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 Unite Web Server Benchmarked

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-bad-for-a-bonus-feature dept.

Software 227

worb writes "Opera Unite comes with a web server which is supposedly going to 'redefine the web.' But how well does it actually perform? Is it a threat to other server solutions? Someone put it to the test, and published the results. While nginx, one of the fastest web servers available, is 5 times faster, a PHP+Apache+MySQL server is only 2 times as fast. A compiled C++ server, the MadFish WebToolkit, is 6 times faster. He concludes that Opera Unite's server is impressive, and that the others come nowhere close to the ease of use."

cancel ×

227 comments

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

Misleading, again (5, Insightful)

SteelRealm (1363385) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384731)

Opera's Unite is not meant to refine the web as a hosting solution in the traditional sense, but as a way to make your files accessible to yourself and others through it. I don't think anyone is questioning whether it is a better hosting solution then a dedicated server. It's also worth it to note that Unite is a Alpha release with lots of bugs to be fixed and performance tuning and optimization to be done.

Re:Misleading, again (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384819)

Sure. It sounds like it's great at what it's meant to do, get the job done and get it done easily.

Re:Misleading, again (3, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384859)

...a way to make your files accessible to yourself and others through it.

Can you say "huge honking security hole"?

Re:Misleading, again (4, Interesting)

SteelRealm (1363385) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384881)

Considering how quickly Opera patches everything, I don't see this as any bigger a threat than normal browsing. People who use your Unite page to access things have only got access to what you allow them to see and what you've choicen to host through Unite.

Re:Misleading, again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385289)

Wow i've only seen more fanfare and general fanboyism on with apple products. I seriously think if Apple bought Opera there would be a major terrorist attack involving 10 million fan boys jizzing their pants. It would really be a messy sight. I look forward to posts on this thread about this replacing apache and people using Unite as a production server.

Re:Misleading, again (2, Insightful)

patro (104336) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385355)

...a way to make your files accessible to yourself and others through it.

Can you say "huge honking security hole"?

Every server is a security hole waiting to be fixed.

I Call Shenanigans (4, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385513)

Can you say "huge honking security hole"?

The great news is there are viable replacements for this reference to Microsoft's operating system. Debian, BSD's, maybe some other Linux distro are more than capable of serving and Opera runs on all of them.

Another Opera summary that's mostly flamebait. That's disappointing because it's a good idea whose time has been very long in coming.

Re:Misleading, again (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386063)

Three levels of privacy, default being number two.

1. Public, anyone can access.
2. Passworded, give them the link, they can access, they give that link to someone else, so can they.
3. Private. Only the Opera Account holder can access.

Also, it is only accessible while someone has Opera open. One can start and stop each unite service individually also.

Sounds like it has some decent basic security to me :)

Disturbing trend (5, Insightful)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384753)

I'm disturbed by the centralization taking place on the web, where by networks like email are replaced with proprietary walled-garden social networks, and entire webpages once written in the open html standard are being done entirely in flash. I'm starting to have hope for the future now. HMTL 5 will reduce the need for proprietary plugins, for sure. This Opera web server thing could work towards decentralizing the web as well. Sure, anybody can set up a web server to host their own content in theory, but its too difficult for average folks to do. With this technology, perhaps more people will sidestep commercial options, and host web pages on their own - meaning less reliance on geocities, google sites, ect. And thats good. It's not healthy for a few companies to have that sort of control over a medium.

Re:Disturbing trend (4, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384833)

I'm disturbed by the centralization taking place on the web, where by networks like email are replaced with proprietary walled-garden social networks, and entire webpages once written in the open html standard are being done entirely in flash.

I know! For example, Facebook has made it completely impossible to deploy and host one's own website. They simply *force* you to put everything in their system. And don't get me started on the likes of Twitter, which has forced everyone to stop using Twitter in favour of their system. I mean, at least if I could *choose*, but you can't because they can control your *mind*! Yes, very disturbing indeed...

Re:Disturbing trend (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384879)

rofl, man I gotta proof read. I believe I meant "stop using email"... :)

Re:Disturbing trend (4, Insightful)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385521)

You aren't taking network effects into account. I'm young, and most of my friends are in their 20s. Some of them never check their emails, and insist that I send everything to them through myspace. Why? Because all of their friends use myspace too, and none of their friends email that often. So yeah, I have the choice of emailing my friends, but their dependence on myspace forces my hand. We all have a choice, but these mediums have generated enough momentum already that it's very hard to get by when using the alternatives.

Re:Disturbing trend (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385965)

I get some the same thing only with Facebook but I just refuse to bow to their demands.

Yeah, right . . . (4, Insightful)

siloko (1133863) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385987)

and most of my friends are in their 20s. Some of them never check their emails

I'm guessing none of your friends either work or are at college. Try telling your boss or University sysadmin that you don't want customer emails or system notices because you won't read them unless they are sent via mySpace . . . No job/Slap around the face will quickly ensue!

Re:Disturbing trend (2, Insightful)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386075)

What? Your friends are obviously a bit simple. Oh, all of my friends use myspace, I'd better do that as well and ignore email. This scenario that you suggest, suggests to me that you need new friends. Or, get a bunch of friends who actually have a job other than flipping burgers at McDonalds. And why are you letting you friends "force your hand"? That's crazy. Be more sure of yourself and don't give in to their idiot tendencies. Send them emails and force their hand.

Re:Disturbing trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28384873)

I'm disturbed by the centralization taking place on the web, where by networks like email are replaced with proprietary walled-garden social networks

Personally I've switched to Facebook for most of my correspondence instead of email. Why? Spam. I get maybe 300 spams for every legitimate email I get. While Gmail filters most of it, it also occasionally catches the few legitmate emails. With Facebook I get zero spam.

Re:Disturbing trend (2, Interesting)

sjstrutt (603317) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385017)

Opera Unite is not as decentralized as you may think. It still requires that you initialize connections via the machinename.username.operaunite.com domain that you are required to register with Opera. Sure, this is set up to easily traverse a NAT, but it isnt as decentralized as advertised (and you're restricted from hosting content that they consider "obscene, vulgar, hateful, threatening, or that violates any laws".

A more thoughtful take on the subject can be found here: http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/06/16/thoughts-on-opera-unite/ [factoryjoe.com]

Re:Disturbing trend (2, Interesting)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385455)

That's true, but doesn't it also serve as added security versus people connecting directly to your computer?

Re:Disturbing trend (1)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385475)

I didn't know of this requirement when I posted my comment. Does anyone know of a similar application that makes running a temporary web server idiot-proof, that doesn't require special accounts?

Re:Disturbing trend (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385821)

Opera Unite.

Granted, it's still in the alpha stage, but if your router supports UPnP Unite will ask you if you want to have your public ip-address pointing at its webserver. And there is nothing that prevents you from using something like dyndns.org to accomplish your goals:

Like this guy from Opera software did [dyndns.org]

Re:Disturbing trend (2, Interesting)

Chainsaw (2302) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385981)

and you're restricted from hosting content that they consider "obscene, vulgar, hateful, threatening, or that violates any laws"

Dude... You're talking about a company residing in Norway. The third largest export after oil and salmon is Black Metal [norsksvartmetall.com] . Which is kind of bizarre, as Norwegian is probably one of the most cheerful languages there is.

Re:Disturbing trend (4, Informative)

worb (935866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386461)

A more thoughtful take on the subject can be found here:

I'm surprised to see that people are still linking to this. It's basically full of errors, and was written in rage [opera.com] over all the hype Unite was getting. He was angry about how people just repeated Opera's claims blindly. Kind of like you are blindly referring to his blog post even though it turns out that the post is too inaccurate to really be used for anything.

You really should read some of the comments on the page you are linking to, in order to see people correcting all the misconceptions. For example the misconception that everything goes through a proxy, as you claim it does. Furthermore Chris's comments where fun until Haavard took him down a notch on his own blog, resulting in Chris himself posting on Haavard's blog with a massively different tone.

Re:Disturbing trend (0, Offtopic)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385033)

Uuhhhh....I really hate to rain on your parade and all, but you do know that Opera Unite will send everything through Opera's servers [infoworld.com] right?

Allow me to quote you a snippet of the relevant text "Although Opera Unite claims to "directly link people's personal computers together," to use it you need an account on Opera's servers, and all of your exchanges pass through Opera's servers first."

So I'm afraid it doesn't work like you think it does. All it does is move the central hub from Facebook to Opera. Considering how low their marketshare is I really doubt everyone is going to switch browsers just so they can see Aunt Marsha's new vacation photos. And considering that Opera is the only main browser besides IE that is closed source and proprietary frankly nobody should be surprised.

I predict Opera will hang on for another year or two, thanks to their mobile division, but eventually that will be taken by Google or Apple or Mobile Mozilla and then they will be kaput. Damned shame, as during the IE5 period they really had a shot of gaining a chunk of the market, but they never really knew how to market Opera effectively.

Re:Disturbing trend (4, Informative)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385367)

Except that you don't need to use opera in order to access the content, you just follow a link and any browser should take you there.

Re:Disturbing trend (3, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385587)

So I can just download Opera and have it all work with out an Opera account? Nope, won't work, sorry. whoever is sharing HAS to have an Opera account.

So tell me mods, how exactly is this offtopic? he claimed that it would "decentralize the web" and I pointed out in the very article that was on Slashodt yesterday, and I again quote "Although Opera Unite claims to "directly link people's personal computers together," to use it you need an account on Opera's servers, and all of your exchanges pass through Opera's servers first.That's an effective way to get around technical difficulties like NAT firewalls, but more important, it makes Opera the intermediary in your social interactions -- not Facebook, not MySpace, but Opera."

Don't believe me? Read [infoworld.com] it yourself. The simple fact is if you have NAT there is NO WAY to use this at all without Opera servers as the MiTM, okay? And who doesn't use NAT in this day and age? Hell even my 67 year old dad who doesn't have a fricking clue about computers has a wireless router doing NAT.

So mod me down ALL you want, I've got enough karma to burn for centuries. Did I say Opera was bad? Nope, my oldest won't even touch anything else. But don't lie and say the sky is pink when it is blue. The simple fact is you CAN'T use this new feature without an Opera account. Sorry, but it just don't work, because it was designed to go through Opera's servers. So all you are doing with Opera Unite is moving the central server from Facebook to Opera. Sorry, but that doesn't sound very revolutionary to me.

Re:Disturbing trend (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385931)

You can connect directly to the IP and port 8840 without going through Opera's servers.

Re:Disturbing trend (1, Insightful)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386231)

And without a domain name, who's going to do that? In any case, NAT (which basically everyone has or should have!) makes this silly and meaningless. Anybody savvy enough--and with an ISP terms-of-use agreement liberal enough--to set up Opera Unite as their web server on a private account can probably set up a real web server running Wordpress or whatever.

Or just spend $5/month for shared hosting and do it that way.

Re:Disturbing trend (2, Insightful)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385189)

Sure, anybody can set up a web server to host their own content in theory, but its too difficult for average folks to do. With this technology, perhaps more people will sidestep commercial options, and host web pages on their own - meaning less reliance on geocities, google sites, ect. And thats good. It's not healthy for a few companies to have that sort of control over

Years ago, I remember certain broadband ISPs would probe certain ports on the customer's side (HTTP, FTP, etc) and do a variety of dickhead things if they found a server running (automatically update the customer to a more expensive plan, send warnings, terminate service) even if the "server" was serving no content or if a different application was listening on the port. Do companies still do this anymore?

Way back when I first learned about how TCP/IP worked, I knew that content corporations would always try to somehow override or make irrelevant the fact that the Internet is just a big network of peers rather than a "we only sell, you only buy" arrangement. It's the center issue of the whole net neutrality thing. It's just nice to see some companies at least trying to put more control back into the hands of the user.

Re:Disturbing trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385749)

Optimum Online (CableVision) still blocks port 80 (and I think 25, too) on all but their most expensive residential plans. (They do 101 mbit/s cable internet: I assure you they have plenty expensive plans.) I run an HTTP server on a different port (which is annoying, but people are only going to get to it via links anyway) and SSH on the default port which they seem to not care about.

It's a toy... (3, Insightful)

jo42 (227475) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384779)

Is it a threat to other server solutions?

In one word, No.

In more words, can it run apps written in PHP, Ruby, Python, Java, etc. with SQL server database back ends? No.

Can it be load-balanced, clustered, etc. on servers in a data center? Well, maybe if you tried hard enough. Heck, you do anything if you try hard enough. But in one word, No.

Re:It's a toy... (5, Insightful)

SteelRealm (1363385) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384811)

It's not meant to act as a serious server, just to allow easy access to files and content made avaible to Opera on the user's computer. They said it's unlikely PHP and MySQL will be added, but the possiblity that they might do it is there in the future. It's a toy to attract users and to maintain those who may consider leaving the browser, and it's doing just that. Anyone who wants to share content with friends/family can easily do it, and it's incredibly handy for people who use multiple computers.

By Neruos (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28384829)

You know, I didn't think this was going to get so much attention on /. But here we are going on 2+ threads in a week about this product. I was going to post the 2 hacks I found in the webserver, but I think I'll wait until a bunch of people use it then sell the backdoors to the highest bidder.

Still an Epic Fail (0, Troll)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384847)

So what? It's a somewhat slow web server. It's easy, guys. If you want to leave your home machine naked to the net, use real and tested server software. If you want to do all the tasks done by Unite but easier, get cheap or free web hosting and a Facebook page.

Re:Still an Epic Fail (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28384865)

...and leave all your data on someone else's server, which is exactly what Unite allows you NOT to do. Why would I pay for web hosting or let Facebook hold my data hostage when I can distribute whatever I want, including any size pictures (have you seen the size of Facebook photos?) to whomever I want using Unite?

Re:Still an Epic Fail (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385117)

Because for the market its going after (people who don't have the knowledge or expertise to set up a real web server) is almost 100% populated by people who won't keep up security patches or really understand the security risk of the product? Not to mention if you don't want the data on another person's server, I'd think really damn hard about putting it on a web server. If you don't trust it on a remote host, it probably shouldn't be web accessible.

Re:Still an Epic Fail (3, Insightful)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385233)

>>If you don't trust it on a remote host, it probably shouldn't be web accessible.

Yeah, but maybe this product (and ones already out there and soon to follow) will allow us to expand our idea of what should be web accessible.

For example I wouldn't make my entire MP3 collection web accessible using Google storage space. Why because even though my intention is to use it only so "I" can access all my music anywhere I go, Google might not see it that way. (Or what ever company I happen to have storing my data). With Unite and a few clicks I can have my music available to me and not have to worry about the company hosting it thinking I might be breaking the law.

Re:Still an Epic Fail (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385759)

Actually, you are breaking the law. Streaming makes a copy. Not that I think it should be so, but that's how it is.

If you want to put data up and have it be private, encrypt it. Personal webservers on your home machine are not a good idea unless you really know what you're doing. Which is a pretty small percent of people. Having it built into a web browser is not a good idea.

Re:Still an Epic Fail (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385923)

Uh, good luck finding a remote host willing to host your photos easily without claiming rights to them.

Re:Still an Epic Fail (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386239)

If you don't trust it on a remote host, it probably shouldn't be web accessible.

With the the way many ToS's are worded I find it a rather sensible thing to not trust remote hosts. Remember this?" [consumerist.com] and there are plenty more examples like that around.

Re:Still an Epic Fail (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386441)

It's a good thing Opera 10 has automatic updates, then.

Unite is no more of a security risk than anything else that connects to the web.

If I don't trust Flickr or don't want them to hold my data hostage, I can still make it accessible over the web. If they grabbed my copyright protected photos from my computer like that and put them on display without my permission, I could sue them. If I uploaded to them, I couldn't, and would lose control.

Re:Still an Epic Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28384945)

It sure is attracting a lot of attention for such an "epic fail"...

Re:Still an Epic Fail (0, Flamebait)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385361)

That's because nothing gives a Slashdotter a hard-on quicker than the words "Opera" or "Linux".

Re:Still an Epic Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385925)

Not even "free high-speed newsgroup access"?

Re:Still an Epic Fail (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386377)

Unite is getting attention way beyond Slashdot.

Re:Still an Epic Fail (3, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385139)

"So what? It's a somewhat slow web server. It's easy, guys. If you want to leave your home machine naked to the net, use real and tested server software. If you want to do all the tasks done by Unite but easier, get cheap or free web hosting and a Facebook page."

I'm guessing you haven't actually tried the software. But you know about problems with it already even though it isn't actually a "webserver/daemon" in the classic sense of the word.

That's kinda like saying "I don't like asparagus but I've never tried it because I don't like it".

Maybe it does have a security hole in it. But shouldn't we actually find out first before we just guess and assume that it does?

Security hole. Pffft. BindOutlookXPIEExcel. Life goes on.

Re:Still an Epic Fail (5, Interesting)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385449)

If you want to do all the tasks done by Unite but easier, get cheap or free web hosting and a Facebook page.

I can set up 40GB+ of music to play via a decent-looking web interface for anyone I send a password and URL to in less than a minute and with 5 or 6 clicks using my Facebook account and some shared web hosting? 'Cuz I did that earlier today with Opera Unite.

I went in to this skeptical, and I barely even used Opera before this (I'm a web developer and, though I admire Opera, I need the tools available in Firefox) but it only took about 5 minutes of tinkering with this thing for me to be sold on it. I believe my exact words on testing the media sharing were "whoa, fuckin' cool!"

Re:Still an Epic Fail (4, Funny)

ardor (673957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385599)

I can set up 40GB+ of music to play via a decent-looking web interface for anyone I send a password and URL to

Nobody expects the RIAA inquisition!

Re:Still an Epic Fail (1)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386079)

I feel dirty just thinking about that. It reminds me of the days where entire hard drives were displayed on Napster.

And you're sure you want to do that? First, it's possibly illegal. Second, it's a security nightmare. Third, you could set up a web server with an actual track record of security.

Ick.

all i need now (1)

markringen (1501853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384869)

all i need now is a dumb server: by that i mean a os that only has 1 single task (webhost). and be truly modular, i don't want several hundred background tasks running all over the place. without rewriting linux/bsd/etc your pretty much screwed, in achieving a clean "security hole free" webserver.

So Opera web browser now runs as a system service? (1, Flamebait)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384885)

So much for Opera being a small, simple, fast web browser. It now has a browser, an email client, a jukebox and a web server all built in.

Hooray for feature bloat and big monolithic applications that try to do everything!

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (4, Insightful)

worb (935866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384895)

And yet it's still smaller than the so-called "pure browsers" ;)

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1, Informative)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385157)

That's not true in any sense. Current version of Firefox is ~7MB, Opera is ~10MB in size.

Ever since version 3 of Firefox it's been one of the most misely in memory usage. It beats older versions of Opera by a long way (no benchmarks yet for Unite but i don't think it's better than the older versions).

http://avencius.nl/content/firefox-3-vs-opera-950-memory-usage [avencius.nl]

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1)

onedotzero (926558) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385991)

For Windows versions, the current 'release' version of Opera (9.64) is 5.4MB. The beta (10.00b1) is 6.6MB. Firefox 3.0.11 is 7MB.

http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/firefox/ [mozilla-europe.org] http://www.opera.com/download/get.pl?id=32022 [opera.com] http://www.opera.com/browser/download/?ver=10.00b1 [opera.com]

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386083)

Yeah those versions aren't Opera Unite. That's what i'm getting at. Those browser only versions are what people think of when they think of Opera. Small, fast and simple.

Opera Unite on the other hand is a much larger monolithic program with many unrelated features hanging off it. It has system services (that's how it keeps the web server up when you close the browser down) so it stays memory resident and uses resources even when you think you've closed the browser.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1)

onedotzero (926558) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386243)

True. So really the size should be compared to other web servers, not other browsers.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (3, Interesting)

worb (935866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386315)

You are comparing apples and oranges. The 10 MB version of Opera has 30 languages included. Compare the basic English version, and the story is quite different.

I don't know about memory usage. In my experience, Opera does better than any other browser there.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28386427)

That "test" you linked to is pathetic, the guy just opens a few tabs and declares a winner. How about some REAL usage? I can make Firefox crawl with my normal usage patterns. Try something like this:

After 3 days of regular use

Firefox 3.0.10 (with Adblock and NoScript) - 1.5GB memory, 50% (1 full core) intermittent CPU usage, even if it was just idling
Opera 9.64 - 350MB memory, 0% consistent CPU usage while idle

On every single PC I have used Firefox on, it always hoarded tons of memory after only a couple of days running until it gets to the point where it's spiking the CPU every 20-30 seconds for no reason. The only way to "fix" it is to exit and restart the browser. Opera has no such problem with resource management and I use it for a hell of a lot more than Firefox.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1)

NervousNerd (1190935) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384901)

There's hope yet, we still have Lynx.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (4, Insightful)

SteelRealm (1363385) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384909)

You realize it is still smaller download then Firefox and has a smaller memory footprint then all other browsers, right?

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (-1, Flamebait)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385103)

Firefox generally uses less memory than other browsers. I do hope Opera is paying you to promote their browser. Do you have a big red "O" on your shirt, too?

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385169)

Firefox generally uses less memory than other browsers

HA HA HA HA HA!!! BS!! Firefox is as memory hungry, if not more, then the rest of the browsers out there.

I do hope Mozilla is paying you to promote their browser. Do you have a picture of a Fox curled up trying to eat it's tail on your shirt, too?

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385195)

Firefox uses less memory than other browsers? Less than IE, maybe. Not less than Opera, Arora, Konqueror and.. well, pretty much everything else. Compare footprints and CPU usage. You'll see the big red "O" is way lighter and has a smaller footprint than FF, even having FF without addons.
Or if you don't have time to do it, maybe stop spreading FUD.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385225)

Firefox 2 had a bug. Firefox 3 does use less than Opera. Much less. (I'll admit these benchmarks aren't for the latest build of Opera, but Opera has more features now not less so i think it's still accurate).

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/03/firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.ars [arstechnica.com]
http://avencius.nl/content/firefox-3-vs-opera-950-memory-usage [avencius.nl]

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (4, Interesting)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385551)

Mileage always varies. I use Opera because if I open up 6 or 7 tabs of the pages I usually visit in Opera, it takes up 90 megs of RAM. If I open them in Firefox they take up around 750 megs. For others the results could probably be the exact opposite.

I will say that, as a long time Opera user, Opera 10 is turning into one of the best releases they've ever done. It outperforms Opera 9.x in any way that matters to me. Speed, memory usage, stability. 9.6 was starting to get on my nerves and I was beginning to use Chrome more and more. But 10 has been a dream.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (2, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385753)

My priority for any browser is standards compliance.

Why? Because I expect browsers to do what the fuck they are told, and I expect to see the expected results from webdevs who are good enough to follow the rules and keep their sites clean.

My browser of choice is Chrome.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (2, Funny)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386675)

My priority for any browser is standards compliance.

My browser of choice is Chrome.

Does not compute.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28386203)

Firefox uses more than Opera on my system

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385239)

I don't know what versions you are talking about, but Firefox uses upwards of 300,000k on my system whereas IE uses about 30,000 - 40,000k with it's multiple processes.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385519)

Firefox generally uses less memory than other browsers.

Citation please.

I do hope Opera is paying you to promote their browser. Do you have a big red "O" on your shirt, too?

Were you going for 5, Inciteful?

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (2, Informative)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385177)

No it isn't. That's something so easy to verify i can't beleive you're at +4 right now.

http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ [mozilla.com]
http://unite.opera.com/ [opera.com]

Opera Unite is a 40% larger download than Firefox.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385447)

Checking the size of the installation folder, Firefox is just over 24MB and Opera Unite is just over 14MB.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (5, Informative)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385885)

This is an Alpha or Beta. Opera 9.64 (final) is only 5.3MB large.

On my computer Firefox consumes way more memory than Opera - but it has so many extensions and plugins installed, that I'd be surprised if it didn't.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386367)

Opera Unite is a 40% larger download than Firefox.

and how big is Firefox if you count all the extensions it needs to get as good as Opera?

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (3, Informative)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385247)

Also, with all this extra stuff, it still runs faster and smoother than any previous version of their browser, there is absolutely no feeling of 'bloat'... and when you turn something off, it stays that way, Turbo, Unite, Mail, Widgets, Dragonfly, etc...

v10 alpha was already faster than v9.64, and almost every new snapshot has been quicker/better than the previous.

It's memory footprint isn't really better, but isn't worse than most others... mine's been running for about 4 days since the last time I closed/re-opened it
Current: 161MB
Peak: 398MB
VM: 205MB
Handles: 708
Threads: 26

But I don't care about that, from a cold start it launches in under a second, whereas Safari and Chrome take about 4, IE and FF 3.5 take about 9, I've ran into 0 problems with webpages with Opera v10, but FF 3.5 (just as Beta as Opera) won't even allow Slashdot to work half the time, however it is a bit faster on some sites, like Facebook... Plus, Opera hides in the systray, and stays completely idle until i need it, or it shows me a new RSS, or email... making it show up instantly when asked, which is more important (to me) than any memory footprint.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385487)

Does it have AdBlock Plus?

I'll gladly wait 5 minutes for my browser to start, if that means I never see any ads of any kind ever.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385677)

You can filter ads with privoxy.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386289)

You can also filter them basically the same way AdBlock does... Opera has the "Blocked Content" (edit manually, or enter the "blocking" mode and just start clicking on stuff) which will do the whole .com/ads/* sort of blocking, you could even download, or use the your existing Adblock list (patterns.ini) with a bit of parsing/editing and using it for Opera (urlfilter.ini), and CSS and JS for more complex blocking

http://www.adsweep.org/ [adsweep.org]
http://userstyles.org/styles/299 [userstyles.org]

etc... quite a bit more manual, but it's not something you have to do very often, however it's essentially the same thing.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (2, Informative)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385613)

Opera 10 is dramatically outshining everything they did in Opera 9.x. 9.x actually led me to try Chrome out more regularly because of performance and stability issues (at least on a modern computer). Opera 10 has been a dream.

On my older computers I don't really have another option. I run 500Mhz Celeron comps with 64-128MB RAM running Damn Small Linux regularly. Firefox barely runs with one tab on those systems while Opera is still quick with 4 or 5 tabs. The difference is night and day.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1)

tpgp (48001) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385793)

Plus, Opera hides in the systray, and stays completely idle until i need it, or it shows me a new RSS, or email.

So does it stay completely idle, or does it show you new RSS / emails as they come in?

Can't be both.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386071)

It's completely idle excluding RSS/Email, those are useful/necessary processes, it' doesn't randomly start doing something unless it needs to is basically what I meant.

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (1)

squiggly12 (1298191) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385561)

Well, right now I just checked how much memory that FF is using on my machine and it has consumed 384, 164 K of memory. Two tabs open.
I just did a fresh install of XP Pro on this machine 5 days ago.
Flamers go away, FF did much better when I was running Vista Ultimate memory-wise. One more beer then bed I promise!

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385681)

SteelRealm, it's "than" not "then".

Re:So Opera web browser now runs as a system servi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28386363)

Don't forget that it handles torrents as well.

Stupid benchmark (4, Insightful)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384961)

The summary conflated a web server with a database and a programming language (PHP+Apache+MySQL) when discussing benchmarking of just a web server.

I'll go ahead and assume that the article isn't worth reading.

Re:Stupid benchmark (2, Informative)

worb (935866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28384979)

What is "just a web server"? He tests both dynamic and static data. PHP and MySQL was just for comparison purposes, to see how the Unite server compares to other web servers.

Re:Stupid benchmark (3, Insightful)

tyrione (134248) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385255)

Java? Ruby? Python? ObjC? Do I need to go on to include the massive depth and breath that Apache 2 covers to even make this remotely worth comparing?

I feel vindicated to some extent (5, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385035)

...He concludes that Opera Unite's server is impressive, and that the others come nowhere close to the ease of use...

When I suggested that Apache needed some thing near to easy configuration, I was labeled a troll and requested not to tinker with such a server if I did not know what I was doing. By the way, I know Apache has some configuration GUIs but none comes close to Opera's offer.

In fact, I was castigated for being one of those who crave "point and click" interfaces that are "responsible" for most of the chaos on the internet.

I am happy that I have one fellow who agrees with me. I will not be surprised if Opera's web server snatches market share from the established ones.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent (3, Insightful)

chdig (1050302) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385359)

Opera's web server has a completely different target market than apache, and is so completely different that to compare Opera to Apache is like comparing benchmarks of serving static content to that which comes from a database -- yes, another silly comparison that TFA for some unknown reason actually makes. Apples ain't oranges!

As others have mentioned, to serve pages to anyone other than yourself, the requests will be sent through (and approved by) Opera's servers. Unite itself isn't open source, apache is. Apache can do almost anything any web developer can dream of. Unite is one dimensional.

As for your configuration "argument", are you still trying to install Apache from source or something? a WAMP install will put apache/mysql/php on your computer in a minute or two. Toss a blog app into the web folder, use a browser to enter its connection settings, and voila! you've got yourself a basic, but dynamic blog online in minutes, just for one example.

But besides using it for web development, running a website with PHP/any dynamic language off your home desktop would be exposing yourself to some serious risks, which is again yet another reason that a Unite/Apache+PHP comparison is completely senseless.

What is truly wrong is that TFA and its "benchmarks" made it onto /., where most of us actually know that dynamic!=static content. A far better, and insightful article on Unite was written by this guy: http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/06/16/thoughts-on-opera-unite/ [factoryjoe.com]

--
The Opera fanboys are out tonight, and with mod points to spare. Hmm, it's not even a full moon.

Re:I feel vindicated to some extent (1)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386265)

There's a dozen free simple "point and click" web servers already in existence. IIS has a "point and click" interface *and* comes installed in most Windows installations and still holds a minority share.

I don't think you understand why Apache is where it is. And it's *hardly* because there's no competition for it. It's fought web servers backed by billion dollar companies to come out on top. There's a reason for that and it's not just because it's free as there's other free web servers that also hold a tiny fraction of the market.

To do anything other than host a simple html site requires complexity. Some thing's can't be made any simpler than they are with trading off far too much flexibility.

If all you need to do is host a simple static website on your PC that has a static IP, then use the right tool for the job. Trying to make Apache something it's not just so that it's easy to do one thing to make 0.01% of the market happy is ridiculous.

"Someone"? (1)

adavies42 (746183) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385119)

Someone put it to the test

"Someone"? Really? Color me paranoid, but I'd be inclined to suspect at least a little bias from a website named "unitehowto.com". Are we sure kdawson didn't get hold of timothy's posting account?

What is this juvenile fascination with speed? (4, Insightful)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385431)

How dumb, or seriously ADD,
do you have to be, when the major question you ask about
a new technology is: Yeah, but how fast is it?

"We've invented this program that is smarter than the average bear"

"Yeah, but how fast is it?"

"You don't understand! This baby even knows that you're not SUPPOSED
to fight forest fires!"

"Yeah, but how fast is it?"

Seriously, these speed evaluations are irrelevant, boring, and inane to
the extreme. How about some evaluation of the possible uses this new
technology will be put to, and how its abilities to support these uses
compares to other competing or similar technologies.

"Look at this new amp we've got! Look at this. It goes up to 11! Unbelievable!"

"Yeah, but how fast does it go pedal to the metal, man?"

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385555)

Shut up.

...How fast is it?

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385807)

The thing is that it really is NOT new technology - it is just a web server with shiny wrapping. Speed benchmarks are an easily quantifiable measure of quality, and, should there be a high enough demand on the software, a major issue. Ease of use, sleekness of looks, and level of innovation are all things that are more subjective than objective.

The speed benchmarks tell us if, all other things being equal, which product we should use. In computer software, quickness of execution is the primary currency that you work in. You give up speed in order to get more features or benefits, such as more eye-candy, more features, easier to support code, or time spent in development. At the end of the day, the software that does what you want it to, as easily as you want it to, with the smallest memory footprint and smallest cpu cycles used, should be the one that you pick.

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed? (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386095)

The problem is that sometimes you need speed instead of features that you probably won't even use.

If the speed of an application is below the expected for its main use and the additional features don't compensate for the lost speed, there will be a productivity loss.

You say there is a "juvenile fascination" with speed, but the same can be said about new (or not so new) technologies that introduce new features to applications, even if they don't add anything to the so-to-speak standard purpose of the application. It may end up as a "juvenile fascination" with novelty.

Speed is important for many and optimization is technology too.

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386173)

And yet somehow, the summary doesn't even mention the speed of the Opera personal webserver:

But how well does it actually perform? Is it a threat to other server solutions? Someone put it to the test, and published the results. While nginx, one of the fastest web servers available, is 5 times faster, a PHP+Apache+MySQL server is only 2 times as fast. A compiled C++ server, the MadFish WebToolkit, is 6 times faster. He concludes that Opera Unite's server is impressive, and that the others come nowhere close to the ease of use.

They were able to cover the speeds of several others, but not Opera? Sorry, this is fucking bullshit.

Re:What is this juvenile fascination with speed? (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386565)

The really stupid part is that they're speed-testing an alpha. Who cares? It's going to be different by release, anyway.

Benchmarks and reviews are ways for otherwise boring people to attempt to take part in ideas larger than themselves. Never mind if you're just jabbering or are an idiot with an obviously-flawed method - everybody's text looks the same on wordpress.

Oh no! I'm going to kill my HDD! (2, Interesting)

chdig (1050302) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385491)

From TFA:
"Well, since I don't want to kill my HDD I'm doing a test where PHP takes a value from simple MySQL table, increments a value and saves it back (using a set of functions that are typically used in web programming)"

What am I going to do?! I'm running complicated PHP scripts on my development machine... is my hard disk going to die?
..
but seriously, the author is converting the value received from an integer column in mysql to... an integer:
$i=intval($i)+1;
--
What happened to /. and why are the most incompetent articles imaginable being posted?

The real speed test... (4, Insightful)

bgspence (155914) | more than 5 years ago | (#28385733)

How long does it take someone unfamiliar with a each web server take to download the required software and serve the first page?

I bet Opera Unite beats the other solutions by a mile.

v300.motofan.ru (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28385907)

Wow bonanza for hackers!!!!!!! Yehhha :)

Interesting benchmark (1)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28386131)

It's interesting to see that Nginx performs so well in comparison with the LAMP setup. I've setup a server at home using Nginx (http://magicode.org/ [magicode.org] ) and it really performs well, even though it's a very modest server (P4, 256MB ram, slow drives, basically a 10 year old computer with parts added on).

Regarding Unite, will people simply be using it to offload larger files and images, or will it be a genuine platform for people with no access to hosting? It's an interesting experiment by Opera.

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>