I'm spinning it like MS simply hasn't tested it.
I have no info on how they have their site set up, so everything I say here is just speculation. With the last web site I developed, I made a list of all the browsers I might care about and created generic style sheets for them. Then, I wrote some code to detect the style sheet and then automaticlly fire it down. The reason I did that was not because I was interested in supporting all those browsers, I did it because if there was a devastatingly bad problem I'd have easy access to fix it. It can be VERY hard to go back and retrofit your code so that you can fix a browser that's suddenly risen in popularity.
That site had a style sheet for Mozilla. I do not have Mozilla installed. I just worked under the assumption that it'd be compatible with Netscape's. They get a 'Mozilla' sheet, but I have never personally tested it. I never recieved an e-mail about it while that site was up, so I'm assuming it worked. But I really don't know that, nor would I have cared until my boss brought it to my attention.
I'm not saying I believe one point of view or the other. I simply don't know, nor do I care. I'm not providing opinions here, only insight. So please don't make accusations that I'm 'spinning' anything. Not only is that rude, but it also means you're completely missing my point.
"READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE"
2 47 770
I'm only responding to this part of your post. I was not defending Microsoft. I was pointing out some observations I made as an Opera user. I'm sorry you missed that little detail, if you hadn't you might have found my orignal post more interesting.
In the mean time, go read this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=53008&cid=5
This guy's response is quite interesting.
"Errr, in what way is this "wild?" After all, Microsoft _is_ a convicted anti trust violator who had big daddy Dubya pull the DOJ off so they wouldn't be split up into a few companies and actually have to start competing."
Heh. Your post is exactly what I'd define as "wild". "Dubya's" reasoning is conjecture, not fact. (I'm not saying you're wrong, Im saying you don't know. You assume.) Secondly, your use of the term "convicted anti trust violator" is being used as a blanket term to describe the behaviour of a very large and diversified corporation. There's little chance that every single division of MS is out to make sure MS is a monopoly. They're there to do business. Sorry, but it's a vague and tired argument. Don't believe me? Then how come IE or Messenger isn't on the XBOX? (That question is intended to make you think, I do not want an answer to it.)
"Several times before MS has modified their web sites to block out all web browsers except their own. And several web sites that MS has built for government sites and banks have refused to allow admitance to non MS Browsers. So, no, it is not weird."
Several non gov't or MS related sites do the same thing. Perhaps you didn't catch the part of my post about accessing my credit card account?
"Let's get to the heart of the matter here: the real bugaboo is pathetic web standards compliance, industry wide. I'd love to see the W3C start using the time-honored tactic of creating trademarked certification names and logos usable only by browser versions that pass a rigorous and public compliance suite."
Though I completely agree with you that this solution would have a very positive effect web-wide, I do not believe it's so central to this particular issue.
The main reason that WC3 compliance has a way of speed-bumping innovation and evolution in this particular area. On one hand, all sites work on all browsers, on the other how do you go about getting new features placed in?
There are rational/practical answers to my question. I'm not claiming it's unsolvable. The problem is that there's not a single motivation for every browser-developer out there to work from. Some want to make money, some want to make the net accessible to everybody, some want browsing to be an integral part of using a computer. When these things come into play, compliance to a standard is an inhibiting factor.
To put it another way, I don't think you're wrong. I just think that the practicality of it requires more participation than enough companies are going to want to give. The result is that we (we as in 'browser users/customers') really only have the option of treating the symptoms.
I hope I'm making sense, I'm on pain meds right now.
"Why would Microsoft care about Opera? Or think that misrendering the MSN home page is a good way to undermine it?"
Just wanted to say that I'm glad you took a moment to take a step back and and say "Why?" as opposed to jumping the gun and saying "Damn MS trying to enforce it's monopoly as usual". Frankly, I'm tired of the wild assumptions that MS works that way.
As an Opera user and a Windows user, you can understand that I've run across exactly this problem. I'd like to share with you a few observations I've made on this topic:
- As an Opera user, I find myself having to deal with a number of sites that just don't care about me. Having IE available as a backup is just part of my everyday Opera life. I don't see MS as being very different here. Some sites block me totally, like the site I use to send payments to my credit card.
- Because of my having to keep IE on hot standby, it doesn't even occur to me anymore to email MS (or any other site) and complain about lack of Opera testing. If they don't get feedback, they ain't gonna fix it.
- Website maintenance is a perpetual, priority based job. Often problems are ranked by how many people are affected by them. Truth be told, Opera's just not significant today in light of other things going on. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if nobody there had Opera installed. Anybody who's ever done web development at a Dilbert-esque corp would probably understand this.
- Wouldn't it be weird that MS would break Opera, but not Mozilla, Netscape, or other browsers?
- What possible benefit could that bring them? Despite my comment earlier, Opera handles the vast majority of sites(*) just fine. When I run across a site that doesn't work with Opera, it feels like the operators of the site were moronic, not that Opera is incompatible. In other words, MS's site not working right with Opera makes MS look incompetant, not Opera. * Sites that I personally have visited, other people's experiences may vary.
- MS's site is a marketing tool. Head on over there and you hear all about TabletPC's, PocketPc's, MS's latest server stuff, Windows XP, etc etc etc. Breaking their site means potentially shoo'ing off customers. I seriously doubt any PHB would want to do that.
If other Opera users share my observations, then it actually makes sense that MS just doesn't care. But the idea that they're doing it to enforce a monopoly is not so evident.
Please don't flame me for not jumping on the "MS is like OCP!!!" bandwagon. I'm just the type of person that'd rather look at all the details than try to find details to support a bias.
"Game companies such as Sega, Taito, and Eidos have already expressed support for it."
Expressed support? The resolution hasn't passed?
"...there has been a lot of talk about promoting more private investment in rocketry"
Attention: Please resist the urge to post the obvious "If MS made a rocket, it'd crash, herrr herr herr" joke. It's about as funny as a Windows user making USB support jokes about Linux. Thank you.
"You mean Speakeasy?"
I would have meant that if I was aware of its existence! heh.
So yes, NOW I mean like Speakeasy.
"Your friendly DSL or cable broadband provider could implement this technique to enforce their single-machine license clause."
Yeah, that pretty much sucks. There may be a silver lining, though. The more crap these ISP's pull to push their saavier customers away, the more demand there'll be for an uber geek-friendly ISP to come along. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but tell me it wouldn't be cool for a business to start up in order to cater to those of us that really like to play with networking. "Sure, go ahead and set up a wireless lan in your complex. We'll even let you pay to increase your bandwidth to accomodate all those users! Tell them that for $5 a month, they can each get a mail account or some other fairly interesting service."
"... who would buy a video phone would be single male geeks just like yourself, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy a mirror?"
+1, Dilbert Reference! You would have gotten a +2 out of it if you could have made an appropriate Max Headroom quip.
"I dont really think he has a problem with that considering he probably has enough money to go swimming it like Uncle Scrooge Duck."
Yeah, you're right. It's hard to convince people in business like that that $20 is a lot of money. I make a decent living, I have plenty of nice things, but I still balk at paying $7.50 per person to watch a movie. I have to watch how much money is in my account every week. So why would somebody who could write a thousand dollar check and never feel the need to check his balance to make sure he can write it understand why not being able to make backups of DVD's is unacceptable?
Hmm, sorry about the run-on sentence there. I just think people like that should have their assets frozen for a year and learn to live off a 40k a year salary before they tell us we can't protect what we buy.
"Wait till his hard disk dies ;)"
Wait until he goes to watch a DVD, finds it scratched, then he has to go pay $20 to replace a media that cost $1'ish to make.
"Space, the Final Frontier..."
(see parent post, you'll understand why I didn't quote it.)
Man,you had me worried there for a sec. You're right: They don't show anything about the ad-free version! I was gettting a little miffed because it states very clearly that 5.x and up (as of June of 02) would have a banner free version. No matter where I went, no mention of it. I went to their forums, I searched the site etc, no luck in any of those places!
But I did finally find a press release:
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2003/01/28/ and it states very clearly:
Like I said, you had me worried there. I'm shocked that Opera doesn't make that clearer, afterall the page you showed really should have pointed that out. Fortuantely, though, I was able to dig deep enough to find that info.
Good catch, cheers man.
"but who wants to watch 256 color vides?"
Ever hear of Smacker?
256 color videos have been out and acceptable for quite a long time. It's an encoding choice, not like the GBA has to dither it in real time.
"That aint free. That's ADWARE. Crap I dont want on windows OR Linux."
Um. Why not?
The ads in Opera are not:
- Popups
- Spyware
- Intrusive
A small area of the interface has a banner. That's it. It doesn't do anything unless you click on it, and sometimes you even get cartoons up there!
I'd understand your attitude if the ads were like what Kazaa does, but that's not even close to the case here. It's no more than going to a site with a banner at the top. Only, in this case, the banner is up and out of the way and not part of the page itself.
My only nitpick about it is I wouldn't mind using that space to have more room for shortcuts etc. That'd be the big benefit to paying for it, really. The ads just aren't of much concern.
"Can somebody answer me why someone would buy a web bowser these days?"
I paid for Opera, and I have 0 regret about that. Opera has, in my opinion, the best user experience. (UI, etc...) Did I have to buy it? No. They have an ad-supported version for free. However, I would like to encourage them to continue down their road towards maintaining the best UI.
IE 6 is not significantly different from IE5. Though they're free, they do not provide the same evolution that Opera 7 has in relation to Opera 6. Unfortunately, when you aren't making money on your browser, what's your incentive to compete?
BTW, as long as you're using the Ad-supported version of a browser, you are, in a sense, paying for it. Might as well clear that up now.
"oPERA sUCKS!"
I'm glad somebody who's extremely knowledgable about sucking came along to provide their insight.
"Does anyone know wtf he's talking about here? I seriously can't figure it out."
It's from the BBC show Red Dwarf. Though you may have heard of it, and possibly even seen it on Public Broadcasting, the last season (season 8) is (probably) a rare thing to have seen.
Kryten is a mechanoid house-keeping robot. In season 8, he along with the Cat, Lister, Rimmer, Holly, and Kochanski were thrown into jail for endangering the ship. One of the punishment tasks for Kryten was to launder something like 800 bedsheets. But since he's programmed to do that, he found the job quite pleasant as he waas completing his program. He couldn't understand why he was being rewarded. Hopefully that last line clarifies why I chose that reference to the article's poster, heh.
Smug Mode: My award post was very clever.
Lie Mode: You have a very nice haircut.
" I just found out yesterday that one of my very best friends is moving 1000 miles away for a morning show gig at the end of the month. I'm really going to miss both him and his wife. It's just been impossible for him to land a job since Clear Channel bought up all our local stations. He's had to resort to overnight news on the weekends and waiting tables to get by. It's sad considering how talented he is and how respected he was around town."
Wow. Well, of course I wish this person and his wife well.
Technology has a way of removing jobs traditionally done by humans, it's a pity that your explanation wasn't provided in the article. I think a lot of us at Slashdot could find ourselves automated or serviced out of a job.
If this article had come from your point of view, Slashdot could have had an insightful discussion about how to handle situations like that. I have my own semi-interesting stories (I'm not even close to doing what I was originally hired to do), and I imagine other people do too.
Anyway, take comfort in knowing that everything'll end up alright. At least with the internet, you're not going to be as far from those people as you might have been.
Not only were the pop-culture references so obscure that people were forced to demand assistance from Google, but they also had to RTFA in order to provide ANY useful insight!
Partridge was kind enough to send me his accepatance speech, it reads:
"I'm so pleased to accept this reward! I feel just like Kryten did when he was forced to wash 800 bedsheets as part of his sentence."
"If you work in the industry, the BFD is that one guy just did your job in 20 different cities."
Nothing insightful to say here, just wanted to thank you for explaining what the problem was. Now that I read the article, I can pick out where it said that.
Yeesh, you'd think that a.) the article'd be clearer or b.) the person that posted the article would have cleared up the problem in addition to the vague Max Headroom reference.
Oh well, you clarified it for me, thank you.
Oh thanks for explaining it. Now people'll try to pass off their typos as Max Headroom impressions.
"Why, just use Google and see what you can find [google.com]."
Because Google gives you information, but doesn't put it into context. Try using Google to figure out the 'In Soviet Russia..' jokes.