Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comparing Firefox 3 With Opera 9.5 On Linux

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the and-in-this-corner dept.

Mozilla 489

Joe Barr writes "Mayank Sharma has two recent stories on Linux.com; one evaluating the performance of Firefox 3, and the second comparing it to Opera 9.5. Which is better? For most people, it's probably more a matter of familiarity or personal preference, but these stories provide hard performance data to consider as well. Sharma notes, 'In terms of rendering JavaScript, Firefox 3 had the edge over Opera 9.5 in the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark, which has an error range between +/-0.8% to +/-11.3% depending on the type of test. In the JavScript Engine speed test, Opera 9.5 scores over its peers when it comes to error handling, DOM, and AJAX.'" Slashdot shares a corporate overlord with Linux.com.

cancel ×

489 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882227)

I was using Lynx!

Domestic tranquility (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882239)

Well why dont you sign off of SLASHDOT and put on your best wife-beater ("a-shirt") or sleeveless t-shirt and chase your wife around the trailer and beat her ass. You know, the norm on a Friday for you.

Choice is a Good Thing (4, Interesting)

ricegf (1059658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882241)

With four (count'em, four) good browsers competing for user attention, the evil days of monopoly and stagnation are ending at last. The light of the standards-based Internet is dawning, and "works best with Internet Explorer" is becoming the odd anachronism it deserves to be.

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882259)

So long as we don't get shafted by the ISPs.

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (2, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882279)

To the best of my knowledge there's never been a monopoly on Linux/UNIX web browsers. I think at one point Mozilla dominated, but it's never been like Windows.

Also: KHTML, Opera, and Firefox/Gecko are only three. Unless you're including ones based on those and/or text only browsers?

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882311)

Maybe he's counting KHTML and WebKit seperately? Or maybe he's counting Internet Explorer. (snicker)

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (5, Funny)

ricegf (1059658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882331)

The fourth is an underpowered and little used browser called Internet Explorer [spacesurfer.com] . I'm not really surprised you haven't heard of it; it's rarely used on Linux at all, for good reasons.

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882339)

You said "four GOOD browsers".

(Slow down, cowboy! It's been twelve hours since you last posted a comment.)

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (5, Funny)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882377)

The four GOOD browsers:

Links, Lynx, wget, curl.

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (4, Funny)

amdpox (1308283) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882433)

lynx is bloated. ;)

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (3, Informative)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882463)

What, no w3m?

In all seriousness, I've been stuck without X a few times (for several weeks at a time), and w3m blows all other text-based browsers out of the water. I used to like links, but w3m has spoiled me too much...

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (2, Interesting)

yanyan (302849) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882723)

You forgot netcat. ;-)

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (1)

iwein (561027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882453)

I for one would be interested in seeing them named by the poster. Specifically I would welcome the discussion about if IE should be on the list or Safari. We never really came to a conclusion about that one. *ducks*

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (1)

iwein (561027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882471)

ah, but they are [slashdot.org] . If I only cared to read the posts below the radar...

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882545)

I hope the crack that the mods are smoking is good. Troll?

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882387)

I don't recall any realistic alternatives to Netscape 4, back around '99. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough.

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (3, Informative)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882405)

There's also dillo, for use on underpowered old machines which can barely run X. Kinda carved itself a rapidly dying niche though, but as a completely separate rendering engine it's worth a mention at least.

Re:Choice is a Good Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882615)

There's also dillo, for use on underpowered old machines which can barely run X.


Did you say you like dildos?

FOSS RULEZ! HEIL HITLER! (-1, Flamebait)

wlllyhill (1311313) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882245)

Say NO to M$ spyware!

Opea is awesome! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882249)

I've used Opera for more than two and half years on Windows and Linux. It is hands down the best browser and the most useful cross platform program available, for a variety of reasons.

9.5 is fine, once you move the New Tab button back to its rightful place on the LEFT!

Re:Opea is awesome! (1, Interesting)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882371)

Thank you. You have helped me. Mod parent up!

Re:Opea is awesome! (0, Offtopic)

iwein (561027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882487)

you wish. Like I ever would get any mod points!

Re:Opera is awesome! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882467)

New tab button...who needs that? The tabs also belong at the bottom and there shouldn't be an X on each one. Ya, I've been using Opera for far too long. But I still love it. I tried Firefox 3 but they STILL won't let you put the tab bar on the bottom (must be hidden somewhere if the option exists.)

I'm very happy with 9.5. The whole experience is just a tad bit better because I no longer have a few minor bugs to deal with from 9.2. FF3 finally feels like a finished product but doesn't seem as customizeable as I would expect from FOSS (without having to use extensions.)

Re:Opera is awesome! (1)

od05 (915556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882527)

Who uses the new tab button?

Command + t is much faster

But what about plug-ins such as Flash? (3, Interesting)

themushroom (197365) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882271)

The real challenge/merit is whether Opera 9.5 is accepted by webpages as being able to display all the content correctly, rather than insisting a component isn't there and demanding its download only to be told it's still not there.

That's my complaint about the last version or two of Opera (and I've been using it since 3.5), that I wind up having to break out IE or FF for some pages because just being adherent to the HTML 4 standard isn't enough of a claim anymore.

Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? (3, Informative)

CrashNBrn (1143981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882635)

Set Browser ID to: Identify as Opera
RightClick, Edit Site Preferences
[Network] Tab:
Browser Identification:
MASK as FireFox | MASK as Internet Explorer

Which is different than just "Identify as..."

Re:But what about plug-ins such as Flash? (3, Insightful)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882677)

Just remember to switch it back when you don't need the option anymore, otherwise you are contributing to the various Browser Market Share/User Share statistics with wrong info.

I try to avoid using that, because then when some web admin looks at the logs, he'll see a slanted perspective of how many users are using which web browser, and just continuing the problem - "meh, not enough Opera users to really bother fixing it"

load gmail! (1)

globaljustin (574257) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882323)

I've never had the chance to use opera, but I'd consider switching if I knew it would load Gmail properly. ARgh! Firefox 3 STILL requires you to occasionally delete all cookies, cache, forms, etc. for gmail to load proper.

And don't tell me "all you have to do is select 'clear private data' and it loads fine." Sure that works for 2 or 3 days max, then you gmail starts screwing up again. "Just clear your private data" is a temporary fix AT BEST. It's really annoying to have to wait while all my sites re-download cookies, and having re-enter my passwords for the myriad log-in sites I uses.

There...

But yeah, does gmail load properly on Opera?

Re:load gmail! (1)

solanum (80810) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882359)

I've used Gmail (and Google Calendar and reader etc) with Firefox on Linux for some years and never ever had a problem that required what you describe. Perhaps you want to be a bit more specific about the problem or post some links to other reports like it. Otherwise......

Re:load gmail! (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882373)

You know, I have a feeling it's "on your end". I can't offer a solution, but I can offer my own anecdotal evidence. I've been using GMail daily (and often several times daily) since the early betas of the service. I have never once had to delete cookies or cache to make GMail load - it's loaded every time for me, just fine.

Now, my mother (50+ computer luddite) uses GMail as well, and gets the problem "You know, it doesn't come up, and I have to go back and click it again, but usually I have to type in 'gmail' to make it work." So, I have seen the problem.

So, again, I can't offer you a solution. Perhaps it's profile corruption in firefox? That was something that used to happen to people. You could try a "fresh" profile to see if that helps. Either that, or it could be your internet connection is a bit shaky.

Re:load gmail! (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882385)

I'm not sure what you mean by "proper" but ive never had any problems with GMail on Opera.

(waits for FireFox to load)

Ok, so the only differences I found were:

Opera just has the [Loading...] box, whereas FireFox has the username@gmail.com with a progress bar...

second, the (select all / none / etc) appears above the [Archive/Report Spam/Delete] buttons at the bottom of the page, but Opera has it underneath like it is at the top of the email list...

FF3 Vs. Opera 9.51

Re:load gmail! (2, Interesting)

NobodyElse (1111905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882391)

If you're using Windows, and curious about Opera, I'd suggest either OperaUSB ( http://www.opera-usb.com/ [opera-usb.com] ) or Portable Opera ( http://www.kejut.com/operaportable [kejut.com] ). Both are portable versions of Opera, and as portable software they leave no trace on the host system, something that can be very convenient for testing a piece of software. Furthermore, I don't know what you're talking about with Gmail problem, either Opera rendering issues OR Firefox 'clear private data' issues. I've used both Opera and Firefox for years, on at least 3 different PCs that I've owned, and I've never had any such issue whatsoever! I'm not sure what in the world you're talking about, and certainly not with any new versions!

Re:load gmail! (4, Informative)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882415)

Opera loads old version of GMail and that works fine, if you want the new version you need to navigate to this link: https://mail.google.com/mail/?nocheckbrowser [google.com] (which also works fine in Opera)

Re:load gmail! (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882547)

ARgh! Firefox 3 STILL requires you to occasionally delete all cookies, cache, forms, etc. for gmail to load proper.

What are you talking about? I've been using Gmail with Firefox for years without ever having a problem that sounds even remotely like what you're describing...

awesome bar = f u bar (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882333)

the lack of ability for the user to revert the behavior to the tried, true, expected behavior of FF1.0, FF1.5, FF1.8, and FF2.0 is ridiculous and will hamper the adoption of 3.0

absolutely stupid, just like IE7's totally unnecessary changes to its GUI

let's call a spade a spade and dish criticism to Mozilla just like we dish it to Microsoft

unnecessary and unrevertible changes to GUIs are MONUMENTALLY STUPID AND ANNOYING

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (1, Informative)

Quarters (18322) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882353)

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882383)

um, RTFD (description) retard

Note that the underlying autocomplete algorithm is the Firefox 3 algorithm, not the Firefox 2 algorithm. oldbar only affects the presentation of the results.

you still get the unwanted FF3 results, and LOTS of them. Nice try at a burn, though, LOL.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (4, Informative)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882407)

Cue mountains of posts pointing out, yet again that oldbar doesn't make it exactly like it used to be, just close.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (1)

superash (1045796) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882507)

The one in Opera rocks! and FYI, Opera betas had the same feature much before Firefox announced the "awesome bar".

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882713)

No they didn't, Firefox has had it for longer. And I've been using Firefox 3 since before Alpha 1.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (0, Troll)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882479)

The fact that you have to download a third-party add-on to even resemble the original functionality shows how little respect the Mozilla Corporation has for its users.

Firefox without extensions is ridiculously barebones. I'm glad I'm an Opera user.

Speaking of stuff that's not in stock Firefox, one of the things about Opera I almost can't do without is Tools->Quick Preferences->Edit Site Preferences. So bloody useful. Oh, and the Cookie Manager in the regular preferences dialog is pretty awesome too.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (2, Informative)

SilentChasm (998689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882583)

The fact that you have to download a third-party add-on to even resemble the original functionality shows how little respect the Mozilla Corporation has for its users.

Firefox without extensions is ridiculously barebones. I'm glad I'm an Opera user.

Speaking of stuff that's not in stock Firefox, one of the things about Opera I almost can't do without is Tools->Quick Preferences->Edit Site Preferences. So bloody useful. Oh, and the Cookie Manager in the regular preferences dialog is pretty awesome too.

You can open the Quick Preferences with F12.
That way it's just Quick Preferences->Edit Site Preferences
That way you don't have to navigate through so many menus.

I rarely ever use the menu as the panel or various shortcuts provide the same function (Ctrl-F12 for Preferences, Shift-F12 for Appearance, etc).

Nice thing is that I can completely eliminate the menubar from the application, saving even more space vs Firefox. All I have currently is the tab bar and the URL bar.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (1)

SilentChasm (998689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882673)

Turns out it's gotten easier than when I last looked through all the menus a few months ago.
Apparently you can just right click in a page now and "Edit Site Preferences..."

Sorry for my longer method then.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (5, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882595)

The fact that you have to download a third-party add-on to even resemble the original functionality shows how little respect the Mozilla Corporation has for its users.

Replacing old features with new ones has nothing to do with lacking respect for users, it's about trying to improve the user experience. Not everybody is going to like them, sure; that's true of just about any change you make. The fact that it's possible to download an extension and get pretty close to the behavior people complain they no longer have isn't a strike against Firefox, it's a sign of the robustness of the extensions and community. Apparently extensions aren't permitted to drill so deeply into the core browser that they can change how things are looked up--at least I assume that's why the extension isn't quite the old behavior. That may be good or bad depending on your perspective, but it's certainly safer.

More to the point, most of the posts seem to be: "I just downloaded Firefox and I fucking hate this new address bar!@" I thought we were supposed to be reasonable people here? What happened to giving something a chance before you spit on it and declare Mozilla to be disrespectful of its users for ever having implemented it? For that matter, if these people ever bother to actually give details about what they don't like about it it seems to be basically the order it's returning the results. For example, lots of people complain that typing "en" is no longer bringing up "en.wikipedia.org" as their first result. For one thing, this behavior can be mirror even more closely with a configuration option. It's not in the GUI; bitch about that if you want, but it's there. Beyond that, it's simply more proof that they haven't bothered to give it a chance. The search results are adaptive. The more you type "en" and select "en.wikipedia.org," the more it learns that's what you want. Sounds like a feature to me. All it takes is patience, but clearly most people have none and would prefer to rant about it on forums like this one.

Firefox without extensions is ridiculously barebones.

Or bloated, depending on who around here you ask. That alone should clue you in that it's nothing more than a matter of perspective. But let's play along and say you're right. All that goes to show is that there are two camps with regard to things like this: One who believes the best stuff should be merged in or included by default with the browser, and one that believes the browser core should stay as lean as possible and let this functionality be done with add-ons. Opera tends to the former, and Firefox is a bit of a hybrid but tends to the latter. So what? If you really can't be bothered to customize things to your liking, that's fine--use Opera or whatever else you find that suits you. That's really what it's all about in the end. That doesn't mean that the alternate perspective is wrong, though.

I'm glad I'm an Opera user.

Well, you're certainly free to use whichever browser you prefer for whatever reasons you prefer it--I just hope you have better reasons than "default Firefox is barebones," which seems to be all you said here. That smells a bit too much of zealotry to me. At the end of the day I guess it doesn't even matter what it is. *shrugs*

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (4, Funny)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882419)

Am I the only one who thinks of this picture [jj.am] every time I hear "Awesome Bar"? It just seems like one of those things that was a placeholder name that never got changed.

Dev 1: Man, what should we call the new multifunction search-address bar?
Dev 2: I dunno, I've been calling it the "awesome bar" in the code.
Dev 1: Damn that's stupid.
Dev 2: Yeah I know, but I can't think of anything better.
Dev 1: Me either, just leave it for now.

And then, over time, everyone just got used to calling it that, and it ended up released that way.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (2, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882529)

Am I the only one who thinks of this picture every time I hear "Awesome Bar"? It just seems like one of those things that was a placeholder name that never got changed.

Reminds me of 'OS/2 Warp'. Ugh. I'm not sure which company was more stupid - IBM not knowing what to do with OS/2, or Commodore not knowing what to do with the Amiga. *sigh*

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882663)

Ugh. I'm not sure which company was more stupid - IBM not knowing what to do with OS/2, or Commodore not knowing what to do with the Amiga. *sigh*


I say you're the most stupid, for not knowing how to let go of the past.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (2, Insightful)

smussman (1160103) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882435)

unnecessary and unrevertible changes to GUIs are MONUMENTALLY STUPID AND ANNOYING

I initially read this as momentarily. Perhaps this is more accurate?

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (1, Interesting)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882443)

Dude.. it only looks slightly different and puts things from your bookmarks below your address bar as you type.

I dunno wtf you're talking about. I use the internet all the time, probably 2-3 hours a day of web-browsing alone in that time... I use firefox from 1 through 3, and I've hardly noticed a difference.

Sounds more like a whining point than something substantially flawed. Just my 2 cents.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882523)

dude, I hope you get that GED. You're good enough, you're almost smart enough, and doggone it people find your anecdotal empty posts that totally disregard the complaints of the parent poster humorous.

thanks for your post about how you haven't had a problem. Maybe you'd like to follow up on every FF bugzilla bug with a quick "I haven't experience a problem"

STFU jackarse

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (1)

ilikepi314 (1217898) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882531)

No kidding. I keep wondering if I missed some secret feature of the address bar in firefox < 3.0. As I recall, all it did was display previously-typed addresses. Now it displays previously-typed addresses AND bookmarked addresses in a little popup. How is that an absolutely stupid unnecessary change? I actually find it rather convenient, but maybe that's because I keep a lot of bookmarks.

If someone can explain what behavior I've been missing over the years that is now suddenly unusable, I'd really appreciate it; in fact, I'll join you in complaining. But until then, it just sounds like being afraid of any and all change.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (4, Informative)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882647)

Here's the best example I can think of for this awesome feature.

1) Go to this page in a new tab [myth-weavers.com]
2) Now close that tab.
3) In a new tab start typing "Warlord Tiefling" in the location bar.
4) Notice how a link is coming up and how it is highlighting the word as you type it. But if you select it and hit enter, you'll see that the words "Tiefling Warlord" do not appear in the URL.

This is the awesomeness of the awesome bar. It doesn't just search the URL of your history and bookmarks, it searches the page title as well! So while trying to remember the URL for the Warlord Tiefling page would be impossible, the awesome bar means you don't have to.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882685)

If I wanted to search for page titles, I'd either search through my history or more likely use the search bar that's next to the URL bar.

When I type in URLs into the URL bar, I expect the damned thing to search for URLs and not page titles!

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882625)

If I type "c" guess how many sites Awesomebar shows that begins with "c"?

If you guessed "none", then you're correct! It does match ".com" a ton.

"CN" comes up with a ton of URLs that are apparently what Google does when it redirects you to your final search result.

Once I type "CNN" it finally realizes that, hey, "cnn.com" just MIGHT be what I'm going for. Given that it, like, it's the only URL that starts with "CN".

"Sla" comes up with Doonesbury. See, it's hosted at "Slate.com" - even though the URL doesn't contain "slate" anywhere in it.

"Slashdot" comes up with the Slashdot story on the Debian SSL key fiasco. I guess I visited that story a bunch while trying to figure out exactly how vulnerable our systems are and now it's considered more correct than slashdot.org, despite the fact that the URL starts with "it" since it's a story from the IT section.

I'm sure I can come up with more examples, there are 26 letters in the alphabet, after all. And this is ignoring the fact that the autocomplete list is now three times larger than it needs to be. At least you can fix that with extensions. The brain-dead autocomplete algorithm you can't.

Re:awesome bar = f u bar (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882683)

Actually I pretty much hated awesome bar as soon as I installed FF3 beta. It has, however, grown on me and I quite like it now. Yes, it was annoying at first, but it's not as bad as it first seems

Font rendering (0, Troll)

RichPowers (998637) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882349)

Firefox 3 on Ubuntu 8.04 looks like ass. Apparently subpixel hinting for LCD monitors isn't compiled correctly in the Ubuntu package. Most of the posts online are over a month old and, as far as I know, this hasn't been patched yet. Apparently I'm not the only one with this problem:

Here [mozillazine.org]

Here [mozillazine.org]

"I have found the solution to this problem. The reason you have no subpixel hinting is that Fx3 uses the in-tree cairo library, which has no LCD-filtering patches applied. You, or your distro's package maintainer, will have to compile it with following option in .mozconfig: -enable-system-cairo. You'll also need to use this command: export LDFLAGS='-lX11 -lXrender' "

And here [reddit.com]

The fonts are so blurry and unreadable that I get a headache just browsing Google News. Until this is resolved, Firefox 3 will remain unusable for me in Hardy Heron.

Would that be more of an OS function? (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882413)

I ask because I honestly don't know, but in Windows, Firefox uses the same font settings as the system. If I change the Windows' option, everything changes with it, including Firefox. This is because, near as I can tell, Windows is giving all the fonts to FF anyhow. It looks ever so slightly different on Vista, as does everything since Vista has a slightly tweaked font anti-aliasing engine.

Is that not how it works on Linux?

Re:Font rendering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882549)

To put it simply: I have subpixel hinting working just fine in Ubuntu 8.04 with Firefox 3 and I haven't tweaked a thing. During pre-release Ubuntu 8.04, Firefox did had some font issues for a version or two.

Re:Font rendering (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882575)

What version are you using? I'm using it right now on an Ubuntu 8.04 laptop with absolutely no issues.

Easy. (1, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882367)

They're similarly capable, but Firefox is FOSS. Win.

Re:Easy. (4, Informative)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882395)

Frankly, with as many features Firefox has copied from Opera, it'd better be good. Don't get me wrong here, I love FF, but there's no denying that some of their "latest greatest" features are ripped straight from Opera.

If Opera was FOSS, the Firefox team wouldn't have had to write nearly as much code. (insert smiley for people who will inevitably think this is completely serious)

Re:Easy. (0, Troll)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882553)

Don't get me wrong here, I love FF, but there's no denying that some of their "latest greatest" features are ripped straight from Opera.
So what you're saying is that the Firefox devs are keen observers of what constitutes good interface design and cool features, and add any such things that they see in other products to Firefox, while the Opera devs just turn up their noses at any feature they didn't come up with? That's fucking stupid. "Copying" is how all the best stuff from everyone gets put together into better and better products. Opera devs might do well to learn that. I tried opera once two or three versions ago. I was annoyed that I couldn't cram the Home-Reload-Back buttons, URL bar, and google search box onto the same line with the "File Edit View ... Help" menus. This is a very useful capability on older laptops with small screens. I just now installed 9.5, and guess what: you still can't use that dead space between "Help" and the right edge of the screen. IE was the first to allow that. Firefox wisely "copied" IE to allow the same. What did the Opera guys do? Nothing. They apparently don't like anything they didn't come up with. Fuck them. Fuck bitch-whining about "copying". Give us the fucking features and make the product better.

Re:Easy. (1)

NouberNou (1105915) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882735)

while the Opera devs just turn up their noses at any feature they didn't come up with? That's fucking stupid.
I dont think anyone said that... if I had mod points I'd mod you as a troll but cest la vie... :( Also just because it doesnt have your one pet feature is no need to throw a hissy fit about it. If your monitor/screen is too small to have a forward and back button comfortably fit then maybe you should think about moving out of the world of 640x480 and get something a little bit bigger?

Fuck them. Fuck bitch-whining about "copying". Give us the fucking features and make the product better.
Quit whining about your small... screen.

"copying" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882665)

You're implying that Firefox is somehow inferior to Opera (or that their devs are somehow inferior to Opera's devs) because they "copied" features from them. I'm really tired of that sentiment.

If fridge manufacturer A came up with this revolutionary technology ("not only can it make ice, it can make iced COFFEE!" or some other stupid idea like that), and if fridge manufacturer B likes the idea and puts it into their own fridges (let's put patents aside for the moment), is it still inferior?

This applies not only to Firefox v. Opera, but Windows v. OSX v. Linux, etc. I'm not advocating code "theft"*, but if some software devs implement a feature without stealing any code, are they still inferior?

Remember that the Wright Brothers didn't invent the airplane, and that Henry Ford didn't invent the car. Are they inferior to the original airplane/car inventors?

TL;DR Version: In the end, it's not who does it first, it's who does it better (in most cases, anyway). Of course, if some people "copy" the feature and still end up short of the original, feel free to laugh at them.

* Could you really call it that in the case of open source software?

Re:"copying" (1)

NouberNou (1105915) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882747)

Remember that the Wright Brothers didn't invent the airplane, and that Henry Ford didn't invent the car. Are they inferior to the original airplane/car inventors?

Actually I think the Wright Brothers did invent the first airplane (at least the first powered one)...

I don't think he was saying FF was worse because they copied... he just said give credit where credit is due.

<fanboi>Also Opera's "cool bar" is better than firefoxs </fanboi>

Re:Easy. (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882431)

Opera loads faster, GUI is more responsive, many people don't care about the license... for them Opera is a better choice.

Re:Easy. (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882661)

Most people also don't care about security. I do, so I use Firefox with NoScript.

Re:Easy. (4, Informative)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882681)

Opera can disable scripts per page or globally, and you don't need a plugin to do that.

Re:Easy. (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882707)

Can you tell me how or link to a page that does? Last time I asked I was recommended I use some proxy software which was anything but as easy as NoScript.

Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (5, Informative)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882427)

The first thing you notice when you launch Opera 9.5 is that it occupies less desktop real estate than Firefox 3, with less toolbar space and smaller borders, giving you more room to view pages.
The thing I like about Firefox is how changeable it is: Screenshot [imagevenue.com]

I've been organizing the bars like that since I started using FF, and I find it makes for much better use of that space than just a gray, blank area.

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (4, Informative)

Airw0lf (795770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882475)

The thing I like about Firefox is how changeable it is: Screenshot I've been organizing the bars like that since I started using FF, and I find it makes for much better use of that space than just a gray, blank area.
Opera's interface is every bit as customisable if not more so. Right click on any toolbar and click "Customize." The "Toolbars" tab will let you play with which toolbars you want to show, and where you want them. The "Buttons" tab will allow you to place just about any button anywhere you want. Finally, you can even make your own buttons. See the Opera wiki for more information: http://operawiki.info/CustomButtons [operawiki.info]

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882617)

Opera's interface is every bit as customisable if not more so.
False. I challenge you to put a "back" button next to the Help menu on the menu bar, then. You can do it in IE. You can do it in Firefox. Opera forces that space after Help to be waste.

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (1)

strabes (1075839) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882491)

Nice to find someone who does this also. I did this for several years up until I bought a mac a few weeks ago. The only difference for me was that the navigation buttons were directly to the left of the address bar instead of to the right of the search bar.

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (2, Informative)

Tangent128 (1112197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882493)

You can set up Opera that way, but it involves a lot of obscure setting-tweaking for the menu-bar-on-one-line effect.

So I have to grant a small point to Firefox for UI configurability. I still prefer Opera's look overall, though.

Tip for you to save more space, though- get rid of the Google bar and just set up a search shortcut.

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882633)

Tip for you to save more space, though- get rid of the Google bar and just set up a search shortcut.
That wouldn't "save space", as there'd still be just the one bar before and after. Getting rid of the google search box would only "make more room". He has plenty of room for the search box, and made no claims of needing any additional room. Your suggestion is pointless.

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (1)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882497)

So is Opera.

I've gotten used to Opera's changeability so much that I can't stand using a browser where the tabs are on top. The bottom is a _much_ better place for the tab bar. Opera lets me do that. Firefox doesn't.

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (1)

Airw0lf (795770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882525)

I've gotten used to Opera's changeability so much that I can't stand using a browser where the tabs are on top. The bottom is a _much_ better place for the tab bar. Opera lets me do that. Firefox doesn't.
In fact when I installed FF 2.0 I had play around userChrome.css to change the tab placement! (After spending som time googling.) In Opera you can do this in a few button clicks.

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (4, Informative)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882511)

Excluding the Menu Bar (Opera uses the standard/forced top one) Opera can do that aswell, you can drag/drop any button/checkbox/dropdown/etc to any other bar (excluding the main side panel buttons)

You can also quicky drag a webpage, or an image onto a toolbar, to create a temporary "favorite" of sorts... its not particularily useful, but ive used it, mainly so i dont accidentally close the tab.

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (1)

SilentChasm (998689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882643)

http://operawiki.info/CustomButtons#menu [operawiki.info]

You can toggle the menu bar with a button from that site in Opera to get rid of it if you really want to. I currently have the button in the view toolbar (hidden by default) that Opera has, with a non-toggle menu button on the far left of the tab bar (where the panel toggle would be by default) acting as the main menu. I rarely ever use the menu anyways; the panel has all the mail client and bookmarks access I need.

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882709)

Oh I know, already have my own custom version, plus I have the Main menu under the right-click Context menu...

But I didn't wanna have to explain all that to someone who isn't even familiar with the basics of the Opera layout.

And now with 9.5x I can do away with an entire toolbar by just moving a few things to the status bar since stuff gets scaled to 80% there, instead of increasing the status bar size to encompass the added button/item...

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (0)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882581)

The first thing you notice when you launch Opera 9.5 is that it occupies less desktop real estate than Firefox 3, with less toolbar space and smaller borders, giving you more room to view pages.
The thing I like about Firefox is how changeable it is: Screenshot [imagevenue.com] I've been organizing the bars like that since I started using FF, and I find it makes for much better use of that space than just a gray, blank area.
I was doing that with IE before I discovered Firefox, and was overjoyed when firefox decided to add that feature. A friend of mine suggested Opera a few years ago, and I was highly annoyed at how it made no provision for using that "dead space" after Help. I see they still don't allow it. The Opera devs apparently don't like any idea they didn't come up with themselves. And that quote above? What a crock! What idiot uses the toolbar layout as it comes out of the installer? Anyone with half a brain CUSTOMIZES.

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882669)

I have mine almost exactly the same (forward/back, reload and stop are on the left of the location bar with home removed completely while I have kept my bookmarks bar below it). I sometimes forget this isn't the default GUI for Firefox.

Re:Opera screen real estate vs Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882727)

Wow I never even though about reorganizing the tool bars like that.

Thanks!

captcha honest

Lies, Dammed Lies and Performance Benchmarks (1)

iwein (561027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882429)

That's all I have to say about that.

who gives a fuck? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882437)

go fuck yourselves in the ass you fucking faggots. dick smokers use linux. fucking queers getting the faggot aids. shove a plastic dick up your faggot asses.

Re:who gives a fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882477)

oh lol

Vista 64bit (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882457)

The SunSpider bencharks reveal that the 64bit IE vs 32bit IE is 18.7% faster in Vista 64. I'm willing to bet the ratio is the same with XP 64bit too.

Anyone know when there will be a 64bit Flash plugin?

God dammit.. (-1, Flamebait)

superash (1045796) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882481)

From TFA:
It(Opera) surely has enough power and features to make it my favorite browser. If only it were free software and open source!

IT IS FREE!!1
and WTF is with "if it was open source", how does this make any difference unless you are a hardcode programmer and are dieing to contribute to the codebase? I for one can rarely find time to contribute to open source projects because it takes hell lot of time to understand the codebase. So I do not care if it is open source or not, and so do 90% of the population.

As long as it is free, I will rate all s/w equally, be it open source or closed!

Re:God dammit.. (1)

pdusen (1146399) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882695)

It's a matter of transparency. People frequently use a web browser to transmit sensitive information, such as banking and tax information. As long as the source code is open, it is subject to scrutiny, and therefore far less likely to do suspicious things with your personal information.

I myself doubt that any browser behaves that way, but there are a lot of people who are paranoid about the internet, and I don't see their concerns as particularly invalid.

Easy Install (0)

blibbler (15793) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882573)

From the article:
"When you install Firefox 3, which is as simple as downloading and extracting the tarball someplace like /opt and running the ./firefox script"

This is slightly off topic, and maybe I've been using a mac too long, but this sounds anything but an easy install. Surely installing something as basic as a web browser has been simplified by now.

Re:Easy Install (1, Informative)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882699)

The easiest thing to do is to use the Ubuntu software repository, but its only as up-to-date as the people who update it, which can be slower then the people who update the actual software.

Pretty good (3, Interesting)

Eil (82413) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882607)

I gave Opera 9.5 a whirl last week and was highly impressed. It's packed with nice features (Where do you think Firefox and IE get most of their ideas?) but still pretty fast and light. Other versions of Opera never did much for me, but this is the first proprietary application that I've run across in a long time that I would seriously consider using on a daily basis. The only areas where it's really lacking are modularity (extensions, instead of everything being built-in to the browser) and of course the fact that it's not free software.

Re:Pretty good (1)

xrooles (1154553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882687)

I gave Opera 9.5 a whirl last week and was highly impressed. It's packed with nice features (Where do you think Firefox and IE get most of their ideas?) but still pretty fast and light. Other versions of Opera never did much for me, but this is the first proprietary application that I've run across in a long time that I would seriously consider using on a daily basis. The only areas where it's really lacking are modularity (extensions, instead of everything being built-in to the browser) and of course the fact that it's not free software.

is is not free now? It used to be shareware, but it is free now. Yes, it is not open source, but it is free and I truely love it.. I think it was the first browser with tabbed browsing and integrating google or infact any search bar. keyboard shortcuts and search bars existed since 2000 atleast.

Re:Pretty good (1)

luckymutt (996573) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882743)

Look into Oper's "Widgets" for additional, modular features.

filthy faggot linux fags (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23882631)

keep on sucking them dicks you linux fags. take it up the ass so you can be a linux bitch. keep it up, get the aids and die! getting that big dick in your faggot ass.

My priority is not speed (3, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882649)

In Firefox, my priority is not speed. I am happy with the status quo. While I love the new product, I was dismayed and disappointed to say the least when I was locked out of my favorite sites which support the Firefox 2.0 series, but do not support Firefox 3.0! I had to re-install the earlier version, which I had to "dig" out of the Mozilla site.

The fact that most of my extensions are un-installable in the latest version did not help matters.

This made me wonder...Why haven't the coders ported these extensions to Firefox 3.0 if it has been in development for a long time?

I also thought I would be in position to play live CNN streams but I was wrong! Firefox plays the commercial OK but will display a balck screen with sound when it comes to the actual content! Not good enough.

Re:My priority is not speed (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882739)

Did you let your favorite site authors know that they're driving away business by restricting he browsers people can use to access their sites?

heres an idea (0, Troll)

seventhc (636528) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882659)

how about you all use the fucking browser that you like the best? Whatever it is, I don't care...just use whatever makes you happy and stfu!

The most useful JavaScript performance parameter (1)

jandersen (462034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882679)

I didn't see anything about the one JavaScript feature I use more than anything else in Firefox: the ability to turn it off selectively (via the noScript extension, so one could argue that it isn't in Firefox at all, of course). Useful as JavaScript is, the way it is used to sneak adverts and other unwanted stuff on to your browser can sometimes make a website useless - at least to me.

I wouldn't be on the Web at all without it. I wonder how many depend on it the same way.

Sounds good but how about actual usage (1, Troll)

definate (876684) | more than 6 years ago | (#23882745)

I run both Opera and FireFox however Opera never FEELS faster to me. Perhaps it is the default settings, or perhaps the sites I go to Gmail, Gcal, Slashdot, etc, all feel a lot faster in FireFox.

Also, FireFox feels easier to use.

And then, FireFox has all of the plugins I now love, and can't get rid of.

Opera is doing good, but they need to focus on their target markets needs over their speed or standards compliance.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?