×

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 10.10 Released, Includes New "Unite" Tech

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-does-it-live-in-the-cloud dept.

Software 262

Opera 10.10 has been released, and with it their new "Unite" technology, which allows users to share content directly between all of their own devices. Unite wraps both web browser and web server into a single package in an attempt to change the way users think about their browser. "'We promised Opera Unite would reinvent the Web,' said Jon von Tetzchner, CEO, Opera. 'What we are really doing is reinventing how we as consumers interact with the Web. By giving our devices the ability to serve content, we become equal citizens on the Web. In an age where we have ceded control of our personal data to third-parties, Opera Unite gives us the freedom to choose how we will share the data that belongs to us.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

262 comments

just friends, no facebook, no cloud (5, Funny)

PizzaAnalogyGuy (1684610) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205390)

It's great that Opera Software understands the power of P2P like sharing between people. I dont want to have everything on sites like Facebook just so people can see them.

Let me give you an example.

If you're cooking your own pizza, you have the choice on what to put in it. Make it a normal pizza or a pan pizza? Make it square or round? What toppings to put on it? Unite allows you bake your own pizza in the heart of your pc, and you can choose what to put on it. Want ham? Fine! Want pineapples? Fine! Want tuna? Fine! Want pepperoni? Fine! What would you have as a sauce? Barbeque sauce! The widgets you install and enable are your toppings and you choose what you want to have.

What comes to the "from the but-does-it-live-in-the-cloud dept.", I personally dont want it to be in the cloud. Then I lose control over it. That would be like having a happening in your town square where everyone is ordered to bake their pizza. They bring it there, put it out and lose control over who eats it. Direct friend-to-friend model lets you control who eats your delicious pizza, or who even knows about it. And if that said pizza happens to be a bad one and it comes hunting you later, you can pull it off. Good luck trying to do that in the town square after people have ate your pizza already.

So what I'm basically saying is that *I* should be the one controlling my content, not some other site or cloud service. Unite makes that easy for people.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (4, Interesting)

mjihad (686196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205456)

So what I'm basically saying is that *I* should be the one controlling my content, not some other site or cloud service. Unite makes that easy for people.

On the other hand, it means that content on Unite is ephemeral and subject to the vagaries of hosting everything on one's computer(such as the information only being available while the PC is powered on and Opera is running, not 24x7). Also, does the app data stored on a computer running Unite survive a reinstall, which tends to happen often on Windows machines?

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (3, Interesting)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205536)

Or does Unite provide a way to find the content that other people have put up? I don't understand what market Opera is trying to target here. Anyone with the where-with-all to setup their own web server and the associated DNS host records and the like has probably already done so. The OP bashes on Facebook, but Facebook (and Myspace and whatever the other sites are) offers the person an ability to tell someone else, "Look me up on Facebook. My name is..." Does Unite offer the equivalent capability?

It seems to me that the large majority of what people want to share online isn't their own content, but content that they come across. Facebook is the perfect example. It seems to be filled with links to YouTube, links to other webpages, and blogs and whatever else any particular person finds interesting and wants to share with their friends. Very rarely do the large majority of people want to share content that is uniquely theirs. The one big exception that I can think of is music. Myspace seems to have the lion's share of that market. And on the subject of music, who wants to eat the bandwidth costs of serving up music from their own computer when a site like Myspace, or YouTube or listentomymusicyo.com will do it for you, for free?

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (2, Informative)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205696)

Facebook and the like offer zero security. If you understand the risks of what happens on Facebook well enough to make an informed decision to put your stuff up there, you probably understand it well enough to throw up a quick web server.

The social media have been a great equalizer in terms of access, but that's a double edged sword.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (5, Insightful)

mjihad (686196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205776)

Or does Unite provide a way to find the content that other people have put up? I don't understand what market Opera is trying to target here. Anyone with the where-with-all to setup their own web server and the associated DNS host records and the like has probably already done so. The OP bashes on Facebook, but Facebook (and Myspace and whatever the other sites are) offers the person an ability to tell someone else, "Look me up on Facebook. My name is..." Does Unite offer the equivalent capability?

I think the idea is more to host your own stuff, such as your pictures or some other small app like the Fridge notes [opera.com] without having to muck around with DNS and servers and pasting the link to your friends over IM. That way you can tell your friends to leave you at note at an URL like http://macbook-win7.jfim.operaunite.com/fridge/ [operaunite.com] instead of having to sign up for yet another service for only one simple app.

It seems to me that the large majority of what people want to share online isn't their own content, but content that they come across. Facebook is the perfect example. It seems to be filled with links to YouTube, links to other webpages, and blogs and whatever else any particular person finds interesting and wants to share with their friends. Very rarely do the large majority of people want to share content that is uniquely theirs. The one big exception that I can think of is music. Myspace seems to have the lion's share of that market. And on the subject of music, who wants to eat the bandwidth costs of serving up music from their own computer when a site like Myspace, or YouTube or listentomymusicyo.com will do it for you, for free?

I don't think the purpose is to replace any serious hosting proposal, it's more of a share with a handful of friends thing.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (4, Insightful)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206156)

Put simply, all those computers can talk to each other. And they can be made to do so extremely easily. If you can't imagine the possibilities of that, you need to think some more about it :)

If you check out some of the Unite apps, it isn't even necessarily about sharing.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (-1, Flamebait)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206204)

Anyone with the where-with-all to setup their own web server and the associated DNS host records and the like has probably already done so.

You've already failed to comprehend. Maybe before you post a big-assed TL;DR, you take the time to know something about the subject your are blathering on about.. that way when we don't bother reading what you said, at least what you said applied to the subject.. even if we didn't read it.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206334)

I started my post with a question asking about what it was that Unite offered. Apparently despite your best attempts not to, you went ahead and read what I wrote none the less. I'm not sure what is the bigger fail... my failure to read the article, or your failure to follow your own precepts.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205762)

On the other hand, it means that content on Unite is ephemeral and subject to the vagaries of hosting everything on one's computer

You must be new here - TO THE ENTIRE INTARWEB - if you honestly think that every single shred of corporate-hosted content isn't already volatile and at risk of disappearing at any moment at the whim of somebody you don't even know.

The Web has ALWAYS been volatile. That is both a strength and a weakness. Right now the Web is thoroughly capitalistic in nature; are we proposing to fully socialize it, to the point of demanding that everything "submitted" to the Web instantly becomes public domain and forcibly archived somewhere for all eternity?

The lesson you should learn is that if something you see on the Web is important to you, don't count on it being there a year from now: save a copy for your own damned self. Nobody else can read your mind and know that it's important to you and thus feel obligated to keep it anchored in the exact same spot because you'd prefer it. Regarding whether we should change the ownership of information once it's been made thus public, that's a (ongoing) debate for another place and time.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (2, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205876)

That was me, but Thunderbird isn't behaving quite the same way with /. RSS feeds these days and it doesn't recognize logins, so comments made inside the RSS feed wind up being anonymous. It used to be that hitting Reply would spawn the browser, but not so any more; I don't know whether it's Thunderbird or Slashdot to blame for the change. It's not as practical as before, but maybe that's a good thing if it causes me to keep my trap shut more often?

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30206442)

Using /. without viewing the ads on it is stealing.

You're one of those freetards blessed soul Rupurt Murdoch is railing against, aren't you?

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (1, Informative)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206560)

I take it that (a) you know absolutely nothing about RSS or (b) your tongue is planted firmly in your OTHER cheek where we can't see it?

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206312)

Also, by freeing yourself from the "cloud" you free yourself from the protections a cloud service affords. You make your home machine a server, you become a conduit for malware, and open yourself up to being blocked.

And I find that bit about "By giving our devices the ability to serve content, we become equal citizens on the Web." a bit disingenuous. You can only be "equal" if your upstream is symmetrical with your downstream.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (-1, Flamebait)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205468)

Despite being a shill account created by Opera Software, you are, nonetheless correct about hosting our own content. Problem is, we already have web servers, p2p, ftp etc. and they are stable, mature and bug-free. Why your entirely new, potentially untrustworthy integrated solution? It's hi-fi seperates vs. computer speakers again... see my other posts today... :-P

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (4, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205594)

You really think Opera created a shill /. account solely devoted to the heretofore unheard of pizza analogy?

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205666)

You dare question webmistressrachel slave? Your suffering shall be legendary even on slashdot!

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205734)

sudo make me a sammich, bitch.
Who let you out of the kitchen, anyway?

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (0, Offtopic)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205922)

That's not actually me! Flattering, though. Want to be my slave? ;-P

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30206076)

Depends, got a pic?

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206090)

Are there benefits?

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (0, Offtopic)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206212)

And this is the point in the conversation where we all get modded "-1 Offtopic". But yes, there are benefits. There must be, otherwise AC there wouldn't be extolling my virtues, would he? (or she, as the first replier implies).

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206330)

And this is the point in the conversation where we all get modded "-1 Offtopic".

Meh. I was still going for funny.

Also, I love it when my sig seems to perfectly complete my post.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (2, Informative)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205848)

Problem is, we already have web servers, p2p, ftp etc. and they are stable, mature and bug-free. Why your entirely new, potentially untrustworthy integrated solution? It's hi-fi seperates vs. computer speakers again...

Exactly. Hi-Fi = sites you have to sign up for, upload, invite your friends to, get them to sign up, log in, etc. All you do with Unite is send them an URL to whatever they need, and it's done. Also, Unite is much, much easier to use than standard web servers, P2P, FTP, etc. And it can be added to with new application which can be installed with a single click.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205522)

I'm confused, even though you made a pizza analogy (maybe there's a reason we stick with car metaphors). I from the summary and press release, I thought unite was mostly for sharing stuff between your devices, not with other people or as a social networking... thing... I was under the impression that there were plenty of, er, cloud services where you could put your files on the cloud and then share them with one person instead of everyone.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205702)

I'm confused, even though you made a pizza analogy (maybe there's a reason we stick with car metaphors).

Ok, you drive a hundred miles, wrap your frozen pizza in tin foil (much like our hats) and put it on the exhaust manifold. The result is... PIZZA!

(and no, I'm not PAG. I think he used to be BadAnalogyGuy but that's just an ignorant guess)

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (1)

Stratoukos (1446161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205880)

I thought unite was mostly for sharing stuff between your devices, not with other people or as a social networking... thing...

It's neither or both, depending on how you use it. Basically it's what it advertises it is. A server. You get a URL for your pc (pc-name.username.operaunite.com) and you open services like file sharing. Anyone can go to that URL and see what services you are running, So, if you want you can advertise that URL making it something like a social network, where everyone can go there and leave messages, stream music from your pc or whatever else you are running. Or you can keep that URL for yourself and password protect everything, if you just want to share stuff between your devices.

Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (4, Insightful)

ErkDemon (1202789) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205982)

Potential Killer Application: sharing family photos with family. Almost everyone has a digital camera these days, but almost nobody (apart from SlashDot readers) has their own home server. A lot of people still try to share photos by email.

It'd be interesting to see how they're handling security, though. Damn, now I'm going to have to download it.

ISPs won't like this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205446)

A lot of TOS cite that you cannot use your connection as a server. Other ISPs simply block all P2P traffic.

The best way, as of right now, is to sign up at a Web Hosting provider where you host your own website instead of relying on something like Facebook.

Re:ISPs won't like this (4, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205498)

ISP's wont care about it. They only do if you start running some heavy traffic stuff on it. Here in Scandinavia that has been standard clause in the TOS for ever, but I've never got any saying from ISP about it (even while actually running a high traffic website on my 100mbit).

Lots of people also run gaming servers, even more so because for example MW2 is now automatically choosing one of the players as a listen host. P2P clients also usually start a listening server, technically, and so do all the IM clients when sending a file and so on.

They wont have any problems with this.

Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (-1, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205452)

Despite low usage numbers after more than a decade in existence Opera folks continue to spew out features. Good for them but I still won't touch their product.

Nuff said.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (4, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205480)

But why won't you try Opera? Is there a good reason? Is it because it's closed-source? Is it because at the beginning they were not offering their browser for free?

FWIW, Opera is a fine browser, much better than IE, on par with Firefox and Safari. Also runs very nicely on a Nintendo DSi, given the limits of the system.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (2, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205550)

I have. It's on my system right now along with Firefox, Konqueror and Chrome. Addons are the critical component in which these other browsers than Firefox are very much behind. I would ditch Firefox in an instant if Chrome or Opera or Konqueror managed to be as flexible as Firefox but they're not... yet.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (4, Insightful)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205648)

I have. It's on my system right now along with Firefox, Konqueror and Chrome. Addons are the critical component in which these other browsers than Firefox are very much behind. I would ditch Firefox in an instant if Chrome or Opera or Konqueror managed to be as flexible as Firefox but they're not... yet.

Most of the features that are provided by add-ons to Firefox are built-in to Opera. Additionally, Opera allows User JavaScript, and even supports GreaseMonkey script. So ... is it just a matter of the principle and theory of flexibility, or are you actually missing some specific function that is provided by add-ons in FF and not provided in Opera?

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

mahsah (1340539) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206058)

Userscripts still are quite a bit more clunky on Opera, as is their adblocking option.

Yes, they are both there, but adblock plus and greasemonkey on Firefox are much more functional and easy to use.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206352)

Noscript,CS Lite, Adblock, menu editing features, scrapbook etc... You *could* block ads and control cookies and javascript but it's not nearly so clean as Firefox's addons allow. To me, Opera reminds me of Gnome. Things can be done but it's not really designed to do the job efficiency.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30206042)

I spent far to long getting Firefox's tabbed browsing to behave the way I want (saving sessions that actually work, opening all new windows (yes ALL of them) in tabs instead). I'm much happier with Opera just working. I haven't seen any Addons that appeal to me. And I like being able to change skin without restarting the application.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205552)

And I would even say that it's a better browser than Firefox or Safari, but that's of course everyones own opinion. The robust interface and feeling on how fast things work is just good though. Firefox doesn't really come close with it.

That being said, Opera doesn't really even have low usage numbers. It has over 50% marketshare in Russia and CIS countries [opera.com] , being the #1 browser. It has really wide deployment on mobile phones, Wii's, other electronic equipment and hotel tv's and so on.

Actually making a better profit than Mozilla too, so I don't see why they wouldn't keep developing new things (and Opera has usually been the first one to actually develop new browser features)
Mozilla Foundation: Revenue $75 million (4 employees)
Opera Software: Revenue $89 million (675+ employees)

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

mrclisdue (1321513) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205828)

Revenue != profit

GM's revenues are in the billions of dollars, but they've been losing hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter for some time now....

As far as Opera goes, I don't use it because it's not FLOSS, and yet, it could and should be.

cheers,

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205896)

TripMaster Money, you realize that revenue is not profit, right?

Mozilla is likely much more profitable. Each Mozilla employee can be thought as bringing in $18.75 million, versus a mere $132,000 for each Opera employee.

Mozilla has much lower salary expenses than Opera, and given that salaries are often the largest expense of any business, it's easy to believe that Mozilla is significantly more profitable.

That said, Mozilla clearly does make abundant use of the time of unpaid developers, which Opera does not do (since Opera is a real business).

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (2, Informative)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205948)

Those revenues for Mozilla are including revenues from MozCo, which employes a couple of hundred people.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (0, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205830)

The problems I have with Opera are manyfold.

A) It is closed source. Yeah, its secure, but I'm sure a lot of it is security via obscurity, and the browser is about the main (close to only) easy way to exploit a typical system with a decent user, a firewall and no local attacks.

B) Little to no add-ons.

C) Too much work to get it how I like it. Firefox (along with IE, Konqueror and most others) comes how I want it little to no tweaking required. With Opera I have to move around toolbars, etc.

D) It uses QT, not GTK. I use GNOME on Linux so using QT makes it look out of place and uses more resources.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206126)

Because for me, IE does the trick (and prior to 8, FF did). Its a browser, kind of a "so what" thing, as long as it works.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (5, Funny)

colourmyeyes (1028804) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205508)

By this line of reasoning, would you agree with the following?

Despite low desktop usage numbers after more than a decade in existence Linux folks continue to spew out features. Good for them but I still won't touch their product.

Nuff said.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (2, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205602)

Linux doesn't go out of its way to please the Chinese government with its new update; Opera did. Linux isn't closed source either. The two aren't in the same boat here.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205728)

What? The government of China told Opera to change things? That's strange, I would have thought the democratic government in Taipei would do better than that.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (4, Interesting)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205804)

Where did you get the idea that Opera went out of its way to please the Chinese government? They were forced to comply with the government's demands. That's quite different from your insane lie.

Someone asked: "How does not having any kind of access to Opera Mobile/Google/etc helps the people in China, compared to having a censored version?"

I haven't seen a response to that yet.

What were Opera's alternatives?

Refuse? They would be thrown in jail, and the Chinese office would be history.

Pull out? How would that help anyone? It would just deprive the Chinese people of another way to access the web. The more ways to access the web, the more work for the government when they are trying to censor it. There needs to be as many ways to access the web as possible, because the more there are, the more difficult it is to police, and the easier it is to poke holes in the firewall. You are clearly blinded by your own ignorance.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

AlexBirch (1137019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205932)

Forced is relative. They chose to comply with the government to keep their product in that market, much like Google, Yahoo, etc.
It's a great market, but you have to ask what your soul is worth (turns out mine is only 50 bucks and a copy of firefox).

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (3, Insightful)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206054)

They chose to comply with the government to keep their product in that market

No, they chose to comply in order to avoid trouble like arrests of their Chinese employees and such.

But you didn't answer the part of my comment that dealt with how staying in the market helps the Chinese people, and how pulling out would be detrimental to their freedom. Again: More services = more work for the government = less oversight = more chances that there are holes in the firewall.

As it happens, there are several ways to access the uncensored web through Opera Mini even after this. If Opera pulled out, these holes would be gone forever, and there would be no opportunities to open new ones. Your brain. Use it.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

AlexBirch (1137019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206210)

I'm simply stating that we make choices. It's been a long, long time since I was forced to do something. Opera could have closed down its site and simply quit selling its browser in China. Just like Google could have.
I would say it's a moot point to their freedom. The government will simply ban it, when it becomes a detriment. In addition to this, the government could just look at those with Opera as greater security threats.
These people should be using BETTER software to get around the china holes.
My entire point was simply use the proper language.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206310)

Blah blah blah.

I just explained to you how Opera being completely shut down in Chine would have been detrimental to the freedom of the Chinese people, but you chose to ignore it and rant on.

The government doesn't see Opera as a problem, but the fact is that people have already discovered several ways to work around the firewall in Opera Mini. The more services, the more potential holes, and the more difficulty for the government to enforce the firewall.

Opera being completely blocked would not have helped at all. It would simply have deprived the Chinese people of choice and possible ways to access the uncensored web.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206232)

The Chinese government is detrimental to their freedom. If the internet gets to the point where the Chinese government feels that it doesn't have control, they'll throttle the hell out of it until they can control it. Using Nokia and Opera and any other corporate entity to accomplish the task.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (0, Flamebait)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206278)

Fuck you. You keep ignoring the points I'm making. You are evidently only here to spew your pre-prepared garbage. You have yet to address the fact that more services = more work for the government = less oversight = more chances that there are holes in the firewall. How is the Chinese people better off with fewer choices and possibilities? They aren't.

Opera pulling out would make it easier for the government to maintain control. Opera pulling out would do exactly nothing to prevent the firewall from working. Fuck you again for fucking spewing out your inane nonsense without even fucking addressing my points.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206128)

That's funny... I haven't heard anything about Firefox or Chrome doing what Opera did. Opera certainly had a choice. They chose to support the censorship in China in exchange for more market-share. Nokia and friends helped China to set up the firewall in the first place for the market-share too; are their actions excusable as well?

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (2, Informative)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206202)

That's funny... I haven't heard anything about Firefox or Chrome doing what Opera did.

That's because neither Firefox nor Chrome work like Opera Mini. They are like Opera Mobile, but Opera Mini is a thin client which needs a server to handle websites, because that's the only way it can work on low-end phones.

Opera certainly had a choice. They chose to support the censorship in China in exchange for more market-share. Nokia and friends helped China to set up the firewall in the first place for the market-share too; are their actions excusable as well?

Why did you ignore the part where I very clearly explained how Opera pulling out would be detrimental to the Chinese people because they would lose a way to access the web, and the fewer services, the easier it is for the government to keep track and plug all holes. As it is today, there are in fact several ways to circumvent the firewall using Opera Mini. If Opera pulled out, they would be completely blocked, and those holes would disappear.

Your view of the situation is simplstic, naive, and frankly, scary. I thought people were willing to use their brains!

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206238)

By the way, Google did what Opera did (or worse). They were forced to block Chinese people from their international search engine, and provide a censored version. As did Yahoo, Microsoft, and many other companies. But more services = more work for the government = more potential holes in the firewall = good for the Chinese people.

Linux can't do anything, linux developers though.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205854)

Of course Linux doesn't do anything, it's like saying "Browser doesn't do X".

However, Linux and open source software on it is largely developed by a group of large corporations, many of which do go out of their way to please chinese government.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205870)

China? Open source? Out of scope. Opera and Linux (on the desktop) both have low usage numbers after more than a decade, so they are in the same boat here.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206072)

Linux doesn't go out of its way to please the Chinese government with its new update; Opera did.

1) Just out of curiosity, what demands could the Chinese government possibly have on an operating system? You don't need to censor an OS, it's the applications they're worried about.

2) I wasn't aware that "Linux" is an entity that the Chinese government can make demands on, but what's the point of demanding that "Linux" make changes when the Chinese can just make their own [wikipedia.org] ?

This is aside from the fact that the parent was comparing consistently low usage numbers instead of vague support for government ideologies.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206294)

1) red flag linux and green dam.
2) Red Hat and friends could be restricted from offering support for their flavors of Linux unless X demand is met.
3) Maybe so but I felt that it was worth noting a few things.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30206402)

Then again, Linux as an entity never provided free uncensored web proxies for the Chinese people that they could be pressured to shut down in the first place, except in the general "every non-BSD server worth a damn runs it" kind of way.
Now there's an idea for an unite app...

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205574)

Despite low usage numbers after more than a decade in existence Opera folks continue to spew out features. Good for them but I still won't touch their product.

I wonder why. It's not open source but it's still gratis and technically superior to anything else I've tried.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205612)

Interesting perspective. I used to use Opera all the time, until early betas of Firefox came out. I can see value in providing p2p in a browser for some circumstances, however, look at the given example of sharing lots of pictures. Direct is fine, if you've got good upload speeds and the 2nd person has a good path between you. But uploading them to Google, or some other host, has the advantage of probably faster download speeds from them to the 2nd person, as they most likely have a fatter pipe. Add in a 2nd person, and you've only had to upload once. And you don't have to worry about what security holes you've opened up on your machine, or what other subfolders you happened to share by mistake.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205664)

Despite low usage numbers after more than a decade in existence Lamborghini factories continue to spew out features. Good for them but I still won't touch their product.

Nuff said.

For me, Opera is like Usenet (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205680)

Best kept secret.

Nice features with a target size small enough that malware that might go after IE or firefox won't touch.

I browse in a VM with Opera. Never lets me down.

Still a small size. Damn thing fits in less than 10 MB of disk space.

Stuff like this unite threatens this. I wish they would stop making it better so suckers will stay with IE and firefox.

The unite stuff rocks. Your parents could never setup p2p or ftp, but they can use unite. Better than some file sharing site when all your family has got FIOS pipes. Only possible downside is needing to setup a opera account to use the DNS to get the "myopera" addresses, but I believe it is just another port 80 server that you could point to directly via IP. And any filehosting site is going to require a login/email, but will probably only give you crappy throughput and make it hard to share large binaries.

For me, Opera is like your girlfriend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205820)

it sucks my balls

daily

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205714)

Y'know when I first saw this I thought "hey cool, if only it was on some other browser"...

What is it about Opera exactly that has the stink of death on it? I mean it went through phases where it wasn't free and had embedded ads in it, as far as I know those days are long gone. So if that's the case what gives?

My current running theory is that it just has an unfortunate name. When I think of "Opera" I think of a long, boring musical experience in Italian.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205764)

Hmm, then on the other hand when I saw it I though “boy, I sure hope Firefox doesn’t suddenly get the irresistible urge to copy this silly feature”.

Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205754)

I've been ever fan of Opera innovations, because i know i will probably see them in my future, no matter in which browser. But the new additions looks dangerous. Are open the field tie browser/user content to the maker of the browser (the 10gb of shared photos and opera turbo mean opera servers and services behind, and not so sure about the "embedded" server) and if well they could do that right or wrong, are practically forcing the other players in the browser arena to do the same, and not all are so well behaved.

Flock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205488)

How is this different from the firefox based flock browser?

Re:Flock? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205778)

It's nothing like Flock. Unite is a web server in the browser which is easy to use and add services to.

Except in China? (3, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205624)

I love how all the computer companies have these new-age wonderful human mottos for their products, like "Unite", and then cut deals with dictators to try and make a couple of extra bucks.

Re:Except in China? (2, Insightful)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205738)

Someone asked: "How does not having any kind of access to Opera Mobile/Google/etc helps the people in China, compared to having a censored version?"

I haven't seen a response to that yet.

What were Opera's alternatives?

Refuse? They would be thrown in jail, and the Chinese office would be history.

Pull out? How would that help anyone? It would just deprive the Chinese people of another way to access the web. The more ways to access the web, the more work for the government when they are trying to censor it. There needs to be as many ways to access the web as possible, because the more there are, the more difficult it is to police, and the easier it is to poke holes in the firewall. You are clearly blinded by your own ignorance.

Re:Except in China? (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205818)

Refuse? They would be thrown in jail, and the Chinese office would be history.

Yes, that's what is called doing the right thing.

Re:Except in China? (0)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205908)

Did you read the rest of the comment? Clearly not. How is it the right thing to deprive the Chinese people of yet another way to work around the censorship? The more services like Opera's, the more difficult for the government to keep on top of everything, the more holes in the firewall to exploit. If everyone pulled out and only a couple of services remained, the government would have an easier time enforcing the rules. Use your brain.

Re:Except in China? (3, Interesting)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205834)

What were Opera's alternatives?

They could have refused to do business in China, as long as the Chinese policy doesn't change.

Just like IKEA have stopped doing business in Russia [nytimes.com] , for slightly different reasons.

Re:Except in China? (0, Redundant)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206118)

Sigh. Did you read the rest of the comment? Clearly not. How is it the right thing to deprive the Chinese people of yet another way to work around the censorship? The more services like Opera's, the more difficult for the government to keep on top of everything, the more holes in the firewall to exploit. If everyone pulled out and only a couple of services remained, the government would have an easier time enforcing the rules. Opera out = no way to exploit the "holes" letting Opera Mini users circumvent the firewall (yes, people have found a way to do it). Use your brain.

Re:Except in China? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206308)

They get to help the Chinese dictators "Unite" pro-democracy campaigners in huge open prisons where they can serve their 20 years making cheap plastic shit to be sold in shops which are currently occupying the failed businesses which went bust trying to selling higher quality and longer lasting but slightly more expensive products.

Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205658)

I can't believe Opera doesn't support these tags even in v10.10 when they pioneered the introduction of them.

Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205842)

Great, another let-down from Opera. Are they supporters of real-world, widely used standards like H.264 and AAC or are they supporters of open-source formats that practically nobody uses like Ogg Theora?

P.S.: I hate those open source projets names... it reminds me of the "Homer Car" Simpsons episode. Stop trying to sound smarter than the general public with your product names, maybe you'll have some luck (see: "FireFox"). "Ogg" sounds like the sound a caveman would make and "Theora" sounds like "theory" which we all know is always different than reality.

Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30206030)

Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support

It's in beta donkey boy. (You can download it and use it) Hopefully it will be part of the official build soon.

Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206082)

Opera will obviously support the open format. The other ones are full of patent crap, and you have to pay through your nose for it.

Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? (3, Funny)

VinylPusher (856712) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206116)

You're dealing with nerds, here. Coming up with 'Ogg' was probably a defining moment in that young person's life.

Rejected names were "ReallyGoodVideoCodec", "VideoOpenSource" and "dvxiddidvxd".

Re:Where is VIDEO and AUDIO tag support? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206514)

Well, "Open Video CODEC" would have been "OVC" for short... not as tech-sounding as "H.264" or "MPEG-4", but still has a ring to it. Better than "Ogg".

Even a vague reference to something nerdy could have resulted in a better name, such as the "QHG [wikipedia.org] CODEC" or "SB1 [wikipedia.org] CODEC".

like the old slogan (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205688)

Dyslexics of the world, untie!

Forget "Unite"... how's Opera doing on CSS 3? (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205746)

It may sound silly and pointless to a lot of devs, but supporting things like border-radius and drop-shadow (even with the temporary vendor prefixes) would be nice.

That's one area where Safari is way, WAY ahead of both Opera and Firefox.

Breaks broadband service contract? (3, Interesting)

billwerth (1372959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205750)

Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere, but this technology is sure to break many user's broadband service contracts. You are affectively running a web server, which isn't allowed under most plans. I wonder how this will be addressed?

Re:Breaks broadband service contract? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206000)

This web server is nothing like the web servers those contracts were written to cover. Unite can't handle a fraction of the traffic of a real web server. So basically it's a non-issue.

Re:Breaks broadband service contract? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30206226)

"This web server is nothing like the web servers those contracts were written to cover."

Oh, do these ISP's EULA say no powerful web servers? Not mine. It says no web servers, period. And since they know your home account upload bandwidth can't really be a significant web server in the first place, why would it even be mentioned if wimpy web servers were okay when read between the lines?

Re:Breaks broadband service contract? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206338)

It doesn't matter. The EULAs say no servers, and yet people run all sorts of apps that can accept incoming connections. "Wimpy web servers" weren't even this easily available when those EULAs were made.

Re:Breaks broadband service contract? (1)

VinylPusher (856712) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206004)

Oh come on, farting at the table is probably against the TOS of some ISP's contracts. For the unclever, that's an exaggeration to illustrate that ISP's bung quite a lot of "Don't do this" clauses in contracts in order to cover their collective arses if they have to take the fairly ultimate step of asking a customer to politely piss-off somewhere else.

I don't need your steenking content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205802)

Bite me. I'll fill my life on my own.

Breaking News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205832)

Third Post ?

No Privacy Concerns Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30205858)

Move Along.....

ISP ToS Violation? (1)

InfinityWpi (175421) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206444)

And for those of us who's ISP's Terms of Service inclue a line that boils down to "Thou shalt not run a web server on your home PC unless you pay for a buisness-class connection"... well, what then? Just... don't use Opera?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...