But you could take into account that there are different browsers for different purposes. After all, we already have various desktop web browsers (with somewhat notable differences between them, even though they all run in very comparable circumstances), and many "smaller" web browsers tailored to specific platforms or usage scenarios.
In that light, saying with such certainity that Opera Mini "is clearly developed and marketed to be a competitor to Safari" is much closer to straw man argument than what you are arguing against in your post. Mini is not a direct competitor - it strives to offer fairly usable, reasonably close to full web browsing experience on many devices which would be otherwise unable to have it (this part is not significant for the iPhone). It does that also rather nice in places with abysmal data connections, while at the same time limiting data charges and conserving battery (this might easily apply). Those things are not the main focus of Safari.
There's a straightforward way around security concerns - sandboxing (which is already avaliable on iPhone OS) together with Appstore admission process (which can easily make sure that the apps to which it might apply use sandboxing properly). Don't kid yourself why Apple put that limitation (and has taken it much further recently)
And what's with Facebook? It's consistently among the top pages viewed under Opera Mini... ( http://www.opera.com/smw/ )
It's almost funny (if it didn't demonstrate certain sad mindset...) that the columnist from TFA proposes ways to make this "meetingless" management effective.
While, in large part, this shift to a less bloated meetings is a measure of increased effectivness.
We can only assume how good of a rendering engine opera used on their servers. I thought it was mentioned they used webkit, but that could easily be wrong.
They are using Presto of course (the engine of...Opera; though in a bit different version from current "normal" Opera; running under massivelly pararell Linux VMs, with frequent "restarts" of VMs from known state). Why wouldn't they use their own layout engine?
Last I checked, there weren't any backdoors in closed software I use that allow developer employees access to my data.
(fixed your quote bit) And how do you know that? On what grounds you're putting this trust in most of the closed software you use? (heck, also open one...did you make sure all your binaries are fine? Do you trust all eyes looking at the code? The compiler?)
Plus there are organisational ways to deal with hypothetical BOFHs. Also, don't forget where is the HQ of Opera Software, consider they're likely to approach their users differently than typical corp you're used to; and that there are plenty of hands in the cookie jar already.
Lack of js and only one font is more of a design decision, stemming from one of the main purposes behind Opera Mini.
Mini gets preprocessed webpages in highly compressed binary format - letting js through or relying on local rendering assets would work against it, I guess (especially where it mosts matter, in so caled "3rd world" countries on very poor connection and basic mobile phones). In exchange, yeah, you get speedy browsing while in poor network conditions; also usually lower battery usage (the ability to run of almost any mobile phone doesn't matter so much in the context of the iPhone)
Yes, but Apple won't allow anything other with js (or, more generally, any 3rd party app that can execute arbitrary code); besides, using locally available Webkit engine would work against the purposes of Opera Mini.
And you know, nobody said you have to abandon Safari; you can always keep Mini just in case when you're in an area with poor connection...
It's quite a different kind of browser; and yet seems to be revieved on more or less the same terms to Safari.
To see why that's rather unfair - reverse the situation. Review Safari in scenarios that favor Opera Mini (yes, disregarding that Opera Mini runs fine also on "feature phones" with j2me). Like when you have really sucky connection, without even full "advertised" EDGE speeds. Suddenly Safary doesn't look so good. And Opera Mini becomes most usefull (as a bonus it has a real chance of conservng battery somewhat)
That's why it's good to keep it on the phone (any phone, if Mini is available for it) "just in case", IMHO; even you normally prefer full browser.
Re:your first sentence is technically flawed
on
Ubuntu on a Dime
·
· Score: 1
NeXTSTEP certainly was rather nice, and it's 2 decades old. IRIX supposedly wasn't bad, either.
As for IBM, don'r forget they gave us OS/2. Which was reasonably nice. Not that long after mid-80s.
... We're making these streams available on certain videos, based upon the source file uploaded to us, and over time you'll find a greater percentage of the library is available to view in higher quality. This feature applies to all eligible videos uploaded from the YouTube community...
Some portion of eligible videos had higher quality options show up when those options launched on yt. Without source files that would be impossible / pointless. Besides, format even for "standard, lowest resolution" yt videos chamged (around a year ago, from H.263 + mono MP3 to H.264 + stereo AAC), which wouldn't fit with yt help strongly warning against excessive reencoding.
And sucky audio is there because of sucky uploaded files...
Hm, thing is one of my webcams I have around here (generally one of the best ever built; people are using it for astronomy) doesn't worh on Windows since Vista. Is "plug'n'play" on Linux though.
That's why I wrote it in italics, trying to signify it's how the mentioned group is likely to approach the issue (since studies might even find, say, uncomfortable similarities with "angels", to give one simple example)
As a sidenote, since you touched on the subject further and wonder what is my approach - yes, of course some number of "sightings" is factual as far as their precise subject goes: unidentified flying objects. That they are often taken much further in interpretation, on who knows what grounds, is another issue...
...and yet, apparently, without any way to do IM (at least Wikipedia page and links there about them says so)
Seriously, WTF? I could understand their lack of expandability, software-wise (especially if the price is right), if the "social" package they provide is right (though by no means unique - see INQ phones). But no IM? How did that get through?
Actually, perhaps especially the sun, stars and dragons (note the huge number of supernatural explanations for the two former, explanations which boil down to failure in identifying the nature of those objects; likewise with dragons, probably misidentified dinosaur/etc. remains...hm, definatelly not flying though)
You might be onto something with flying gypsies...
IMHO not quite - they don't see it as controversy after all (indeed, not teaching what they want and/or teaching things which are perceived by them as "against" - that is controversial...)
Oh, big f***ing thanks, Slashdot
on
The Neo-Geo Song
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Oh but they generally do have a choice (only some, like more locked down "featurephone" from US carriers, excluded). Most of mobile phones ship with some kind of built-in web browser nowadays - for Nokia S40 (probably the most popular mobile platform in the world) that's today Webkit based one, for Symbian also Webkit one, likewise Android and iPhone OS; Samsung, LG and SE ship with Netfront usually AFAIK, Blackberry has its own browser...and all of those platforms also have a choice of installing Opera Mini. To be fair, the latter also comes sometimes preinstalled on feature phones - but this doesn't explain why it has a dominating 28% of global market ( http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-200903-201004 ), the amount comparable to alternative browsers on desktop.
Seems mobile phone users are excercising their existing means of choosing a browser just fine. Flash is a bigger problem of course, though yt does provide (H.263?) stream through mobile version of their site which works on quite large portion of mobile phones.
Some schools teach creationism. Some teach actual theology. Why should alien abduction be treated any differently? Teach the controversy!
I suspect parts of first two groups you mention might actually have a problem with UFO studies (obviously false)...the conclusions from which could hit a bit too close to home.
BTW, I wonder if expecting the shift to smartphone OSes in India and China wasn't one of the main reasons behind opensourcing Symbian...now at least some cheap chinese manufacturers can put it on their phones in a more straighforward way (many of their clients probably wouldn't pick pricey ones made by Nokia anyway; otoh it shouldn't harm much Nokia sales internationally, but it will solidify position of Symbian and provide tons of devs)
Though this doesn't change that both Opera (Mini, I would guess) and Webkit dominate.
BTW, certainly iPhone OS wasn't part of Opera share - after all, it debuted on this platform just today. I would guess not many Android users, too. From what I see Symbian users indeed often choose Opera (Mobile or Mini, usually the latter), but...I think those stats are miscategorising all Nokia devices as Symbian ones. If you look at stats about Opera Mini which Opera releases on their blog, it's clear that in places like Africa, South America, Asia or ex Soviet Block the class of devices which totally dominates is indeed Nokia...though not only Symbian (which after all still forms only a small part of Nokia sales, even if it's 50% of "smartphone" sales); most of them are running Nokia S40 platform. But somehow it's not really visible on Statcounter when you choose those regions (except occasional blips for "unknown")
That's why I wonder about turnkey systems. Yes, many will of course want to run other things, many - not really (especially if "most of them barely understand how a computer works to begin with.")
With Adobe possibly becoming weaker on Apple platform in the future (note I'm wondering about long term possibilities; there's already Apple Aperture, Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio, plus now this hand wrestling) and perhaps they not wanting to have all their eggs in MS basket...who knows, perhaps Adobe might see the utility of having an appliance with their suite. "Ugly" and fonts won't be a problem if they assemble the package and build the UI essentially around CS, audio can be dealt with similarly (plus, if it happens, it will be certainly at least few years down the line).
Not only some bargaining chip with MS, might be also a convenient way to mask the prices of CS when the hardware able to run it comfortably is becoming cheaper and cheaper each year. Without MS tax to boot (not really important on one machine, but a nice bonus if some clients want really massive speed and are ready to buy also "rendering appliances")
Slashdot Mirror
But you could take into account that there are different browsers for different purposes. After all, we already have various desktop web browsers (with somewhat notable differences between them, even though they all run in very comparable circumstances), and many "smaller" web browsers tailored to specific platforms or usage scenarios.
In that light, saying with such certainity that Opera Mini "is clearly developed and marketed to be a competitor to Safari" is much closer to straw man argument than what you are arguing against in your post. Mini is not a direct competitor - it strives to offer fairly usable, reasonably close to full web browsing experience on many devices which would be otherwise unable to have it (this part is not significant for the iPhone). It does that also rather nice in places with abysmal data connections, while at the same time limiting data charges and conserving battery (this might easily apply). Those things are not the main focus of Safari.
There's a straightforward way around security concerns - sandboxing (which is already avaliable on iPhone OS) together with Appstore admission process (which can easily make sure that the apps to which it might apply use sandboxing properly). Don't kid yourself why Apple put that limitation (and has taken it much further recently)
And what's with Facebook? It's consistently among the top pages viewed under Opera Mini... ( http://www.opera.com/smw/ )
It's almost funny (if it didn't demonstrate certain sad mindset...) that the columnist from TFA proposes ways to make this "meetingless" management effective.
While, in large part, this shift to a less bloated meetings is a measure of increased effectivness.
We can only assume how good of a rendering engine opera used on their servers. I thought it was mentioned they used webkit, but that could easily be wrong.
They are using Presto of course (the engine of...Opera; though in a bit different version from current "normal" Opera; running under massivelly pararell Linux VMs, with frequent "restarts" of VMs from known state). Why wouldn't they use their own layout engine?
Last I checked, there weren't any backdoors in closed software I use that allow developer employees access to my data.
(fixed your quote bit)
And how do you know that? On what grounds you're putting this trust in most of the closed software you use? (heck, also open one...did you make sure all your binaries are fine? Do you trust all eyes looking at the code? The compiler?)
Plus there are organisational ways to deal with hypothetical BOFHs. Also, don't forget where is the HQ of Opera Software, consider they're likely to approach their users differently than typical corp you're used to; and that there are plenty of hands in the cookie jar already.
Lack of js and only one font is more of a design decision, stemming from one of the main purposes behind Opera Mini.
Mini gets preprocessed webpages in highly compressed binary format - letting js through or relying on local rendering assets would work against it, I guess (especially where it mosts matter, in so caled "3rd world" countries on very poor connection and basic mobile phones). In exchange, yeah, you get speedy browsing while in poor network conditions; also usually lower battery usage (the ability to run of almost any mobile phone doesn't matter so much in the context of the iPhone)
Yes, but Apple won't allow anything other with js (or, more generally, any 3rd party app that can execute arbitrary code); besides, using locally available Webkit engine would work against the purposes of Opera Mini.
And you know, nobody said you have to abandon Safari; you can always keep Mini just in case when you're in an area with poor connection...
It's quite a different kind of browser; and yet seems to be revieved on more or less the same terms to Safari.
To see why that's rather unfair - reverse the situation. Review Safari in scenarios that favor Opera Mini (yes, disregarding that Opera Mini runs fine also on "feature phones" with j2me). Like when you have really sucky connection, without even full "advertised" EDGE speeds. Suddenly Safary doesn't look so good. And Opera Mini becomes most usefull (as a bonus it has a real chance of conservng battery somewhat)
That's why it's good to keep it on the phone (any phone, if Mini is available for it) "just in case", IMHO; even you normally prefer full browser.
NeXTSTEP certainly was rather nice, and it's 2 decades old. IRIX supposedly wasn't bad, either.
As for IBM, don'r forget they gave us OS/2. Which was reasonably nice. Not that long after mid-80s.
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2008/03/youtube-videos-in-high-quality.html
... We're making these streams available on certain videos, based upon the source file uploaded to us, and over time you'll find a greater percentage of the library is available to view in higher quality. This feature applies to all eligible videos uploaded from the YouTube community ...
Some portion of eligible videos had higher quality options show up when those options launched on yt. Without source files that would be impossible / pointless. Besides, format even for "standard, lowest resolution" yt videos chamged (around a year ago, from H.263 + mono MP3 to H.264 + stereo AAC), which wouldn't fit with yt help strongly warning against excessive reencoding.
And sucky audio is there because of sucky uploaded files...
Hm, thing is one of my webcams I have around here (generally one of the best ever built; people are using it for astronomy) doesn't worh on Windows since Vista. Is "plug'n'play" on Linux though.
It wouldn't be "re-encode from H.263 to H.264 and then again to VP8"; yt keeps the originally uploaded files.
That's why I wrote it in italics, trying to signify it's how the mentioned group is likely to approach the issue (since studies might even find, say, uncomfortable similarities with "angels", to give one simple example)
As a sidenote, since you touched on the subject further and wonder what is my approach - yes, of course some number of "sightings" is factual as far as their precise subject goes: unidentified flying objects. That they are often taken much further in interpretation, on who knows what grounds, is another issue...
Now you have kindled my dreams for a product from somebody named "it".
...and yet, apparently, without any way to do IM (at least Wikipedia page and links there about them says so)
Seriously, WTF? I could understand their lack of expandability, software-wise (especially if the price is right), if the "social" package they provide is right (though by no means unique - see INQ phones). But no IM? How did that get through?
Actually, perhaps especially the sun, stars and dragons (note the huge number of supernatural explanations for the two former, explanations which boil down to failure in identifying the nature of those objects; likewise with dragons, probably misidentified dinosaur/etc. remains...hm, definatelly not flying though)
You might be onto something with flying gypsies...
IMHO not quite - they don't see it as controversy after all (indeed, not teaching what they want and/or teaching things which are perceived by them as "against" - that is controversial...)
Another Metal Slug marathon incoming...
Oh but they generally do have a choice (only some, like more locked down "featurephone" from US carriers, excluded). Most of mobile phones ship with some kind of built-in web browser nowadays - for Nokia S40 (probably the most popular mobile platform in the world) that's today Webkit based one, for Symbian also Webkit one, likewise Android and iPhone OS; Samsung, LG and SE ship with Netfront usually AFAIK, Blackberry has its own browser...and all of those platforms also have a choice of installing Opera Mini. To be fair, the latter also comes sometimes preinstalled on feature phones - but this doesn't explain why it has a dominating 28% of global market ( http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-200903-201004 ), the amount comparable to alternative browsers on desktop.
Seems mobile phone users are excercising their existing means of choosing a browser just fine. Flash is a bigger problem of course, though yt does provide (H.263?) stream through mobile version of their site which works on quite large portion of mobile phones.
They would fit. But I would expect a lot of controversy with that approach.
Some schools teach creationism. Some teach actual theology. Why should alien abduction be treated any differently? Teach the controversy!
I suspect parts of first two groups you mention might actually have a problem with UFO studies (obviously false)...the conclusions from which could hit a bit too close to home.
Hm, so we finally got $100 laptop? ;)
BTW, I wonder if expecting the shift to smartphone OSes in India and China wasn't one of the main reasons behind opensourcing Symbian...now at least some cheap chinese manufacturers can put it on their phones in a more straighforward way (many of their clients probably wouldn't pick pricey ones made by Nokia anyway; otoh it shouldn't harm much Nokia sales internationally, but it will solidify position of Symbian and provide tons of devs)
They already move in that direction; Apple offers some overlap with Adobe Creative Suite - Apple Aperture, Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio...
Though this doesn't change that both Opera (Mini, I would guess) and Webkit dominate.
BTW, certainly iPhone OS wasn't part of Opera share - after all, it debuted on this platform just today. I would guess not many Android users, too. From what I see Symbian users indeed often choose Opera (Mobile or Mini, usually the latter), but...I think those stats are miscategorising all Nokia devices as Symbian ones. If you look at stats about Opera Mini which Opera releases on their blog, it's clear that in places like Africa, South America, Asia or ex Soviet Block the class of devices which totally dominates is indeed Nokia...though not only Symbian (which after all still forms only a small part of Nokia sales, even if it's 50% of "smartphone" sales); most of them are running Nokia S40 platform. But somehow it's not really visible on Statcounter when you choose those regions (except occasional blips for "unknown")
That's why I wonder about turnkey systems. Yes, many will of course want to run other things, many - not really (especially if "most of them barely understand how a computer works to begin with.")
With Adobe possibly becoming weaker on Apple platform in the future (note I'm wondering about long term possibilities; there's already Apple Aperture, Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio, plus now this hand wrestling) and perhaps they not wanting to have all their eggs in MS basket...who knows, perhaps Adobe might see the utility of having an appliance with their suite. "Ugly" and fonts won't be a problem if they assemble the package and build the UI essentially around CS, audio can be dealt with similarly (plus, if it happens, it will be certainly at least few years down the line).
Not only some bargaining chip with MS, might be also a convenient way to mask the prices of CS when the hardware able to run it comfortably is becoming cheaper and cheaper each year. Without MS tax to boot (not really important on one machine, but a nice bonus if some clients want really massive speed and are ready to buy also "rendering appliances")
Oh well, we'll wait and see how it all turns out.