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 Embraces Extensions For v.11

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the fat-lady-not-even-in-her-suit-yet dept.

Software 283

dkd903 writes "Opera is one of the most solid browsers around. It is very fast, extremely customizable, and has a lot of functionality that others do not have. Opera is also a very strong supporter of Web standards; it was one of the first browsers to pass the ACID 3 test. However, Opera has always been confined to a relatively small user-base because of one critical thing — lack of extensions. Well, that is about to change — at least the extensions part. Today, it has been announced that Opera 11 will support extensions."

cancel ×

283 comments

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

Wish I ... (2, Funny)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33898820)

Wish I could Mod Op..

- Dan.

Quick! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33898968)

Someone write a "FirefoxTab" extension. Who else would like their Opera to leak memory?

Re:Wish I ... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899342)

You could have, but it's too late now. That's essentially what the firehose is, a way to mod submissions up or down. Speaking of modding, both the parent and this comment are OT (although this one may be slightly informative... you mods will have to fight it out)

Re:Wish I ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899942)

I wish "Extentions for v.11" was less ambiguous.

I thought Opera was getting into the analog modem business...

Well... (2, Interesting)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 3 years ago | (#33898824)

It's about time! I'm now excited about Opera again.

Re:Well... (1)

XnavxeMiyyep (782119) | more than 3 years ago | (#33898950)

Same here. I used to use Opera, but I switched to Firefox for a couple extensions that Opera was lacking (primarily /Find Bar/). I still miss some of the Opera shortcuts and would love to switch back.

Re:Well... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899370)

I tried Opera once, but found it to be too bloated. I'll stick with Links.

Re:Well... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899478)

Opera has a find bar. on any page just type a "." and continue typing the word you want to find.

I suppose getting extensions is kinda cool, but really, most of the extensions I hear FF ppl bragging about is something that Opera has had built in for a looong time.

Re:Well... (2, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899354)

They are sort of there already. People are making apps for Opera Unite which don't really use online/"serverlike" capability, just do useful things locally. And userjs, capable of adding stuff to right click menu, even longer.

So it's part adding few polishing bits, part marketing / it needs to be "extensions" apparently.

Re:Well... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899400)

Me too, because I too am a very supporter of web standards.

Grammar 101 (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33898844)

Opera is also a very [adjective needed] supporter of Web standards...

Re:Grammar 101 (0, Redundant)

GuJiaXian (455569) | more than 3 years ago | (#33898892)

I agree. Is it really that hard to proofreader a paragraph before posting it?

Re:Grammar 101 (2, Funny)

GuJiaXian (455569) | more than 3 years ago | (#33898910)

Argh, and of course I mistype a word while railing against a lack of proofreading. Go figure...

Re:Grammar 101 (2, Insightful)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33898990)

Now if you left it alone everyone would have thought you were making a point. :)

- Dan.

Muphry's Law (1)

MarbleMunkey (1495379) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899050)

Muphry's Law [wikipedia.org] strikes again!

Re:Muphry's Law (0, Offtopic)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899926)

And you want us to think you mispelled Murphy on purpose too, yes?

Re:Grammar 101 (1)

luckymutt (996573) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899514)

You shoulda said nothing...I would've modded you +1 funny

Re:Grammar 101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899516)

Yeah, they accidentally the whole summary.

Re:Grammar 101 (1)

Laxori666 (748529) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899532)

I, for one, am glad Opera is a very supporter. Just being a supporter won't do!

Still too unstable (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33898846)

I keep going back to Firefox because although Opera is much faster than Firefox it crashes too much. Annoying and a security risk.

Re:Still too unstable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899186)

Really? Opera has NEVER crashed on me. While I've seen Firefox consume 700+ Megs of RAM with only a few tabs open. Memory leaking POS.

Re:Still too unstable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899230)

Really? Opera has NEVER crashed on me. While I've seen Firefox consume 700+ Megs of RAM with only a few tabs open. Memory leaking POS.

Opera has a pretty widely held and solidly deserved reputation for instability and broken rendering on a lot of standards noncompliant web pages.

Re:Still too unstable (0, Flamebait)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899402)

Its unfair, but years ago I tried Opera. It crashed shortly after using it. It was uninstalled and I've not tried it again. Since Firefox does everything I need, plus lots of extensions, which are not even available on Opera, I really understand why I should give Opera a second look.

Now that Opera is to support extensions, I know the no-extensions complaint isn't valid, but I still don't see a compelling reason to switch.

Re:Still too unstable (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899426)

Opposite experience here. Windows 7, my firefox is crashing wheras opera isn't.

Replace W by H (1)

Dalzhim (1588707) | more than 3 years ago | (#33898862)

End result:

Hell... It's about time!

Re:Replace W by H (0)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899958)

I can only assume the W you want us to replace with H is the upside down one in "time"... So you're trying to say "Hell... It's about tiHe". I don't understand what that means. </pedantic grumpiness>

Other problems... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33898868)

I tried Opera a while back. It installed some files (mime-type information, or .desktop files, or something) that broke KDE. All file associations were lost. When I uninstalled Opera, things were back to normal.

Last time I tried Adobe's PDF reader, it installed its own icons that completely clashed with my desktop's icons (WITHOUT ASKING, and EVERY TIME IT RAN). It also, if I recall, set itself as the preferred reader. Without asking.

These companies need to realize that not all the world's Windows and we don't all need to be treated like Windows users. Fine, so Windows doesn't know about file types whose programs aren't installed: install your own icons, etc. KDE does know about a lot of file types, and might even (gasp) have associations set up with them (especially relevant with PDF: we have kpdf and xpdf at least). I will not try Opera and Adobe Reader anymore, because they have messed up my system. They didn't take the time to learn enough about non-Windows systems.

I'm very happy with Konqueror and kpdf/okular. They don't screw with my system.

Re:Other problems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33898956)

It probably would've worked correctly with GNOME. That's the more-relevant non-Windows desktop environment, so companies probably start with that as a base before moving to alternate environments like KDE.

just a thought (1)

dx40sh (1773338) | more than 3 years ago | (#33898926)

I am also a very supporter of web standards. I think....


In other news, I don't think this will make Opera a "serious competitor" for Firefox/Chrome/etc, if for no other reason than most people haven't heard of it before. They'll continue to use what they've heard of and are familiar with. I do like Opera, though, they've made a lot of good changes over the years.

Re:just a thought (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899422)

Opera is available on the Nintendo Wii and the Nintendo DSi/DSi XL. Opera mini is available on a lot of cellphones. I bet a lot more people are familiar with the big red "O" than you think.

That's What's Holding It Down! (2, Insightful)

Pedersen (46721) | more than 3 years ago | (#33898940)

Because, out of everything, the only thing has ever held Opera back is the lack of extensions. Yep. Definitely. Nothing about having a weird interface, or having preferences in unusual locations. Just the lack of extensions.

Sure.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down! (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899090)

What is weird about the interface?

What is unusual about having the preferences in about:config?

The only think keeping me on Firefox instead of Opera is Tree Style Tabs.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down! (3, Informative)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899208)

Re:That's What's Holding It Down! (1)

xehonk (930376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899410)

No, not like this.

According to your link opera supports showing tabs grouped by window.
Treestyle tabs offers a hierarchical order (over several levels) for tabs in the same window. If you start with a search for a topic, all results (those opened in new tabs anyway) will show up one level below the search. If you branch further from one of the results, it'll open a new level. It's an incredibly useful and mostly automatic way to generate order in your tabs.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down! (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899672)

Ah, I see. That is indeed useful, although I've become accustomed to multiple windows using this method. Less automatic, but sort of the same effect. I agree that would be nice to have in Opera.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899502)

I think the Tools->Preferences menu item was too hard for him.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899162)

What is strange about the interface? I've been using Opera since the 90s, and when forced to use another browser I've never noticed anything extremely different. I've never noticed the preferences being in unusual places either, so I'd be curious if you could expand.

Personally, the reliance on extensions is the problem with other browsers. Mouse gestures specifically is something I can't comfortably browse without, and I always feel its lack when I have to use another browser. This is one place where Opera just works and all other browsers are broken as far as I am concerned.

I've never understood Slashdot's hatred for little Opera either. It's the only browser with a built-in shortcut to Slashdot (just type /. in the address bar). I guess just because it's not FOSS?

Re:That's What's Holding It Down! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899210)

Compared to keeping Firefox's preferences hidden mostly in about:config or just plain missing, Opera has a really good place to store preferences.
And, Opera has one of the most bendable interfaces ATM. You want to make it traditional? Press the button on the menu that is called "show old menu" or like that.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899242)

Preferences in unusual locations and weird interface are something you get used to after a little while, and after a week or so don't even notice. Lack of functionality, on the other hand, is absolutely critical. As of now I have the following extensions on my firefox installation:

adblock plus
all-in-one gestures
beef taco
better privacy
compact menu 2
context search
distrust
download manager tweak
exif viewer
fasterfox lite
firefox sync
forecastfox weather
gmail notifier
nuke anything enhanced
optimize google
remove it permanently
stop-or-reload button
stylish
taboo

I'll be happy to switch to Opera (or any other browser, for that matter) when it can offer the same level of functionality. Granted, some extensions are purely cosmetical, like compact menu (although i guess i can't live without it now, even running firefox in a 30" (i run a staggered dual setup, a 30" eizo and a 24" nec for photography editing/processing) screen i run it maximized and want all the screen real estate i can get), or stop-or-reload button, and things like all-in-one gestures are already natively in opera from what i remember way back when, and stuff like exif viewer are nice to have (since i'm a photographer), but some stuff like adblock plus, context search, optimize google, taboo, etc, make everyday browsing so much better to the point it is painful and displeasant for me to now use a browser without them.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down! (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899314)

No, not the only thing ever. Opera was held back before by the ads displayed in the free version. Remember when they removed the ads and Opera usage skyrocketed?

Oh, wait. I see your point.

More factors (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899360)

Isn't bundled with the OS is probably the biggest factor, followed by lack of name recognition. Lack of extensions is probably down near not-open-source as far as most people are concerned. Anyway, can-run-extensions isn't going to help until extensions appear, unless it can run Firefox extensions. That said, I think it's a great move on their part, and it certainly makes me more interested. But I'm a nerd. :)

Firefox lovers of bloat stay away (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33898948)

I'd prefer the best browser to maintain its current level of anonymity and leave the IE and Firefox user as cherries to be plucked.

Flashblock (1)

JackDW (904211) | more than 3 years ago | (#33898954)

Here's hoping. Some ad-heavy sites are almost unusable in Opera now, because of the sheer number of autoplaying Flash videos. Not mentioning any names... [thedailymash.co.uk]

Re:Flashblock (3, Informative)

Nichotin (794369) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899178)

You can try out privoxy [privoxy.org] . It is an ad filtering proxy server, which will work with any browser. I don't surf the web without it. Just install it, set your browser to use proxy 127.0.0.1 on port 8118, and voilá, obnoxious ads be-gone.

Re:Flashblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899204)

On-demand plugin loading has been in Opera since version 9...

Re:Flashblock (4, Informative)

alvarogmj (1679584) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899226)

You can enable a setting that allows plugin content to be downloaded only after clicking on it. Very useful:
http://my.opera.com/dude09/blog/on-demand-plugin-opera-turbo [opera.com]

Opera is what it is. Either you like it (like me) or you don't. Its lack of popularity is not due to the lack of extensions (after all, chrome and safari had bigger market share before having extensions themselves).

I prefer it, over any of the others. But it seems there are a lot of bad misconceptions around and that's the biggest problem Opera Software needs to find a way to solve.

Re:Flashblock (1)

JackDW (904211) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899746)

Thanks. This is not something I knew about Opera.

Generally I think Opera is very good. Only a few sites have been a problem, and then only because of Flash. I have tried the Privoxy solution (suggested elsewhere) but found that it doesn't actually block very much. ODP is most likely exactly what I need.

Re:Flashblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899740)

I just set the general settings to not allow plugins. If I run into a site I trust that uses flash or whatever, I enable plugins on that site in the site preferences. Every site you visit can have it's own settings. It's a little bit of a pain for some sites that redirect you all over hell's half-acre (ie. Google mail), but once you get it set up, it works flawlessly. I do the same for javascript, sound, animated gifs, etc.

Not as convenient as Flashblock, Adblock and NoScript, but potentially safer as I've only needed to enable scripting and such on a handful of sites and I don't have to worry about a new site sneaking in under the radar.

Re:Flashblock (-1, Troll)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 3 years ago | (#33900004)

I clicked your link and wondered what the hell you were talking about when you said "sheer number of autoplaying Flash videos". Then I remembered I'm using firefox with noscript and flashblock...

Who is going to write the extensions (1)

mmsimanga (775213) | more than 3 years ago | (#33898984)

This makes things interesting, I wonder though if it is not too late. As a developer looking for maximum exposure, developing for one of the other browsers with a bigger market share makes more sense.

Re:Who is going to write the extensions (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899064)

I find that Opera is the least of a developer's worries. If your application works in recent versions of IE, Firefox, and Chrome, it's probably going to work in Opera also. I virtually never find Javascript problems, but every now and then there's a CSS positioning or size inconsistency.

Re:Who is going to write the extensions (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899080)

.. and now I read the title of your post. Foiled again!

Re:Who is going to write the extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899104)

"developing for one of the other browsers with a bigger market share"

Sure thing. Lots of apps targeted to a specific browser work great *points out lots of IE 6-specific websites*

Use standards. Develop for everyone.

Logic (1)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899000)

Um, I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of other reasons Opera has a small user base other than the lack of plug-ins...*

*(not that any of them is necessarily rational or deserved, mind you)

'Problem' is not Extensions (1, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899004)

If Opera has a 'problem' it's that it's most well-known as software one needs to buy versus Firefox and IE being included in the purchase of a Windows product.

They must be given a huge amount of respect for staying relevant and commercially viable versus costless competitors.

I'm glad they are doing extensions. While I live underneath a rainbow with unicorns and fairies, I'd suggest making Firefox extensions portable to Opera.

Re:'Problem' is not Extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899102)

If Opera has a 'problem' it's that it's most well-known as software one needs to buy

What are you talking about? Opera has been a free download for years now.

Another feature not mentioned in the summary is that entering /. into the nav bar brings you to slashdot!

Opera is by far the best, and free, browser available.

Re:'Problem' is not Extensions (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899132)

Opera has been free for a while.

Re:'Problem' is not Extensions (2, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899270)

Given many Firefox extensions have traditionally worked with the internals of Firefox (though not recommended of course), this not only explains why many break with each new Firefox release, but why Opera can't do what you suggest. Opera would have to BECOME Firefox to get Firefox extensions.

On the other hand, Chrome has a fixed API for extensions, which you could theoretically implement in other apps easily enough (well, you need a JS engine first of course).

Re:'Problem' is not Extensions (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899338)

You've had multiple replies already, but ... Opera is free. I think the only product they were charging for, last I checked, was Opera Mobile, and that might be free now, too.

Extensions are critical? (4, Insightful)

Carik (205890) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899006)

I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

I don't get it. I suppose this is nice if it gets people to use Opera, but honestly... if that's your excuse, there's probably a better reason you're using something else.

Re:Extensions are critical? (2, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899160)

People do not not use Opera because it does not have extensions. People do not use Opera because it does not have a particular set of features provided by extensions in another browser.

Re:Extensions are critical? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899238)

I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

You didn't realize that those two are in conflict? Why not use this browser? It doesn't have extensions! Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Which means the initial question is wrong and loaded.

Re:Extensions are critical? (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899254)

I don't get it. I suppose this is nice if it gets people to use Opera, but honestly... if that's your excuse, there's probably a better reason you're using something else.

People are hesitant to change, especially when they have a workflow they like. It's confusing, though, because nobody actually says that's the reason. "I don't want to change" sounds silly as a response to "it has better features!" Instead, "well I use a very specific set of extensions that I won't elaborate on" makes you sound much more level headed.

It's a shame, really, "I like what I got" isn't a bad excuse. At least I hope it isn't, it's the one I use.

Re:Extensions are critical? (1)

ampathee (682788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899652)

Who are these people who say "well I use a very specific set of extensions that I won't elaborate on"?

All the people I've seen posting about it have been very specific about what they need from a browser.

For example, I don't use Opera because it doesn't run AdBlock+. When it gets AdBlock+, I will give it another shot.

Re:Extensions are critical? (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899412)

Well I can't speak for them, but for me personally it is because since Opera is proprietary most of the "extensions" are just bad hacks to get around its lack of features. For example it has NOTHING similar to Adblock Plus and Noscript. Instead you have to run a third party tool like privoxy, and do "all or nothing" JavaScript whitelisting to get a "kinda sorta, but not really" ABP and NS functionality. And that is just for two on the 10 extensions I use, I don't even want to see the number of third party programs and hacks I'd have to use to get the others.

Honestly the guy that came up with the Firefox extensions framework deserves a raise and a new car, as it is the best lock in system they could have ever built. With it even my just turned 68 year old clueless dad has the web HIS way thanks to installing extensions all by himself. The FF extension framework makes it trivial to have YOUR web YOUR way and MY web MINE. So I'm sorry Opera guys, I've tried your browser and sure it pops up quick, but so what? FF loads pages as fast as my cable connection can go, and with NS I CONTROL what those pages are allowed to do, which seeing the amount of drive by malware is important to me. So I think I'll just stick with the FF framewok, thanks anyway and good luck Opera.

Re:Extensions are critical? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899568)

It's more like "Opera doesn't have $obscure_feature that is really important to me." and now it could be an extension. I like Opera, I find it works better out of the box than Firefox. Firefox can be custom tweaked in a zillion ways but it seems that because you got ten possible plugins they don't care how poor the default is. They'd rather just let the plugins fight it out than try picking one "best" and replacing the default.

Re:Extensions are critical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899862)

I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

I don't get it. I

It's like operating systems and applications. People desire specific features that no browser has built in. Firefox users can get the features from an extension. With any other browser, forget it.

Re:Extensions are critical? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899986)

I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

It doesn't. Firefox doesn't do what I want, Chromium doesn't do what I want, and last I checked Opera doesn't do what I want.

Adblock Plus and AdBlock (Chrome extension) do what I want (EasyList). NoScript and NotScripts do what I want (simple javascript whitelisting on a site-by-site basis).

Opera user here! (4, Interesting)

Nichotin (794369) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899150)

I have been using Opera for quite some time, and the speed and feature set is very good. What I do wish for, more than extensions, is to have each tab have it's own thread in a similar fashion as Chrome. I have experienced some crashes on my Mac because of plugins, and it would be good to only have one tab crash, not the whole browser.

Re:Opera user here! (1)

alvarogmj (1679584) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899392)

some versions in the past were particularily crash-prone. I think 9.64 was the worst.
But apart from that, the crashes are so infrequent that I don't mind the whole 'one process per tab' thing. Actually, firefox on Linux crashes a lot more using the exact same flash plugin as Opera

Slashdot Editors (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899244)

Once again we see that we have very editors here at /.

Re:Slashdot Editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899988)

Yes, for sure the editors here at /. are very.

Hurray! (2, Interesting)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899248)

I used Opera for about 7-8 years and loved it, and I still do, but I recently had to switch to Firefox because the security vulnerabilities in Adobe Reader and Flash Player plugins were just too great of a risk and I need the blocking plugins that Firefox has. Although I was able to replicate a lot of my Opera experience in Firefox through plugins, like speed dial, a plugin that emulates the search strings functionality, mouse gestures, etc., the startup times, load times, and UI in Firefox are way slower than what I knew and loved in Opera. I hope noscript, adblock and flashblock-esque plugins make to Opera very quickly so I can finally go back.

Re:Hurray! (1)

alvarogmj (1679584) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899442)

check the comments above regarding On Demand Plugin :)

Re:Hurray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33900162)

Err, what? Just set disable plugins as default and off you go. re-enable for websites that you trust and that *need* the plugins.
Makes for a smoother web experience, too!

Opera is consigned to a small user base because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899274)

For many years Opera was the most advanced browser. What prevented adoption of it in the businesses that I am familiar with was the $30 charge. "Why pay for a browser?" clueless management said. Since those days Firefox, and now Chrome and Safari, have come on strong and surpassed Opera in user base. Mobile Opera has a good chance of being a major player if the price is kept reasonable.

Re:Opera is consigned to a small user base because (1)

alvarogmj (1679584) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899486)

I've been using Opera since 2002, never payed a cent. Yes, at first it has an ad on top of the window, but it was usable and good. The ad was removed in version 8.5, 5 years ago.

Opera is the Linux of web browsers, (1)

RMS Eats Toejam (1693864) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899292)

except it doesn't blow ass.

Opera was unpopular even before extensions existed (0, Troll)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899304)

It doesn't matter,  Opera does not fit.   Extensions, speed, bloated, ... are just excuses. 

Zotero (1)

dumfrac (595394) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899348)

I'll consider switching to another browser when Zotero [zotero.org] is ported.

Why? (3, Interesting)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899356)

I use Opera on both my desktop and laptop and I honestly don't understand what the heck people have against using Opera as their browser. It's super fast and lightweight, the built-in RSS feeder is the best I've seen anywhere, and it works on 99.9% of the websites (the only issues I've had is when Adobe releases a particularly buggy version of Flash). And although I will get strung up for this, I LIKE Opera's Unite feature. It makes file sharing super easy when I need to set up something quick and easy for sharing photos with family or friends.

Frankly, the stock Opera gives me everything I need in a browser. Why do I need extensions again?

Re:Why? (1)

dumfrac (595394) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899388)

Zotero [zotero.org]

Re:Why? (1)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899712)

Hm, nope.. Not seeing why I need extensions.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899918)

AdBlock, FlashBlock, and NoScript are how a lot of us prefer our web experience. Opera currently makes this onerous. I'd use Opera a lot more often if they offered this. As it is I have an Android phone that constantly reminds me how crappy the web is without these extensions.

Fanbois and their toys (1)

Chicken_Kickers (1062164) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899928)

I don't get Fanboyism either, which are mostly on mass consumer products and even more baffling, on free, open source software. Even the most low spec netbook can run 2 or more browsers. Why not have them all, especially if they are free? Why limit yourself to one particular browser, as if by doing so, you earn karma, expiate your sins, restore balance to the Force and prevent the sky from falling down. And why the vitriol on people who have a different browser/game console/airline/computer manufacturer/OS/processor/ad nauseum preferences? I have said before when iPad just came out. We as consumers owe nothing to manufacturers, rather they owe everything to us. If you like their products, good for you and good for them. If you don't like it, try something else and move on.

Re:Why? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 3 years ago | (#33900112)

As someone who has been using Opera for a while, I just tried out the beta of FF4. (I was considering writing my own extension; the "4 beta" doesn't matter, but I figured might as well giv it a short.) Yeah, whatever. More FF. But in the process I installed NoScript -- and it kicks the ass of Opera's feature. It tells you when it's blocking something (as opposed to Opera, where you have to sort of get a feel for when a site isn't working right because JS is off), is fewer clicks to whitelist a site, and lets you selectively whitelist only some of the JS on a particular page. It's wonderful. I've switched to FF here at work since that's where I installed it, and will probably switch at home when it hits a RC. All by virtue of NoScript.

If NoScript comes to Opera 11, I'll probably switch right back though.

Blame it on extenstions (2, Insightful)

milkasing (857326) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899398)

If only,
... opera had embraced a free model earlier
... had the backing of a massive corporation to have it pre-installed
... or had inherited a large core of users and developers
... or had the appeal of being open source

I have been an opera user / fan for a while, and wish more people use it. But blaming the low adoption on extensions is insane.
Opera 10 has been very disappointing in terms of quality control and I wish the team focused more on making it crash -proof and fixed all the non-working features (such as voice) instead of adding more and more functionality.

Re:Blame it on extenstions (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899718)

But blaming the low adoption on extensions is insane.

Its the primary reason I wouldn't reconsider using it. Extensions directly translate into features. Lacking features which are important to users is far from, "insane."

Well well well (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899458)

look who FINALLY decided to show up!

Supporter of Web Standards? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899460)

They sure weren't the first ones to support rounded corners and drop shadows. It may seem silly to complain about such things but the more browsers support visually appealing CSS, the less hacks will need to be done for simple visual effects.

Re:Supporter of Web Standards? (2, Insightful)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899744)

I'm pretty sure Opera had drop shadows far before Firefox. I don't count rounded corners since Firefox did it using -moz... CSS options. That's not really a standard, now, is it?

Re:Supporter of Web Standards? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33900184)

AFAIK Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners before both Firefox and Safari, vendor extension (-moz, etc) or not.

It's the advertisements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899520)

I want a free browser, without ads, that isn't IE. Chrome, Safari, Firefox, but not Opera.

Re:It's the advertisements (2, Informative)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899762)

Opera hasn't had ads for nearly half a decade now. Where are you?

Re:It's the advertisements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33899964)

I guess I gave up on it and never went back. Is there a compelling reason to revisit?

Will there be a "fix the interface" extension? (1)

realmolo (574068) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899522)

Opera's interface is a total fucking nightmare, and always has been. Obviously it appeals to some people, but those people are a minority. And insane.

I swear, Opera's interface reminds me of a bad KDE application, with its enormous collection of settings and buttons, and default settings that almost EVERYONE hates.

Re:Will there be a "fix the interface" extension? (1)

eddy (18759) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899758)

We already have many other browsers with the "other" type of interface. Why make Opera an also-run? I use opera because I like the interface. I like having my mail view up in the side panel to the left of my browser windows, with my tabs at the bottom. I don't get what's so odd about the interface.

Just more crying about things being slightly different, just like we hear about Blender and GIMP.

Our main weakness ... (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899536)

Our main weakness is that we don't support extensions, and that we are not free software, ...

Our two main weaknesses are that we don't support extensions, and that we are not free software, thus preventing inclusion in purely free-software systems and smooth integration in distributions. That, and the fact that few people know us.

Our THREE main weaknesses are ... hmm, I'll come in again.

I've found Opera a fantastic browser from the first time I used it, because of its great support for web standards. I used it to test all my web sites. However, I eventually left Opera for a lot of small reasons: no Linux support, then crashes on Linux that wouldn't really go away. Nagging, then ads. And finally, open source browsers became so good that Opera wasn't worth the hassle anymore.

Still, Opera does a great job and is right at the front of innovation. It's also fairly popular in east Europe. Good job, keep it up!

Opera fails because of Noscript, Not Extensions (1)

Silentknyght (1042778) | more than 3 years ago | (#33899630)

Extensions only matter if we're talking about porting over NoScript.

I recently made an honest effort to try out the latest stable release of Opera. I was pleased to note that it had a lot of the features baked-in that I was adding to Chrome and Firefox. It was fast and seemed to do a good job as a web browser. However, the first time I visited some forums looking for solutions to a random problem, I was sorely disappointed with the lack of Noscript. Sure, the message boards usually say "Sure you can disable Javascript, do 'this' from the menu", but that isn't the kind of granularity that NoScript offers. Then, there's a substitute called "Blockit", which is apparently supposed to act like Noscript. However, the configuration screen is painful and the addon appeared to be broken; it didn't appear to give me a NoScript-like button to control each page. The plethora of annoying bits on the sites I visited researching how to get a working Noscript substitute in Opera encouraged me to drop Opera. What irony.

I've been spoiled by NoScript. I'm not particularly a Firefox fanboy--it has its own share of problems and issues--but it does run NoScript and I can't stand browsing the web without it.

Re:Opera fails because of Noscript, Not Extensions (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#33900036)

Right-click, Site Preferences - set your options and it always remembers them for that site (e.g. Javascript off, flash off, identify as IE, etc.). You can even turn off parts of Javascript like allowing it to open other windows or hiding the address bar. Maybe not as powerful but it's there and on the "magic F12 / right-click" menu too.

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>