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!

First Beta of Opera 10 Released

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the new-and-shiny dept.

Software 278

Miladinoski writes "Opera Software ASA today released the first beta of their tenth version of the Opera browser. In addition to the browser's known features, like mouse gestures, keyboard shortcuts, voice navigation, mail and RSS support, speed dial and so forth, it now includes a Turbo mode which unclogs your connection to get faster browsing, a new interface, a tabbed browsing update and customizable speed dial. Opera 10 continues to follow the web standards by getting 100/100 and pixel-perfect scores on the Acid3 test. The beta is currently available for every modern OS platform."

cancel ×

278 comments

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

Current Presto & Webkit Score 100/100 (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196631)

Opera 10 continues to follow the web standards by getting 100/100 and pixel-perfect scores on the Acid3 test.

Yeah, I think anything running the latest versions of Presto (Opera) & Webkit (Safari, Chrome) [wikipedia.org] are getting 100s. Two nights ago I put the latest and greatest Chrome in WinXP SP3 on my eeePC and got a 100/100 even though it said Linktest failed.

Odd thing is that the more popular a browser or layout engine is, the worse it seems to do on the Acid tests!

Re:Current Presto & Webkit Score 100/100 (1, Insightful)

BasharTeg (71923) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197449)

Okay...

"Opera 10 continues to follow the web standards by getting 100/100 and pixel-perfect scores on the Acid3 test."

Once again Opera pushes the misconception that Acid3 is the test of web standards compliance.

"it now includes a Turbo mode which unclogs your connection to get faster browsing"

Marketing people can DIAF.

Unclogs? (5, Funny)

Fantom42 (174630) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196659)

Unclogs your connection?

So the internet is... like a series of tubes?

Re: Unclogs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28196687)

I,d have posted first but I was using operea.

Re: Unclogs? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28196919)

Of course, Operea isn't as fast as Opera. You should be cautious of cheap Chinese knock-offs.

Re: Unclogs? (1)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197415)

Is Operea the version of Opera with diarrhea?

Re: Unclogs? (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196735)

... and customizable speed dial

Now you can get The Internet with just a regular phone line!

Re: Unclogs? (4, Interesting)

SlashDotDotDot (1356809) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196833)

Unclogs your connection?

If I understand correctly, Opera Turbo only works in conjunction with specialized servers.

http://www.opera.com/business/solutions/turbo/ [opera.com]

You use a proxy server while you surf. The proxy compresses the pages (partly by reducing image quality and blocking plugin content until you click on it) and delivers the compressed version to your browser.

I have lots of questions about this. Are there free servers available to the average consumer? Is this an open standard? Do the servers themselves represent a problematic bottleneck? Anyone understand this better?

Re: Unclogs? (4, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196933)

Well, it's mostly meant for people on mobile devices, and people on dial-up could find it useful.

It's free already for average consumers (since I played with it a bit this morning already). I doubt it's an "open" standard, since it's Opera's servers doing it, but I'm not 100% sure. No one's reported bottleneck issues, but that might change with more users on-board now.

Re: Unclogs? (4, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196959)

Those are servers of Opera (the company). And they've been doing this for quite some time with their Opera Mini (for Java mobile phones).

Nope (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196979)

The internet is more like a plumbing trap.

People pour masses of crap down it, but occasionally you need to reach in and search for a valuable item, and you come out covered in shit.
What were we talking about again?

Re: Unclogs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197311)

Unclogs your connection?

So the internet is... like a series of tubes?

WRONG!

It's more like a big truck.

Re: Unclogs? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197429)

So the internet is... like a series of tubes?

No, no... it's the punters who are like a series of tubes.

It was not released today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28196663)

It was released a long time ago if you had the alpha version of opera installed and turned on updates.

and on another note, the alpha was much better than v9, and the beta is much better than the alpha

Re:It was not released today (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196949)

Odd, since I had updates turned on, checked manually earlier this week, and got nothing. I agree about 10>>9, though.

Turbo button...yes! (2, Funny)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196667)

So I can go from 16Mhz to 32Mhz browsing at the touch of a button, you say? I'm all for it! Wait a second....

=Smidge=

Re:Turbo button...yes! (4, Insightful)

verbalcontract (909922) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196871)

I love Opera's speed. And I can live with the bloated features no one uses like Email and BitTorrent. But the sad fact is, a lot of sites don't work the same in Opera. I remember in particular that the uTorrent web GUI's Javascript didn't work at all.

And it's a shame that Opera rocks the Acid3, but nobody really cares because most websites aren't coded to standard; they're coded to work in the 96% of people's machines, and 96% of browsers fail at Acid3. Opera's mostly been a victim of a million different cooks in a million different kitchens cooking for a million different people.

Re:Turbo button...yes! (4, Insightful)

SpeZek (970136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197145)

And I can live with the bloated features no one uses like Email and BitTorrent.

It ain't really bloat if it doesn't slow it down at all, in my books.

Re:Turbo button...yes! (1)

nxtw (866177) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197317)

I love Opera's speed. And I can live with the bloated features no one uses like Email and BitTorrent. But the sad fact is, a lot of sites don't work the same in Opera. I remember in particular that the uTorrent web GUI's Javascript didn't work at all.

I've been using the uTorrent WebUI in Opera for years; for it to work properly, you need to figure out how to keep Opera from intercepting right clicks. I forget how I did that.

Re:Turbo button...yes! (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197411)

Right clicks shoudn't be used by a page usability-wise...

Re:Turbo button...yes! (1)

gamanimatron (1327245) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197571)

Depends on the page. The web's a funky mix of documents (shouldn't intercept anything, presentation separate from content, blah blah...), applications (all your browser are belong to us!) and documents that should have been applications, or vice versa. And things that aren't really either. "Usability" only has meaning in context.

Re:Turbo button...yes! (2, Informative)

nxtw (866177) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197607)

Right clicks shoudn't be used by a page usability-wise...

Thanks for that, but this is how the uTorrent UI works. The WebUI mimics the Windows UI's functionality, so it's an interactive JavaScript application (using XMLHttpRequest) rather than a set of web pages.

Re:Turbo button...yes! (4, Informative)

kwandar (733439) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197457)

I've been a long time Firefox user, played with Chrome, but when I got my EEE 1000HE I decided to try Opera as I'd heard it was fairly fast and I didn't want to slow down that little processor.

Opera is great! Not only did it not slow down, but I got voice command (which I had back with OS/2 Warp too:) which is great given the smaller keyboard. Its fast, works well, and I appreciate the built in bit torrent client (I don't need more software to clutter up a Windows box).

Opera - I'm impressed!

Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28196677)

Opera follows standards, and Slashdot (even the homepage) looks like shit in Opera.

Really, Slashdot looks like shit in most browsers with blatantly obvious bugs everywhere, like the infamous white on white comment titles.

I guess that means that for all the talk and the bullshit, Slashdot totally hypocritical when it comes to standards.

Fix your fucking code or get off your high horse.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28196741)

they break it because they want to purposely make the site unusable in IE and now they've broken the functionality for other browsers by doing so.

this is why open source zealotry and fanaticism is an ugly thing.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28196881)

Then how come the moderation system doesn't work on my Firefox but it does on IE and Safari?

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (1)

vintagepc (1388833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197041)

Works fine on mine... Just spent all my mod points, in fact. I've noticed that there can be some significant differences from browser build to build. I'm using FF 3.0.10, and granted, sometimes the layout goes funny, but for the most part /. works well.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197473)

Nice theory, but I just came from using IE6 at a work site and it looks less fucked there than at home. I think Hanlon's razor applies.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (5, Funny)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197657)

I believe it is Karma-based. The lower your Karma, the more /. garbles your HTML :)

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196889)

Slashdot on Chromium and Firefox.
No troubles here!
You guys are either exaggerating or bending the truth.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197031)

or you know, maybe there's multiple versions available running on different OSes and different hardware which might not work perfectly, but that's just a guess.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197039)

That's what I think too. Opera 9.64 here and it looks the same as in Firefox 3.0.10 (maybe a few pixels here and there). Haven't used IE8 to visit Slashdot ever, so I might be missing something, but I've never seen that white on white problem.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (2, Informative)

gazbo (517111) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197137)

I can confirm that with both Opera and Firefox on Linux (Fedora 10), Slashdot is completely fucked. And they are pretty damn Slashdot-friendly combos.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (3, Informative)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197755)

No, I can corroborate that - subject headings still appear in black on dark green in Opera (which they don't in Firefox). Comment titles regularly go white on white, though that can be fixed by doing some random clicky jiggery-pokery.

On the plus side, the actual speed of the site is far better in Opera.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (4, Informative)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197811)

You guys are either exaggerating or bending the truth.

Or maybe, just maybe, just because you don't experience a bug that it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Secondly, you do realize there are more than just the singular versions of Chromium and Firefox that you use, and as such they may have differing behaviors, or that others may be using completely different browsers altogether, right? But no, it clearly must be people making stuff up.

This reminds of back when the Linux kernel devs would claim their were no response issues desktop Linux because when run on servers with vastly more processors and power that there were no issues.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (4, Interesting)

SirGeek (120712) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196925)

Really, Slashdot looks like shit in most browsers with blatantly obvious bugs everywhere, like the infamous white on white comment titles.

Oh thank goodness. I just thought I was losing it...

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197423)

Show them how they should fix their code and get off your high horse, dick. There's no reason to act like that because they're not on the ball for a simple website.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197525)

Well, slashdot does very good job to be browser-agnostic:
Looks like a shit in any browser.

Re:Slashdot Looks Like Shit in Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197847)

Really, Slashdot looks like shit in most browsers with blatantly obvious bugs everywhere, like the infamous white on white comment titles.

I guess that means that for all the talk and the bullshit, Slashdot totally hypocritical when it comes to standards.

Fix your fucking code or get off your high horse.

OK, Are you listening, Sid? Sid???? Ewwwww, yech -SIDNEY, put that thing away and wash your hands before you touch the conmpany keyboard again!!! [slashdot.org]

Details on the Turbo mode are in the changelogs (4, Interesting)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196733)

http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/mac/1000b1/ [opera.com]

"This new Opera feature increases your internet bandwidth speed on slow connections using data and image compression technologies. Opera Turbo uses Opera proxy servers to compress the traffic before it reaches the Opera browser on the clientâ(TM)s computer; see this Opera reference. Opera Turbo can easily be configured to suit your browsing needs:"

So it basically does what their mobile browser already does for your desktop. Cue tinfoil hatters in 3,2,1...

Re:Details on the Turbo mode are in the changelogs (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196965)

It does that because this feature was already *IN* the mobile browser. Unless you mean the portable browser?

Seems even faster than 9.x (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28196757)

Seems quite fast, even compared to regular Opera. Entire pages just appear, rather than slowly loading/displaying...

Kudos to the team!

Turbo Mode Information (4, Informative)

Fantom42 (174630) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196775)

The link to the "Turbo Mode" was kinda weak and just went to a Changelog, so I found this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/03/opera_10_beta_debut/ [theregister.co.uk]

Dubbed Opera Turbo, the server-side technology reduces the amount of data that must be downloaded to render a given web page. It works by scaling back the size of some images and stripping out certain content types, said Opera spokesman Thomas Ford. Some content based on Adobe Flash, for example, isn't loaded unless a user clicks a button. In essence, Turbo works by establishing a proxy server through which compressed website content is funneled to the browser. It will not work with content that's encrypted using the Secure Sockets Layer protocol and delivers a benefit only when used on connections with limited bandwidth.

A fairly interesting concept. I wonder if Firefox is working on something like this. Seems it would be a useful idea to explore at least for embedded devices or when you are tethered through a cell phone or whatnot.

Re:Turbo Mode Information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197207)

I don't think Mozilla would have the ressources to do it, unless they make much more money than I think, but Google could definitely make it happen on Chrome.

Re:Turbo Mode Information (1)

WaroDaBeast (1211048) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197637)

Firefox doesn't block Flash content by default, but Flashblock [mozilla.org] does and works in the same fashion as described in your quotation.

How do you define "modern"? (4, Funny)

Zedrick (764028) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196795)

"The beta is currently available for every modern OS platform."

Really? Says who? I can't find any such statement on Operas site, and if it's true - where's the build for AmigaOS 4.1?

Re:How do you define "modern"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197051)

I went there on my Solaris 10 Sparc desktop at work and they listed Opera 9.64 as the most current. They also mentioned that it was beta software and the latest stable version was 9.6.4.

Solaris 10 is pretty "modern".

Re:How do you define "modern"? (2, Funny)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197349)

You can download Opera for AmigaOS 4.1 from the Timex-Sinclair server.

Re:How do you define "modern"? (1)

gamanimatron (1327245) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197807)

I keep getting 404's. Am I doing something wrong?

Re:How do you define "modern"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197709)

From here:

ftp://ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Mosaic/ ;>)

Re:How do you define "modern"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197839)

Here:

ftp://ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Mosaic/ :>)

I really like Opera but (2, Interesting)

InlawBiker (1124825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196799)

I installed it and used it on my Windows & Ubuntu machines and really liked Opera. It's clean and fast, and I love the sync option. For some reason I have trouble committing to it. I also liked the speed of Chrome and, God help me, IE8. I know they're great browsers but I guess I'm just happy with Firefox.

Re:I really like Opera but (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196989)

Possibly weird feel of UI? I remember it was really an issue at the beginning - Opera uses its own UI toolkit, with a bit different feel (I don't mean look!) than most UIs; not slower btw, quite the contrary.

But you can get used to it quite fast.

Re:I really like Opera but (1)

nxtw (866177) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197359)

Possibly weird feel of UI? I remember it was really an issue at the beginning - Opera uses its own UI toolkit, with a bit different feel (I don't mean look!) than most UIs; not slower btw, quite the contrary.

Opera uses Qt on Linux. On Windows, it uses Win32 widgets and on OS X, it uses Carbon. In my opinion, Opera on Windows fits in visually better than Firefox.

On one Ubuntu 9.04 system, Opera 9 is considerably more responsive for me than the included version of Firefox - when using FreeNX, a remote desktop system. The only Firefox addon in use is for mouse gestures.

Opera certainly looks out of place with the standard skin on Ubuntu's Gnome desktop, but it looks better when using KDE. I could also take the time to make it use another Qt engine if I wanted.

Re:I really like Opera but (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197683)

Their UI is not in Qt, they are using only some elements from given 3rd party toolkits/platforms (like file selector), but the the UI of Opera itself is developed in-house.

BTW, there are Gnome/Ubuntu skins too.

Re:I really like Opera but (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197727)

I know this is part of it for me. It's not going to be a popular opinion here on Slashdot, but a truly native feel to an application is more important to me than a couple milliseconds of speed.

I don't want to run an application that feels like it was built for another desktop environment. I don't like it when applications use their own widgets and break conventions set by the OS. I want my web browser to look like it was designed by the same UI designer that made my office suit, my file browser, my ftp client, my mail client, and everything else.

Weirdly, Firefox sometimes does a better job at this than even the native clients actually designed by the OS-makers.

Re:I really like Opera but (3)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197017)

For me the choice is simple, neither Chrome or IE8 work on Linux, and Firefox is kind of piggish on Linux, on Windows is works pretty decently. I do find Firefox a bit more compatible with some sites but Opera feels more polished and I don't have to install any extension to get it work as I want, on a clean Firefox install I have to install at least 15 extensions to make it work like Opera.

Turbo? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196807)

Maybe they should have put a big red R in the word turbo for racing, so that people will believe their browser goes faster. Or they should give all their users a Type-R sticker to print out.

as in: "Ma! It loaded the page in .05 milliseconds instead of .1 milliseconds! I can see the difference! It's definitely faster." /etc etc

Re:Turbo? (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196999)

Joke if you want, but I just upgraded my work machine from 9.64 to 10, and there's a noticeable difference in most pages. The turbo function, however, isn't for normal use, it's for dial-up or mobile users. Anyone on broadband won't see a difference between turbo and non-turbo, just the difference between the old and new versions.

Re:Turbo? (1)

MichaelJE2 (833360) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197409)

dial...up? Doesn't every city have a fiber kiosk every 10 feet on every city street that you can pull a line into your house from or plug into your laptop when you are on-the-go?

The beta is available for all modern OSes (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28196817)

Just FYI: in addition to the beta being available for all modern OSes, I see there is also a version for Windows.

Needs tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28196893)

And still no tagged bookmarks.

Re:Needs tags (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197367)

AFAIK you can emulate them using description field of a bookmark.

Nice, but no x86_64 QT4 build... (2, Interesting)

qcubed (655212) | more than 5 years ago | (#28196941)

Which makes me sad. I'm willing to be patient for a while, and this is a beta, but there's been almost no real discussion on the Opera Desktop Team blog about it. I may well eventually cave and reinstall the QT3 dependencies, but I do hope that I won't have to.

Turbo mode ? (0, Redundant)

TractorBarry (788340) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197023)

A turbo "mode" eh ? Wake me up when it has a real turbo "button" !

But there's no AdBlock Plus... (1, Troll)

notanatheist (581086) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197075)

I'd probably use it more frequenty if it had some Ad blocking capabilities. Speed Dial is a pretty nifty feature. I can't remember how long I've used Opera (since about '99 I think) and it was only ever my primary browser way back then. Used Mozilla for years before the pre 1.0 Firefox browser came about and haven't turned back from Firefox since. I doubt Opera could change that but it could see a larger timeshare with the ability for Extensions to check my mail and block ads. If those exist please correct me if I'm wrong!!

Re:But there's no AdBlock Plus... (5, Informative)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197277)

I'd probably use it more frequenty if it had some Ad blocking capabilities.

It does. Right-click on the page, "Block Content...".

By the way... http://www.opera.com/docs/history/ [opera.com]

Integrated content blocking appeared in Opera 9.0, officially released on June 20th, 2006. Almost three years now.

And a little bit of history: http://www.schrode.net/opera/url_filtering/ [schrode.net]

Rudimentary ad blocking through urlfilter.ini appeared in Opera 6.02, released on May 15th, 2002. So, Opera has effectively had a form of ad-blocking capabilities for over seven years.

It's not as flexible as what you get through specialized Firefox extensions, but it's there, there are pre-made filters available for download, and like I said, it's been a part of the browser for seven years.

Re:But there's no AdBlock Plus... Use a HOSTS file (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197285)

You can always use a HOSTS file!

The beauty of that is, that it extends to EVERY web-bound app you have (unlike Adblock/AdBlock Plus, that only work in Mozilla/FireFox products)

So - think programs like Email also, where HTML is used (alongside scripting, the REAL "problem" (with bad adbanners for example, it IS the "delivery mechanism" basically - because it's truly the "root of all evil" here most times, & anyone can verify that statement @ SECUNIA or SECURITYFOCUS.COM for example, from their last 4-5 yrs. of data or more on records of exploits they have)).

HOSTS files provide not only security benefits here, but, also speedup benefits too, as a bonus (by blocking ads you gain speed, but blocking scripting even gets you more (only use it on sites you trust OR cannot do without to stay safe(r) vs. bad scripted pages/bad scripted adbanners)).

HOSTS files, customized ones, work here... & it's a solution that's easily edited/added to, + understood by users, as a bonus - Because as one of my best pals whom I 'turned onto' these has stated, verbatim? "All you need to do, is know how to use notepad.exe, how to read english, & to get a decent one to start with - as well as sources that update the data one needs to blockout bogus sites" (& I list a few below!)

The one I use here is populated with my own lists for HOSTS files since 1997 (30.000 entries long, mostly for adbanner blocking @ first 1997-2001), then later for security 2002 onwards...

I extended it further (to 654,000 unique entries currently & yes, I have to stop the Windows DNS client for that, it's 14mb for Windows NT/2000/XP/Server 2003, & up to 19mb (using 0.0.0.0) OR 26mb (using 127.0.0.1) for Windows VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7) per sources like:

1.) StopBadWare.org
2.) SRI
3.) Dancho Danchev's ZDNet Blog
4.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" Immunize lists
5.) PLUS/LASTLY, using other reputable known HOSTS files shown @ wikipedia.com, here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org]

All nearly DAILY updated here.

(& kept free of repeat entries via a program I wrote to do that, as well as alphabetize the entries, plus change them to a "faster up off disk into memory" internal schema for blocking out bad sites & adbanners, by going from the larger, slower 127.0.0.1 default loopback adapter IP, to either 0.0.0.0 (for VISTA/Server2k8/Windows 7, a mistake on MS' part I mentioned to they here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] [msdn.com] [msdn.com] which they started on 12/09/2008), OR the fastest & most efficient 0 blocking IP address))

HOSTS files are a good layer for this, then you can also "layer on" IE Restricted Zones, Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, & FireFox addons like NoScript + its internal to browser restricted sites lists ontop of them, for the utmost in security protection AND speed (I do other things like use custom cascading style sheets & PAC file filtering as well, but those are another subject)...

APK

P.S.=> Layered security, AND, more speed... usually security things (like AntiVirus' programs for example) add another layer of processing complexity and slow you down... NOT HOSTS Files, & they work with EVERY WEBBOUND PROGRAM YOU HAVE... not just FireFox/Mozilla variants! apk

Re:But there's no AdBlock Plus... Use a HOSTS file (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197379)

Random usage of all caps words for emphasis is annoying to read. Please look into your writing style and perhaps use <i> and </i> for italics instead of caps for emphasis.

Re:But there's no AdBlock Plus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197343)

There's an integrated content blocker : right click on a page, select Block Content and click on any image you don't want to see. You can use wildcards in the URL too. FYI, this feature has been implemented for at least 2 major version number.

You might even find some configuration files already filled with the most "popular" advertising websites.

I don't see any ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197381)

Right click -> block content *ta-da* I also use it to block evil Google/Doublick tracking javascripts and it works a treat!

Re:But there's no AdBlock Plus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197431)

Ad blocking is supported by default in Opera. Right-click a page and choose 'Block Content' then left-click any ads you want to get rid of. For additional security, turn off javascript & plugins then re-enable their use on a page-to-page basis.

Re:But there's no AdBlock Plus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197481)

http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/

Not exactly the same, but works either way.

Re:But there's no AdBlock Plus... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197483)

Many ads depend on JavaScript and Flash to be served now. From my own experience, turning JavaScript and Flash off globally except for some domains (I'm using Opera 9.64 with sites preferences) will remove 99% of the annoying ads out there. That works across all browsers, that's why I don't need AdBlock Plus when I already have NoScript on Firefox.

Re:But there's no AdBlock Plus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197569)

I'm looking to turn my back on Firefox, it's handling of HTTPS/SSL is just going from bad to worse.

If you check out Firefox 3.5b the amount of clicks and hoops you need to jump through to connect to a site that uses a certificate that hasn't be signed by commerical certificate authority is beyond a joke. A warning is all that's needed (like how Opera 10 handles it).

Opera Firefox (1, Redundant)

Petersko (564140) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197085)

I have dismal luck with Firefox no matter which platform I run it on. It's slow to start, grows massive in memory, and aborts more often than any other piece of software I use.

Opera, on the other hand, works just fine for me. I don't ever remember it aborting, at least in the last two years. I love the implementation of the "Transfers" window.

I've given up on Firefox completely, but Opera has a home on my system.

Of course my opinion can be discarded by all of the cognoscenti here because for day-to-day browsing I use IE.

The 10th version... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197095)

of software I'll never use.

Re:The 10th version... (1)

ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197209)

You should try it. It has some pretty nice feats out of the box.

Only thing I miss is some sort of google bookmarks plugin like gmarks on IceCat/Firefox

Does it support SOCKS proxy yet? (1)

kokojie (915449) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197107)

Does it support SOCKS proxy yet?

Hmmm (3, Interesting)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197135)

I've been a big fan of Opera for a long time, but I'm growing more and more disappointed in it. First off, I have 9.64 and I get an 85 on the ACID3 test, but that isn't my biggest issue. My biggest issues usually evolves CSS and JavaScript. AJAX sites not working or menuing on some of the Net's largest sites not working. (forget using MLB.com) Not to mention I've seen Opera's footprint being over 700M and still growing before. Granted I had more than a few tabs, but that is ridiculous! It's currently 215M while FF3 is 250M which I find acceptable, but that isn't always the case. (I use both browsers at the sametime)

passes an even tougher test than acid3 (3, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197147)

Opera passes an even tougher css test than acid3 -- unlike firefox and safari, it renders the titles of slashdot comments correctly.

Yes, that's a joke. To see what I'm talking about, use firefox or safari to navigate to the slashdot homepage, and then click on the "Read More..." link for a story in the news, science, or technology sections. (This Opera article is in the tech section, but if you have your default threshold for comments set high, like I do, you won't get any titles of comments displayed right now, simply because there aren't any highly up-moderated comments yet, so you won't get any comments displayed.) What you'll see is that the titles of stories are displayed in white on a white background.

This comment [slashdot.org] explains that it's due to a CSS bug in the stylesheets in certain sections. Here [sourceforge.net] is a bug report that I did today in sourceforge. I couldn't find any earlier reports of this problem by searching on sourceforge's bug tracker, but they might exist -- this problem has been around for quite some time now. As a work-around, you can click on the story's title in the threshold form.

It would be interested to hear whether this is universally reproducible with firefox and safari, but please be very careful to follow the exact instructions above. It depends on which section the article is in, and it depends on whether or not you're getting a cached version of the story.

The fact that the slashdot crew hasn't noticed this bug on their own after such a long period of time makes me wonder how much attention they really pay to the site. (This is assuming that the bug really does occur for all firefox users.) We've had dupes and grammatical mistakes in summaries forever, but now that the firehose is handling submissions, it looks like the whole site is just on autopilot.

Re:passes an even tougher test than acid3 (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197385)

Aha. I did a little more testing, and I found that the bug doesn't seem to depend on the browser, but does seem to depend on user preferences. If I'm logged out, I don't get the bug in firefox or opera. If I'm logged in, I get the bug in both browsers. I don't know which user prefs would be relevant, though. Maybe other slashdotters who understand prefs better would be able to figure that out.

Re:passes an even tougher test than acid3 (1)

Evanisincontrol (830057) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197591)

I'm logged in and followed your steps. No white on white. I've been reading Slashdot for years with every major browser, both logged in and not, coming in from the main page and from RSS.. no permutation of the above has ever caused (for me) a white-on-white effect like you describe.

Re:passes an even tougher test than acid3 (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197745)

I'm logged in and followed your steps. No white on white.

Right, I'm assuming it's a user-specific preference that I have set one way and you have set another way. You presumably don't have the pref set on your account, so you don't see the bug, regardless of whether you're logged in or logged out. Quite a few users [slashdot.org] are experiencing the problem, so now I guess we just need to figure out what preference setting all those users have in common.

Anyone know where to look for this sort of thing in the user settings? There are 16 different subcategories of preferences under Your Preferences at slashdot.org/help [slashdot.org] .

Re:passes an even tougher test than acid3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197493)

Random reader here. I just tried exactly your steps in Firefox and there's no white on white for me. Renders just fine. I don't have my Mac with me but I haven't previously noticed this on Safari either. Probably not universally reproducible.

Re:passes an even tougher test than acid3 (1)

TurboNed (1370389) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197513)

Running Firefox 3.0.10 on XP SP3 and following your instructions (opened a new tab, navigated to http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] then clicked "Read more..." on the Google's Android to Challenge Windows? article), everything appeared fine. I assume that when you said "titles of stories" you meant "headers of comments"? When I'm reading a story, I don't see titles to other stories. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the error that I'm supposed to be looking for?

Re:passes an even tougher test than acid3 (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197669)

I assume that when you said "titles of stories" you meant "headers of comments"?

Yes, thanks for the correction! I meant headers of comments.

As described in this comment [slashdot.org] , it turns out to depend on user preferences in some way that I don't completely understand yet.

Re:passes an even tougher test than acid3 (1)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197597)

I am using Firefox 3.0.10 right now, and I see no problem at all on Slashdot. Not the front page, not the comments, not in the sections which you describe. It seems to work whether or not I'm logged in, so it has nothing to do with my display settings.

I'm sure it's broken for some people. But I think this display bug is much more uncommon than you believe.

I wonder if it has anything to do with Add-ons? I have none, zero, as I'm not allowed to install them here at work.

Re:passes an even tougher test than acid3 (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197841)

Hi, Remus, nice to run into you here! I didn't realize that you were both on slashdot and on rasfc.

I wonder if it has anything to do with Add-ons? I have none, zero, as I'm not allowed to install them here at work.

It's definitely nothing to do with firefox add-ons, because it occurs for me in a completely fresh install of Opera, if I'm logged in. (Doesn't occur if I'm logged out.)

Re:passes an even tougher test than acid3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197735)

I've used Firefox since it was Firebird, on a variety of computers, although generally only on Windows OS's. While I'm only an on-again, off-again Slashdot visitor, I have never experienced the rendering issues I've seen people mention again and again; I've never seen "missing" or "white on white" comment titles, in any section.

As you mention Ubuntu in your bug report, I'm wondering if this bug only shows up on certain OS's?

addons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28197169)

Does it support full-fledged, browser-integrated addons yet?

Wake me when it does.

Re:addons? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197393)

No, it doesn't support browser-integrated bloatons.

Keep crying Google (1)

ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197183)

"The beta is currently available for every modern OS platform."

See google, it's not that hard, so stop crying about standards and get your act together. It's easier to criticize than to create.

i like opera (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197191)

always have

i always make sure the sites i code for render properly in opera, even though this has sometimes taken extra time and gotten me ridiculed

for sites where opera does not work, the slightest bit of tweaks in the javascript/css usually gets the site working, except for the fact the coder apparently doesn't care

usually coding for ie and firefox and webkit catches all the snags that would foul up opera. but opera does have its own quirks. most are nonlethal. for example, opera does not respect

html{overflow-y:scroll}

opera has issues with border-radius (hopefully version 10 fixes this)

some oddities involving a:focus/a:active, spacing issues with display:inline-block, etc.

all minor and nonlethal

Brilliant! (1)

N!NJA (1437175) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197233)

from TFS:

In addition to the browser's known features, like mouse gestures, keyboard shortcuts, voice navigation, mail and RSS support, speed dial and so forth[...]

Yes, keyboards are becoming ubiquitous. Who'd have thunk?

OS X version (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197255)

A quick look shows the OS X version passes Acid3, is about 10% slower on javascript benchmarks compared to the last version, and still has no support for system services so it can't use the same spelling checker as all the other OS X programs or the grammar checker or other tools. Basically, I don't see anything that is here to motivate me to switch. Opera may be a really nice browser for Windows, but it is still subpar for OS X.

No database support (1)

Snap E Tom (128447) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197365)

Javascript database support isn't mentioned. That's a bummer for those of us creating offline apps.

Smart Card Support (1)

caubert (1301759) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197403)

Opera is my primary browser, but it saddens me they have not implemented smart card support. Here in Estonia we use our ID-cards everyday and it's painful to use FF or IE for banking, voting etc.

AdBlock Plus? NoScript? (2, Interesting)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28197521)

So, does Opera have any functionality at least as good as AdBlockPlus and NoScript?

They are the /only/ reason I use Firefox. Really, for webbrowsers, AdBlock Plus is the killer app - if Opera can block ads at least that well, I'll be done with Firefox for good. If not, I have no reason to use it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>