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!

Opera 10.0 Released, With Integrated Web Server Functionality

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the two-way-street dept.

The Internet 437

sherl0k writes "Opera 10.0, dubbed Opera Unite, has been released. Built into the Web browser is a full-fledged Web server, complete with nifty little gadgets such as a 'fridge' that people can post notes onto, a chat room, a widget to stream your music library anywhere, and a built-in file-sharing mechanism. It also scores 100/100 on the Acid3 test." Readers fudreporter and TLS point to The Register's report on the new release and a 5-minute video demo, respectively. Update: 06/16 15:18 GMT by T: Roar Lauritzsen of Opera Software writes to point out that "release" isn't quite the right word here; though you can download it, version 10.0 is still in beta, and the version with Unite is a labs (experimental) release.

cancel ×

437 comments

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

What? (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346981)

No kitchen sink?

Re:What? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347241)

The sink will be available as an Opera Widget.

Excellent! (5, Funny)

shadow349 (1034412) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346991)

I'm sure all seven Opera users will be thrilled.

Re:Excellent! (2, Funny)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347039)

They're all UNITED, though!

Re:Excellent! (3, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347309)

eh, how wrong is the summary. Opera 10 != Opera Unite. Its just a feature in it. Surprisingly, TechCrunch has a good summary http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/16/that-reinvention-of-the-web-thing-opera-was-talking-about-its-called-opera-unite/ [techcrunch.com]

Re:Excellent! (4, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347361)

âoeCurrently, most of us contribute content to the Web (for example by putting our personal information on social networking sites, uploading photos to Flickr, or maybe publishing blog posts), but we donâ(TM)t contribute to its fabric â" the underlying infrastructure that defines the online landscape that we inhabit.

Our computers are only dumb terminals connected to other computers (meaning servers) owned by other people â" such as large corporations â" who we depend upon to host our words, thoughts, and images. We depend on them to do it well and with our best interests at heart. We place our trust in these third parties, and we hope for the best, but as long as our own computers are not first class citizens on the Web, we are merely tenants, and hosting companies are the landlords of the Internet.â

This is more of a way for people to communicate, share and do stuff together rather than using websites. You know, P2P. It has developer API so new stuff can be added, opera's own stuff currently include webserver, chat room, note board, streaming and file sharing.

Its quite nice system actually, and you dont need to share your stuff to all of the internet or upload your photos to facebook or similar.

Re:Excellent! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347509)

While it is an interesting idea, in the US at least it would run afoul of the TOS most people agreed to when they signed up for their broadband connection. That and bandwidth constraints on the upload side of their connection.

Re:Excellent! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347519)

Dude, what's with all those fucked up characters in your post? Did you even look at your preview?

Re:Excellent! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347541)

You must be new here.

Re:Excellent! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347559)

Dial down the drama. It is all funneled through Opera's servers, because if the users knew how to forward a port from their router to their computer, then they could have had their own server for ages. With Opera's help, they can now enjoy their new freedom in Opera's walled garden.

Acid 3 test (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346995)

Pretend for a second that I don't know anything about Acid 3. Pretend I'm just a regular Joe-sixpack web user.

Why should I care that my browser scored 100/100 on the Acid 3 test?

Re:Acid 3 test (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347027)

Pretend for a second that I don't know anything about Acid 3. Pretend I'm just a regular Joe-sixpack web user.

Why should I care that my browser scored 100/100 on the Acid 3 test?

I would pitch Acid 3 compliance in this manner: This web browser is 100% compliant with the proper web rendering standards. The more compliant your web browser is, the less likely your web browser will break. You can take that to the bank. You spend less time with a broken browser, and more time enjoying a cold one.

Re:Acid 3 test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347081)

Yet they still don't support Web Fonts fully & properly; there's lot of bugs in their implementation.

(Large sizes or Bold Italic for example)

Re:Acid 3 test (3, Insightful)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347099)

The more compliant your web browser is, the less likely your web browser will break.

I love webstandards, and wish greatly that all browsers supported them well. But I just don't think that quote is factually true. If your browser adheres to webstandards that IE doesn't then it's quite possible/plausible that your browser will fail to deliver websites that look and function like you and the designer expected it to.

People "should" code to standards, but I just don't think that it's (yet) true that they DO.

Re:Acid 3 test (2, Informative)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347179)

The more compliant your web browser is, the less likely your web browser will break.

I love webstandards, and wish greatly that all browsers supported them well. But I just don't think that quote is factually true. If your browser adheres to webstandards that IE doesn't then it's quite possible/plausible that your browser will fail to deliver websites that look and function like you and the designer expected it to.

People "should" code to standards, but I just don't think that it's (yet) true that they DO.

However Opera is known to also be subject to many IE bugs at will. Ever since the latest browser wars began with firefox 1.3 and early webkit Opera was best out there since it both adhered to standards and didn't break badly made websites. I don't know how they manage doing this, but they do.

Re:Acid 3 test (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347365)

I love webstandards...

Just so you know, "web standards" is two words. Perhaps you are German, or from one of the other countries fond of concatenating words for no apparent reason, however them there is English words, and I'd appreciate if you would desist from joining them together.

Re:Acid 3 test (2, Interesting)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347151)

Talking of banks, will it work at https://www.nwolb.com/ [nwolb.com] or https://www.rbsdigital.com/ [rbsdigital.com] ? They are the world's largest bank, and don't have a good reputation for supporting alternative browsers.

Re:Acid 3 test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347475)

Talking of banks, will it work at https://www.rbsdigital.com/ [rbsdigital.com] ?

It does, but you have to mask as Firefox or IE. (To mask: right-click on page and choose 'Edit Site Preferences', then go to the 'Network' tab and change the browser ID)

Re:Acid 3 test (5, Funny)

bigpresh (207682) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347153)

You spend less time with a broken browser, and more time enjoying a cold one.

Dude, necrophilia is wrong.

Re:Acid 3 test (1)

Ninjaesque One (902204) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347167)

Is Joe Sixpack a novice on the methods of drinking beer? I've always wondered about this. May be offtopic. Anyways, I can't see how having a full-featured Web server in your browser can be good for security.

Re:Acid 3 test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347041)

because when the IE starts supporting the same standards, the web will get nicer looking/easyer to web design/less cross browser error prone.

Re:Acid 3 test (2, Interesting)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347131)

To paraphrase that to fit what Generic Joe will hear:
"You'll have to grin and bear it as you use an internet that wasn't written to use these standards, BUT, if you and lots of other people start using Opera then those websites will be written to comply with those standards and that'll be great!"

Not sure that's a terribly compelling argument to Generic Joe. Some will certainly go for it, willing to bite the bullet to advance humanity a little bit, but a lot of people just want to use the internet.

Re:Acid 3 test (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347311)

It's an accessibility thing.

The score refers to how usable a browser is to someone on acid, so 100/100 means someone on acid can use the browser fully. It came about as a realisation that some of the worlds greatest computer scientists were users of acid, particularly at Berkley and hence there was recognition that we needed to ensure that they too can use the internet.

No, seriously though that's bullshit, it's actually a standards compliance test. If you've used multiple browsers you may have come across some times that just don't look right, where something is out of place or something - this is ever less common now, but it's generally because a browser doesn't properly support the standards that make up web pages - standards such as HTML, XHTML, CSS etc.

If a browser has 100/100 on the test it means it can correctly render everything that the test consists of as it's supposed to according to the standards.

Chances are if your browser doesn't score 100/100 in the acid tests there will be some sites that don't look as they should, although you may never even know as some of the things it covers are non-obvious unless you're aware of the issue beforehand.

Re:Acid 3 test (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347547)

Acid 3 is completely irrelevant to users, it's important for web designers. Each Acid test demonstrates, in an easy-to-test way, a certain subset of web standards. When all of the major browsers pass them, you can safely use that subset of the standards and be sure that your users will see the page you want them to see.

OMG! That bug is coming back! (1, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347001)

In the early days Netscape came with some such functionality. And the websites were able to derive an object from one of the server classes. Some of the private/public/protected interfaces were messed up. So a malicious site could promote that object and essentially ask for anything in the computer and get it.

Acid test tests only the compatibility with the standards. It says nothing about how vulnerable the executable is in the hands of malicious web masters.

Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! (3, Insightful)

Amouth (879122) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347079)

something sitting in the back of my head telling me that i would trust Opera to do it FAR more better than Netscape - if not for the reason that when Netscape did it.. no one thought people would be evil with it.. second Opera is by far one of the most secure browsers out there, let alone the fastest (although chrome is giving it a run for it's money on that front).

Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347411)

FAR more better

Hmmm.

Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! (2, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347423)

Actually, no, Opera is not one of the fastest browsers out there as This, on Mac OS [kent.ac.uk] , and this on windows [kent.ac.uk] show -- note, what is showing as opera 9.8 is 10.0 beta, I've yet to test the final release of 10.0, but you're of course welcome to try to duplicate my results.

Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347473)

There isn't a final release of Opera 10 yet. The summary is just wrong. Unite is a "Labs" release. Think Google Labs, just from Opera.

Gaping security wound (0)

mrraven (129238) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347103)

Nuff said,

Re:OMG! That bug is coming back! (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347265)

This is an alpha release, as others have pointed out. It's not even part of the default browser install - it's a separate download. Treat it as a proof-of-concept and kick the tyres.

Also, this is 2009, not 1995. We know a lot more about developing more secure software, having secure development lifecycles, and reacting to vulnerabilities and updating software.

Fractional horsepower web servers [scripting.com] are not a new idea, but baking them into the browser is, and assuming the feature is off by default, it's a great idea. It makes the web a bit more equal and opens up new avenues for collaboration.

Alpha! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347017)

Somewhere in the summary you REALLY should mention this is an ALPHA release, not a final release.

Thanks.

Re:Alpha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347143)

Oh, gee, alpha release software, can I download it now? ;-)

Re:Alpha! (0, Flamebait)

xtracto (837672) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347223)

Don't Worry, since KDE, KDevelop, etc... slashdotters have get used to the idea that if it is a ".0" release, then it is crappy.

Re:Alpha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347563)

Wow an AC that got +5?

What next? Loving Microsoft Vista?

Nicole's Cooter? (1)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347045)

Pretty funny user name for the person giving the demo in the video hehe "niclescooter"...

using it now. Very, very impressed. (4, Interesting)

Hanzie (16075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347049)

I'm posting this from Opera 10. It seems quite different from the last version. Slashdot looks very, very good. To enable the file sharing, you have to click the "+" tab at the bottom and explicitly enable the web serving goodness. It includes a media player, to share your music collection around. I think we might have a game changer here. hanzie.

Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. (4, Informative)

nkh (750837) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347085)

I tried it and love it! It has a few "widgets" installed by default (which may be removed in the final version): file, note, and photo sharing, a media player, a simple chat, and a web server that you point to a specific folder on your disk. Of course more functionality will come with the SDK (and there's also a template library to write code faster)

Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. (1)

bonizzem (654763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347305)

I think i'll give it a try, but it's hard to let me forget firefox with all the extension and a standalone HFS.

Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. (2, Informative)

Hanzie (16075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347113)

Damn fast, too. Google Docs works very well, and is very quick.

OMG!!!! Give The Fanboy Hype A Rest!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347185)

You retarded attempt at hyping this browser no one gives a shit about is 'very, very' annoying.

Re:OMG!!!! Give The Fanboy Hype A Rest!!!! (2, Informative)

Carik (205890) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347273)

So when was the last time you tried Opera? I still use Firefox for a few things, and even IE, but the vast majority of my web browsing is done in Opera. It's faster, it's cleaner, mouse gestures are installed by default, and I like the way they use tabs better. With 10, the speed-dial tool actually got to be slightly useful, which I hadn't expected. It's been ages since I found a site that just plain didn't work in Opera, except ones that require ActiveX, and those don't work all that well in Firefox, either.

So why the hatred? Given that it's just a browser, and can't have killed your dog/cat/relative, I don't get it.

If you don't like it, don't use it. But don't insult those of us who find it to be a more usable browser.

Re:OMG!!!! Give The Fanboy Hype A Rest!!!! (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347299)

Obviously you care enough to reply. AC retard.

Re: 'fanboy' ac. (1)

Hanzie (16075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347323)

If you're completely uninterested in this browser, why are you reading this thread? let alone posting. If you're truly bored, there's an ascii goatse link in an earlier thread above.

That goatse link, plus some tissues, should afford you at least an hour's relaxation and enjoyment. And if you're using Opera, you can go to the Tools -> "Delete Private Data" after you're done cleaning the floor and your screen. Nobody will ever know.

Re: 'fanboy' ac. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347461)

What a pathetic attempt at flaming.

No wonder everyone hates this shitty browser with its tiny number of fans being total losers like you.

Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. (2, Funny)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347233)

Me too. Although I couldn't say /. looks very, very good :-(

Re:using it now. Very, very impressed. (4, Funny)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347295)

Me too. Although I couldn't say /. looks very, very good :-(

But at least you can say it's rendered properly.

Sweet Zombie Exploit Jesus (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347055)

It's a botnet writer's wet dream; a victim that will host your exploit once you've pwned it.

We can only hope that it's secure, or else the two dozen people who actually use Opera will be very unpopular indeed, at least until the RIAA has then rounded up for sharing their tunes with (world + dog).

Mac version (0, Flamebait)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347059)

Does it look Mac-like yet?

Re:Mac version (1)

ablaze (222561) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347277)

Unfortunately, it still looks completely out of place.

Re:Mac version (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347447)

Unfortunately, it still looks completely out of place.

It's highly functional. Of course it looks out of place on a Mac.

Re:Mac version (1)

Youx (988716) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347487)

Don't know, I tried running it and it crashed on startup.

The ISP's will be thrilled (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347067)

The single biggest hurdle I see (at least one that they don't immediately address in TFA) is that most ISP's block incoming TCP connections on port 80. Even if the port is forwarded on the end user's router, many will still be unable to host their own sites without using a custom port.

Re:The ISP's will be thrilled (1)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347429)

There's no need for a web connection to go over port 80.

10.0 still beta and Unite is alpha (4, Informative)

ablaze (222561) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347069)

Looks great, except that 10.0 isn't released yet, and Opera Unite is a "labs build", aka alpha release.

Re:10.0 still beta and Unite is alpha (1)

117 (1013655) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347335)

Indeed, the current released version from opera.com is 9.64. The download from the linked Unite website is actually calling itself 'Opera 10 Beta Presto 2.2' when you go to install it.

Re:10.0 still beta and Unite is alpha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347383)

Exactly. The /. post is utterly wrong. Opera 10 is still in beta. Unite is alpha.

opera ftl (-1, Flamebait)

fostro1 (1557269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347087)

I installed opera once, then I went to a webpage and it didn't load. Then I unistalled it and never used it again.

Re:opera ftl (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347137)

this [goatse.ch] page?

Re:opera ftl (1)

WebmasterNeal (1163683) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347155)

Yeah.....I don't think I'll be clicking that link, and I wouldn't recommend others do either.

Re:opera ftl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347269)

Yeah.....I don't think I'll be clicking that link, and I wouldn't recommend others do either.

Sounds like you already fell for it before.
That which is seen cannot be unseen.

oblig. Simpsons quote:

Ned: Well, boys, good thing we brought the eye soap! (Uses it on both Rod & Todd)
Rod & Todd: Ow! The burning is love!

Re:opera ftl (0, Redundant)

Gi0 (773404) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347239)

I used a toilet once and it wouldnt flush.So i never bothered flushing again.

Re:opera ftl (1)

fostro1 (1557269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347287)

you fail because there is no alternative for using a toilet...that is, for a civilized person...

Re:opera ftl (1)

Gi0 (773404) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347375)

You do understand that my point was to give something that seems to work(acid test 100/100 in this case) a least a second chance,right?

Re:opera ftl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347307)

Probably because you're an idiot.

So very very stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347109)

A file server should clearly not be browser functionality. Browsers already have a hard time protecting users and their data from malicious web sites. Building a firewall-piercing file server into a browser, a program which typically has full network and file system access, is going to cause many incidents of accidental file sharing.

Why does a web browser have FS access (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347169)

Building a firewall-piercing file server into a browser, a program which typically has full network and file system access, is going to cause many incidents of accidental file sharing.

Why does a web browser have full access to the file system, other than read-only access to its own "program" and "files to upload" folders and read-write access to "user profile", "cache", and "downloaded files" folders?

Re:Why does a web browser have FS access (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347209)

It has filesystem access because, even without a file server component, users want to upload files, for example to order prints or add pictures to their social networking pages.

File chooser service; copy to shared folder (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347409)

Why does a web browser have full access to the file system, other than read-only access to its own "program" and "files to upload" folder[...]

It has filesystem access because, even without a file server component, users want to upload files

Uploading a file doesn't need file system access; it needs file chooser access. In the Sugar toolkit used by OLPC's XO laptops, for instance, apps that let the user select a file send a request to the file chooser service [laptop.org] , which then opens the file and passes the equivalent of a file descriptor to the app. (In fact, a Sugar app's installer doesn't even let a single program request both directory listing and network connection privileges; the user has to apply them manually after the fact.) Another way to do this is to have the user use the operating system's file manager to copy the file into "files to upload" before uploading it, and then the "Browse" button behaves more like the pop-up menu that a <select> element creates.

Security (3, Insightful)

sleekware (1109351) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347119)

I don't think it's a good idea to run a web server on the average user's PC for security reasons. If there is a web server running on an un-patched (or not patched up to date, rather) and improperly firewalled it could be compromised in a small amount of time. Seeing as many have personal data on their PC as well this makes it worse. Plus, isn't it common practice to separate web servers from the rest of a network also for security reasons?

Re:Security (2, Funny)

CatBegemot (1326539) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347321)

Botnet owners think you're wrong.

Uptime (1)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347165)

Ugh, so now geeks uptimes will be rivalled by their mums trying to host their latest ramblings 24x7 through Opera.

In a world where we are trying to lower power consumption I somehow get the feeling this won't help.

Re:Uptime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347573)

Way to miss the point hairshirt.

Wait a minute (1)

Amiralul (1164423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347173)

Wait, wait, wait... Opera 10 is still in beta and there is a clear distinction between Opera "the browser" and Opera Unite, which is probably in alpha state. So, do not confuse Opera 10 Web Browser with the new Opera Unite buzz word. How hard can it be to understand that?

Oblig (3, Funny)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347181)

Yo dawg, I heard you like surfing, so we put a web server in your browser so you can surf while your surf!

Not 10.0 release (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347191)

Just in case no one else has posted, but this is not the 10.0 release. This is a labs build a little further on than the 10.0 beta. it is not final.

bloat (-1)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347211)

As cool as an integrated web server sounds, this really looks likes the bloat that made the first round of web wars really suck. It is innovative, and will gain Opera marketshare, but what is the overall picture here?

I have said this many times. Opera is a probably the coolest web browser. I believe the only reason they do not have more market share right now is because when there was a chance to become dominant on the non-MS platforms, they focused MS Platform and competing directly with MS, instead of filling a hole that existed at the time in the non-MS platforms. Now it seems that they are following MS lead by providing proprietary bloat instead cross platform functionality.

The acid 3 test is good, but so last year. Here is what would be cool. A mechanism that would allow the browser to use firefox plugins. Opera does not seem to have the wealth of plugins that firefox does, and from what I can tell, plugins is why people use firefox. Instead of wasting effort, why not make Opera so it can use the Firefox model?

Re:bloat (1)

rarel (697734) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347381)

I find that having everything available, and just pruning functions I don't use is much easier than having to chase whatever extension I want until I'm done. As far as I am concerned, Opera's approach is perfect. It's quicker and more efficient.

That said, YMMV.

Re:bloat (1)

Hanzie (16075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347443)

I suspect the programming would be quite tedious, and then Opera would have to slavishly follow firefox wherever it went, or would have to have a kludgy slow emulator. Since one of Opera's main features is it's speed, this would really make it more trouble than it's worth.

Meanwhile, it is completely reasonable to run Opera and Firefox simultaneously. I do it all the time, and for exactly the reasons you are mentioning above. In fact, I'm doing it right now on an XP system.

There are some websites that I want firefox for, and there are others that opera works better for. With the advent of tabbed browsing and the ability to open a folder full of links on each, bookmark sharing is much less a concern.

Re:bloat (2, Informative)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347489)

Now it seems that they are following MS lead by providing proprietary bloat instead cross platform functionality.

Huh? I run Opera on Windows, various Linux distros, Mac and Open Solaris, you can also find it in use on Wii, Symbian, FreeBSD, Windows Mobile, Nintendo DS. That's not enough platforms for you?

Auto-updates? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347225)

What about auto-updates?

This is something what prevents me from even considering Opera as main web-browser.

IE (in a way) does it. Chrome does it. FireFox does it. Opera - doesn't.

Re:Auto-updates? (0)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347257)

You should not be running your browser as a user that has access to update it anyway.

Re:Auto-updates? (1)

talleyrand (318969) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347281)

You mean something like

Help -> Check for updates

Re:Auto-updates? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347327)

No, I want it like in FireFox: "Help" > "Restart and install updates." (Or whatever it is called.)

Opera 9.x pretty much always tells "Oh! Update X.XX is available! Click here to download!!!". After clicking it sends you to generic download page where you have to download newer Opera version manually and install it manually. That sucks.

P.S. Sorry to be that spoiled by FireFox.

Re:Auto-updates? (2, Informative)

elcid73 (599126) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347301)

10.0 has auto updates, but as other commenters have pointed out- 10.0 is in beta and seperate from the "Opera Unite" stuff of the article. You can learn more about auto update and try it out on the beta page [opera.com]

Re:Auto-updates? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347349)

"Auto-update" is really in 10.x. Thanks for the link!

Re:Auto-updates? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347455)

Well, Opera has semi-auto-updates, which are not so bad either.

Bloatware and sceruity holes (1)

classicvw (743849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347293)

This is the problem with software. They try and try to add more functionality to it, that 90% of the users do not use. This creates more and more chances for security flaws, and makes the software very bloated. How many users actually want to run their version of a browser, as a server. Leave those things as add-ons, and the person that wants them can "add" them.

Google Wave, anyone? (1)

patro (104336) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347303)

Despite the obvious differences the whole thing somehow reminded me of Google Wave. It seems when the time of an idea comes (distributed communication service, every user can run a server easily, something like that) then different teams come up with similar solutions independently without knowing about each other's work.

The apparent drawbacks of Opera Unite are bandwidth problems when running locally (e.g. ADSL upload speed) and the services being dependent on your computer being turned on.

Google Wave seems more promising in the long run.

Re:Google Wave, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347451)

"Google Wave seems more promising in the long run." ..... it seems more promising PERIOD

this is just not new and not an innovation

Google Wave is browser independent, flexible and USES OPENID, there's no way to compare to this piece of cr*p.

Kneejerk reaction like normal. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347347)

You should reread and look at what is actually going on.

Why will this not lead to a hackers wet dream? Static HTML, no scripting language so nothing like php vulnerabilities or access to anything except what the browser allows you to. The file shares are running from a folder that you select to share. This makes a VERY nice way to share big files with your friends. Access is not publicly advertised, you have to invite somebody to have access. If they do give some dynamic features it will be in the form of widgets (which themselves are sandboxed) and gives them a lot of control over what those widgets are and aren't allowed to do.

A number of these features seem akin to devices such as slingbox which let you pick up your home tv from anywhere and gives you access to your material anywhere you go.

Opera already has chat functionality so hosting its own IRC or whatever isn't a big jump.

I find it funny the google talks about wave and everybody is all gaga over it but opera is bring something similar that is not hosted and its horrible.

Re:Kneejerk reaction like normal. (1)

CatBegemot (1326539) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347567)

Let me see... oh, wait, I know - because this is nothing like Wave. Wave isn't running web server on your localhost. If I would record all your keystrokes, zip the log and make it available - I wouldn't need any scripting functionality either.

FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347371)

sorry, but this is not what I call "reinventing the web"

another username, another password, another website to remember...

why not use openid?

this is not the future of the web, this is just another version of another browser just like the others

#FAIL

WTF? (0, Flamebait)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347373)

Ok, in the interests of not being redundant, I'm going to entirely skip the "OMG CAN ANYONE SAY BLOAT" topic.

A web server?

A WEB SERVER?

I will always – ALWAYS – believe a web server is dangerous in the hands of an idiot (and yes, the vast majority of computer users are idiots, in terms of computer literacy). I challenge you to convince me otherwise (actually, never mind... it's probably not worth your time).

At worst, you've opened a massive set of new vulnerabilities – again, not going to go into redundant levels of detail here, but a general attitude amongst IT is "LimeWire = Virus". Not because it's true, but because so many idiots manage to illustrate it.

At best, ...there is no best case. I guarantee that there are enough idiots out there that they will find some way to make the worst come true.

Frankly, if Opera wants to make a web browser that Gramma can use, adding a web server was a poor choice.

Re:WTF? (1)

unifyingtheory (1357069) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347579)

1. Grandma doesn't know what a web browser is.
2. the web server is disable by default.

Opera + Gears + Webserver + PDA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347379)

Opera already have a very nice version resized to fit in a PDA and it's integrated with Google Gears persistence. It would be a *perfect* execution plataform but unfortunately Windows Mobile is so buggy that it deactivates the IP stack if you're not physically connected to the network so it's impossible to run an offline version of the application. But if Opera includes an embedded web server...

Holy security nightmare. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347407)

how long until this is owned? it probably already is.

This is not the final 10.0 yet (1)

szotsaki (1470839) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347453)

The latest stable release of Opera is 9.6 [opera.com] .

This is an Opera Labs release with a new (and btw. great) functionality. That's why it is listed on the Desktopteam Blog [opera.com] .

Its version number also says it's 10.00 Beta.

hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28347495)

Now, if only we can convince Europe to ram it in into Windows..

opera - no longer an Enterprise option (0, Troll)

ekimminau (775300) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347539)

As long as the market Opera was searching for is the Home user, I guess opening up another 10 attack vectors into a users desktop/laptop isn't necessarily a bad thing but this has all but eliminated Opera from ever being a viable enterprise browser candidate. I don't care what perceived benefit there might be for adding all this crap into a web browser, the impact of adding 1,000+ clients all firing up web servers, file sharing, a chat client and all that other stuff is going to kill the WAN for any significantly sized business. IMHO, this release is about as stupid as it gets. Someone with true brillance didn't think this through.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>