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 Picks Up Webkit Engine

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the proprietary-software-dies dept.

Opera 314

New submitter nthitz writes "Opera has announced that they will be dropping their rendering engine Presto, in favor of Webkit. This knocks the number of major rendering engines down to three. Opera will also be adopting the Chromium V8 Javascript engine. The news coincides with their announcement of 300 million users. '300 million marks the first lap, but the race goes on,' says Lars Boilesen, CEO of Opera Software. 'On the final stretch up to 300 million users, we have experienced the fastest acceleration in user growth we have ever seen. Now, we are shifting into the next gear to claim a bigger piece of the pie in the smartphone market.'" They've already submitted patches to improve multi-column layouts even.

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

What do they consider a user? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882677)

I download their browser from time to time, but only to see if it's the best. It never is, and I never use it again. Am I part of that 300 million?

Re:What do they consider a user? (5, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882943)

Don't forget that Opera is more that just a desktop browser. It really shines on mobile platforms with Opera Mini and Opera Mobile. The Wii's web browser is also Opera.

From what I hear, they're really big in second and third world countries where bandwidth is more limited and/or you pay by the kilobyte. Opera excels at compressing the content (especially with Opera Turbo).

Re:What do they consider a user? (3, Insightful)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883029)

Sorry, there no such thing as "excelling" at compression "especially" with Opera Turbo. The browser has zero control over compression, it can request plain old gzip compression from the server, and the server may or may not oblige. That's all that's available without a dedicated server. Opera Turbo is a system where the browser basically hijacks you connection and routes it over an Opera-controlled server. It's that server that then obtains the website content for you and compresses it. It's the only way technically to accomplish that, at the price of essentially giving yourself a man-in-the-middle attack. It's not very funny. The only thing their browser is really excellent at is IIRC browsing porn or generally image galleries with lots of image content. They were excellent at it even in their humble beginning days, where it was ad sponsored free or ad-free paid for -- you basically needed Opera to browse porn over a modem connection on a low-end machine (486DX2 w/Windows 95). With the switch to webkit, they lose whatever technical advantages they might have had.

Re:What do they consider a user? (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883397)

There are other aspects to rendering speed than the rending engine. They can still use their own JavaScript engine. The rest of the browser other than rending the actual pages still plays a big part.

Re:What do they consider a user? (5, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883473)

Sorry, there no such thing as "excelling" at compression "especially" with Opera Turbo. The browser has zero control over compression, it can request plain old gzip compression from the server, and the server may or may not oblige. That's all that's available without a dedicated server. Opera Turbo is a system where the browser basically hijacks you connection and routes it over an Opera-controlled server.

So the first part of your comment was irrelevant, except to note in passing that Opera has always had good HTTP compression support, and other features to speed up page loading (e.g. not loading images, or loading them selectively).

It's hardly hijacking if they they tell you what they're doing, and you have to click a button to enable it:
When Opera Turbo is enabled, webpages are compressed via Opera's servers so that they use much less data than the originals. This means that there is less to download, so you can see your webpages more quickly.

Enabling Opera Turbo is as simple as clicking the Opera Turbo icon at the bottom-left of the Opera browser window. When you are on a fast connection again and Opera Turbo is not needed, the Opera browser will automatically disable it.
http://www.opera.com/browser/turbo/ [opera.com]

Re:What do they consider a user? (4, Informative)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883625)

For me, it's the best of Chrome (look, speed, good tabs, etc.) and Firefox (has about:config, intuitive, etc.). One thing that hasn't been copied from Opera yet that doesn't make any sense... Anytime you get a JavaScript alert box, Opera adds a little checkbox allowing you to stop executing scripts on the page. Ever accidentally land on a website that kept spewing off alerts without you being able to close the page except by killing it? Opera also did extensions right; they're super easy to make. Opera has always either been the first or the first to do it right. Hands down.

Re:What do they consider a user? (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883977)

I might actually use it again if I can use it with Adblock Plus.

Re:What do they consider a user? (5, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883765)

pera Turbo is a system where the browser basically hijacks you connection and routes it over an Opera-controlled server. It's that server that then obtains the website content for you and compresses it. It's the only way technically to accomplish that, at the price of essentially giving yourself a man-in-the-middle attack. It's not very funny

And when you live in a small village in africa and an hour of smartphone use could cost a day's pay, you get mighty thankful for that compression. These aren't the sorts of people that do online banking and are worried about MitM. Many of them are very happy to exchange email with friends and relatives in another village, and text compresses very nicely.

Just because it's not the right feature for you doesn't mean there isn't a significant sized group that really appreciates it.

Re:What do they consider a user? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883779)

The Wii's browser is god-awful. Probably why Nintendo switched to webkit for the 3DS and Wii U browsers.

So... why use Opera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882687)

Really, why would someone use Opera over Chrome or Safari if you're on a Mac?

Re:So... why use Opera? (5, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882955)

Maybe because of features other than the rendering engine? I prefer Opera's UI, but it's also great to use as a general web client with integrated email, IRC, torrents, etc.

Re:So... why use Opera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883211)

it's also great to use as a general web client with integrated email, IRC, torrents, etc.

I've never really understood this. Why are web browsers considered so special that people want them to be things other than web browsers? Email, IRC & Torrent clients exist and integrate into web browsers just fine.

Re:So... why use Opera? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883391)

Opera integrates the different components much more tightly than, say, Thunderbird and Firefox. Email and IRC effectively become just another tab and it allows them to share resources so that they're more efficient than having separate programs for each one. It'd be great if Opera released a light version with just the browser, but I don't think you'd really see huge improvements by removing those features simply because they are so well integrated.

Case in point: SeaMonkey (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883841)

It'd be great if Opera released a light version with just the browser, but I don't think you'd really see huge improvements by removing those features simply because they are so well integrated.

Case in point: Is SeaMonkey significantly larger than Mozilla Firefox?

Re:So... why use Opera? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883883)

Why an all-in-one?

Personally, I don't want an all-in-one. But, some people don't want to switch between applications. They just want to move from one tab to another. That's cool, I guess. I'm far more comfortable with separate applications, almost always spread between several virtual desktops. The wife, on the other hand, has never used virtual desktops, and seldom switches between applications. She's a better multi-tasker than I am, in real life, but on the computer, hang it up. One window, one desktop, one app. She'll create an insane number of tabs in Firefox, but it's all in Firefox.

Re:So... why use Opera? (0)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882985)

Why would someone use anything other than Chrome or Chromium on any platform?

Re:So... why use Opera? (2)

teg (97890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883571)

Why would someone use anything other than Chrome or Chromium on any platform?

On Mac, one good reason would be because it is just 32 bit - unlike the rest of the system. This means that e.g. java does not work in Chrome on Mac. While that might be seen as a good thing at some times ;), this means that you can't use many of the banks here in Norway - or do online credit card payments.

Also, some might think that Google knows enough about you already...

Re:So... why use Opera? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883905)

You can certainly install the Java for Chrome on Macintosh, but you are limited to Java 6 as the most recent. Google provides a link to the instructions on how to do this.

http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2429779 [google.com]

which links to...

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5559?viewlocale=en_US [apple.com]

--
BMO

Re:So... why use Opera? (2)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883023)

Well, because of all the other features. The rendering engine was never a reason to choose opera over them in the first place – it was much slower, especially the javascript engine.

Re:So... why use Opera? (1)

Rhaban (987410) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883191)

Opera's javascript engine was pretty fast a few years ago, before chrome existed. It was way faster than firefox's, ie's or safari's.

Then chrome arrived and, although opera's engine has evolved a lot and is faster than ever, it never managed to reclaim its first place, even letting firefox claim the second place in the javascript speed race.

Re:So... why use Opera? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883035)

It's really better for browsing image galleries, especially over poor connections. Other than that I agree.

Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882697)

We don't need multiple rendering engines, we just need one standards compliant one. Let the features of each browser be the differentiating factor (Chrome's simple UI, Firefox's extensions, IE's.... applet support?)

captcha: possible

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (5, Insightful)

cpicon92 (1157705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882723)

We don't need multiple rendering engines, we just need one standards compliant one

Ideally, yes that's true. In practice, this would result in the one becoming a defacto standard, and whomever controls the one controls the standard. We are already kind of seeing this with WebKit. Competition is never a bad thing.

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882839)

Who is the competitor to the W3C now then? Competition is not a good thing, when it comes to standards. The only question is, who is best to take the standard forward: the W3C, or the webkit implementors? Either choice creates a monopoly, but with the latter choice, it's a monopoly that produces a working and free implementation.

The point is, when implementations are free, why do we need paper standards at all?

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883031)

The point is, when implementations are free, why do we need paper standards at all?

A standards organization is made up of industry members who are stakeholders and other interested parties. It's a democracy, which is why standards are always so slow in coming. An implementation is necessarily owned and managed by a much smaller group; democracy-styled software development management doesn't work.

The system we have now where we have standards organizations which are sufficiently careful and methodical and multiple implementations with one or more also acting as testbeds is serving us well. It just happens that WebKit an implementation with many benefits and so is eating the lunches of the others, but let's not jump to the false conclusion that a single open-or-otherwise implementation would serve us just as well.

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883891)

But you don't give a single specific reason why the paper standard is better than my implemenation-as-standard. "Serving us well" is weasel words - the alternative may serve us better.

As for stakeholders, what is their stake? Implementors? That becomes irrelevant. Users? Well, with billions of web users, I doubt their global interests are well served at all by the current situation. Web Developers? They just want a uniform API, which only a monopoly implementation can provide. Like I said, it's a choice between one monopoly with limited outlooks, and another. I take the argument that the outlook of the W3C may be wider than that of the webkit development team, but you're still advocating what is essentially an obsolete waterfall model over something more agile, but not really backing that up with any specific rationale.

There is evidence to suggest that the natural course of things will eventually settle on webkit as the only implementation. Opera moving to webkit is an important data point to that. So if evolution leads to one W3C and one webkit, clearly the old way (multiple implementors) did not serve us well, and a merging of the W3C and webkit might be a natural progression from that. Maybe the W3C eats webkit, so you still get all your stakeholder involvement, but they deliver working code (as well as a spec that doesn't quite match it). Would that be so wrong?

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883049)

You live on this cloud nine where standards are complete and leave nothing up for interpretation, and where implementations of the standards are bug-free and introduce no vendor-specific extensions. Alas, in the real world, it's not that way.

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883759)

Um, no, and that's exactly my point. No implementation of a paper standard is bug free, but if the standard was the implementation, it would be free of the kind of bugs where the behaviour doesn't match the standard, by definition. Try at least to make your strawman not be the exact opposite of the case.

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (1)

OOSCARR (826638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883205)

Who is the competitor to the W3C now then? Competition is not a good thing, when it comes to standards.

WHATWG

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (1)

silviuc (676999) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883367)

Except in webkit's case, nobody actually controls it. Sure, Google, Apple and Co do spend a lot of money paying developers to work on it, but the thing is open-source. Can they all just fork it at some point and turn the forks proprietary. Probably, but why would they? They already share the load on developing the thing, why wouldn't they continue sharing? It would also create fragmentation in their userbase, they really don't want that.

There was one FUDster some months ago that was on a website that was arguing against Webkit because, wait for it, it contained "proprietary" technologies. Yes "proprietary" tech in a open-source product. Just how stupid do those jackasses think we are anyways?!

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883477)

Except in webkit's case, nobody actually controls it.

Go ahead and try to submit a patch to Webkit. Anything at all.

Oh, it has been rejected. It doesn't fit into the "strategic roadmap" of the "governance" committee.

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883601)

Who owns the master branch? Who guards the commit gates from the hordes? There's your defacto controllers of WebKit - you can fork all you want, but you need to get the main users (the browser integrators, Google et al) to follow your branch rather than the master.

Apple owns the master branch.

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (4, Insightful)

silviuc (676999) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883703)

Their control is accepted by all developers, if indeed that is the case. The minute they turn rotten, is the minute they lose "control". See the OpenOffice - > LibreOffice case.

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883753)

Or go further back, where, until Mozilla finished rebuilding the Netscape spaghetti code from the ground up, it was basically IE or bust (Opera was also around back then, but as for-pay/shareware it honestly didn't stand a chance against IE).

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882995)

If there is only one implementation then what is the point of having standards? Not having enough competing implementations that keep each other sharp and make it meaningful for the makers to complyto a shared standard is what prevents the world from being burdened with another IE6.

Re:Hopefully we can narrow this down to ONE (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883965)

Imagine if we had said that a few years ago, when IE6 ruled the market. Without the competition from Mozilla, Opera, and Konqueror, among others, do you think Microsoft would have ever improved their browser?

Competition is good. I happen to like Webkit, but I'm not looking forward to a world in which EVERYONE uses webkit. Someone needs to be odd man out, doing things differently, and looking for "the next big thing" in web browsers.

Monoculture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882699)

Open standards in some sense are stronger than open source, because they provide greater capitalistic incentive for improvements (especially for usability and performance) than the commons model. And, there's the malware thing with monocultures.

Re:Monoculture (4, Insightful)

LO0G (606364) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883155)

How exactly does this work? If we had a monoculture (like we had with IE6), people code to the monoculture, standards be damned. If WebKit implements a standard badly, no amount of complaining by Microsoft and Mozilla will cause the WebKit folks to change their browser rendering to be compliant. And just like what happened with IE6, web developers will ignore the standard in favor of the WebKit implementation. We're ALREADY seeing this happen - webkit has sufficient market share that sites don't bother building standards compliant version of their mobile site, they just write for webkit and consider their work done.

History has shown that if you have a monoculture, standards are irrelevant - the only thing that matters is the one implementation.

Re:Monoculture (1)

mblase (200735) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883385)

You're assuming Opera is a browser developers actually worry about. At less than 2% market share [w3schools.com] , Opera actually concerns me as a developer less than IE7 on typical projects.

Re:Monoculture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883851)

You're assuming Opera is a browser developers actually worry about. At less than 2% market share [w3schools.com] , Opera actually concerns me as a developer less than The Zombie Apocalypse on typical projects.

FTFY

Opera (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882703)

Drama queen

Re:Opera (4, Funny)

MarkGriz (520778) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883145)

Drama queen

Not Oprah.... OP-ER-A

Re:Opera (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883663)

Drama queen

Not Oprah.... OP-ER-A

He was referring to Opera's fanboys.

Re:Opera (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883815)

Drama queen

Not Oprah.... OP-ER-A

What, you prefer "prima donna"?

such an ambiguous feeling.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882731)

I've been using this browser for about ten years. Wish them not to fail.

Monoculture, here we come (again) (3, Interesting)

McDutchie (151611) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882733)

This is bad news. Another step on the way to browser monoculture, with all the problems that can bring. Next thing Firefox will switch to Webkit and we'll have only Webkit browsers and IE left.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882793)

It's the natural end point of any "free" market. I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding this.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883799)

Economics courses, that's why...

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (1)

ixarux (1652631) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882819)

only Webkit browsers and IE left.

Aah. Sepia-tinged nostalgia ...

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (3, Interesting)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882827)

Since Opera's engines were closed source anyway, I don't see the diversity they provided as terribly valuable. If they open source the stuff they're abandoning now (as they definitively should), that will be far more valuable.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883093)

As is often the case when closed code is made free, it may become clear why they decided to switch rather than clean up their own. Proprietary codebases are often a mess compared to a high quality open codebase. Seems to be most common with games, given the extreme deadline pressures they are subject to, but not unheard of in other areas. The value of opening the code is countered by the effort required to clean it up. And if there are gaps left by proprietary bits that can't be opened due to licensing issues, the effort needed to get to a viable state is even greater. I'm not sure opening the code would bring that much value, but I do agree with you, since it couldn't hurt.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883481)

I'm not sure opening the code would bring that much value, but I do agree with you, since it couldn't hurt.

If some unemployed OCD programmers with a penchant for refactoring code can be turned loose on it, then even a snarly codebase that Opera abandoned might pay us some dividends.

I'm using Opera Mobile on my Android devices because they are so very pathetic; I have a Nook Simple Touch which runs 2,1 (won't someone please get gingerbread working?) and I have (get ready for it) an AT&T Fuze aka HTC Raphael 110, which can be booted into Gingerbread with very little reliability. But Opera Mobile actually runs really well, to the point where I can even make practical use of multitouch zooming and so on, so long as I do not get carried away. Neither Chrome nor Firefox can even be installed on either device... this is truly a sad announcement for people who are still resorting to using antiques.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (4, Interesting)

Peter Bortas (130) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883619)

Operas code is quite clean. Way easier to read and understand than Firefox's. Don't know how it compares to Webkit code-wise.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882937)

This is bad news. Another step on the way to browser monoculture, with all the problems that can bring. Next thing Firefox will switch to Webkit and we'll have only Webkit browsers and IE left.

On some level I get what you're saying, and agree with it.

On the other hand, calling this "IE6 all over again" is at least little bit misguided, as Webkit is FOSS and can be forked, enhanced and deployed by anyone who wishes to do so.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883099)

Webkit is FOSS and can be forked, enhanced and deployed by anyone who wishes to do so.

Which is all for naught, unless you can get your fork integrated into browsers which people actually use.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (4, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883065)

A browser monoculture based on webkit is at least better than a monoculture based on a closed source rendering engine...
Just how bad it is, really comes down to who controls it and how much input other people have into it.

Of course without intervention pretty much everything will end up heading towards a monoculture... Linux for instance has pretty much killed the varied proprietary unixes that existed just as x86 has killed the risc processors they ran on.

So if a monoculture is inevitable, then minimising the damage by keeping it open is the best you can hope for.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883633)

Yeah, but there are always downsides to a monoculture. x86 is a big example. It took years longer than it should have to get 64 bit desktop computers because Intel was dragging it's heels. It's only once AMD came up with their own implementation and they had no other choice that they had to go along. Also look at power usage. We are finally getting real serious about mobile computing but Intel is too power hungry so you either get a device with less than stellar battery life, or a device that won't run all your old applications. There are some advantages in an open source perspective, such as if one browser implements a new feature, or fixes some CSS rendering bug, all the other browsers can immediately upgrage or fix their browsers. But I think that without real competition there is too much of a likelihood of things stagnating.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883091)

Why this will never happen: http://browserfame.com/363/why-mozilla-gecko-will-not-adopt-webkit

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (2)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883219)

It's no big deal. If some monopolist messed around with a single platform it would be easy to replace html with an ad hoc markup language, make a browser for that and ignore all previous standards. I'm not joking. There is really nothing magic about document markup and "mobile" application frameworks, almost any undergraduate CS student could come up with something better than what we have now, and an alternative WWW would be adopted very swifty if the old one for some reason became inconvenient to most users.

To give the doubters an example, I'm pretty sure that I could come up with my own SXML-based version of the web with embedded sandboxed, just-in-time compiled scripting language and my own fast browser within a few days or weeks at maximum, just by using existing HTTP(S) for the clients/servers and gluing together some existing Racket libraries. And I haven't even studied CS. I'm sure some smarter people could come up with something better and faster in even less time. Of course, as long as there is no pressing need, this would be quite a futile exercise.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883293)

Next thing Firefox will switch to Webkit

I very much doubt that. Just research a bit into Firefox development and you'll see this is extremely unlikely. Almost unthinkable.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883667)

This is a disapointment to myself. I have IE9, Opera, and Chrome installed because they each render slightly differently. Each works better for me in slightly different scenarios. Depending on how much this changes Opera I might have to go drop it for something else.

Re:Monoculture, here we come (again) (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883793)

The open source community builds a tool that's so good everone adopts it? Unacceptable!

Can we have the source, please? (5, Insightful)

Dr. Spork (142693) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882759)

The Presto rendering engine had some pretty decent performance, and was often the fastest among the graphical browsers. If it's being abandoned, wouldn't it be nice if it were made available as open source? Webkit isn't the right tool for every occasion. I hate to see something so good just die.

Re:Can we have the source, please? (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882947)

I can confirm that Opera was the fastest browser before Chrome was on the scene. I visited my aunt once and was trying to use her ancient PC with my thumb drive... Firefox took forever to start, but Opera was instant and browsing was nice and snappy.

Still nothing compared to how Chrome would perform later, at least on other PCs, but still.

Re:Can we have the source, please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882999)

While I am primarily an Opera user, my main complaint with the program is that it won't shut down. After being closed, it just hangs out in the background using up resources.

Have you tried Opera 12.14? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883161)

Had that issue in ver. 12.12 (had memory leak in it also) on videos on YouTube!

Where the plugin controller would "hang around" (but, eventually turn itself off) in that version!

Fixed, afaik & have been testing since this model released, in current build 12.14 64-bit Opera (what I use on Windows 7 64-bit)...

APK

P.S.=> THUS - You *MAY* want to check the latest/greatest, here, "straight-from-the-horses'-mouth" -> http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/ [opera.com] to see IF it fixes it for you - it did for me!

... apk

I'll reconfirm that (w/ documented evidences) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883081)

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3457941&cid=42883053 [slashdot.org]

* :)

APK

P.S.=> Enjoy the read, & just for the hell of it? DO consider Opera 12.14 (especially in 64-bit, IF you use that memory address capable version of your OS of choice)...

... apk

You're not kidding (evidences within over time) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883053)

"The Presto rendering engine had some pretty decent performance, and was often the fastest among the graphical browsers." - by Dr. Spork (142693) on Wednesday February 13, @09:00AM (#42882759)

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11/12/037241/Firefox-4-Regains-Speed-Mojo-With-No-2-Placing [slashdot.org]

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html [howtocreate.co.uk]

http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/ [nontroppo.org]

---

* Each of those listed benchmarks tests reviews had Opera consistently finishing 1st or 2nd typically vs. all other competing webbrowser programs over time, & yes - In straight HTML processing, Javascript performance (which I consider only heading into exploits faster, as to speed gains here), & even HTML5 tests (iirc, I haven't checked those links recently though)...

(Says it all & "seconds your motion", with backing data from reputable sources!)

APK

P.S.=> Will I try the new motor/engine? Sure - However:

I strongly wager I'll still stick by Opera 12.14 64-bit, since it is amazingly well-done, finally & in pure 64-bit code too!

(Opera's devs have it down solid & with ZERO known bugs afaik, currently, as of this build)...

Time WILL tell though!

... apk

Javascript?? Please, NO! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882773)

We're supposed to be dumping all things java. Can't they make this thing work in COBOL?

Re:Javascript?? Please, NO! (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883243)

JavaScript is not Java.

Just in case you where not making a funny.

Re:Javascript?? Please, NO! (-1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883809)

it's a scripting language for java, hence the name.

Re:Javascript?? Please, NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883917)

Actually, Javascript has more in common with Scheme than Java.

"Java and Javascript are similar like Car and Carpet are similar. [stackoverflow.com] "

Re:Javascript?? Please, NO! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883979)

I don't know if you actually believe that, but just in case anyone else comes along this path, Java and JavaScript are entirely separate from each other. They have absolutely nothing in common, except that the syntax for both is descended from C. And there was a licensing deal to use the Java name.

If you want to disagree (can't see why you'd want to), give evidence.

Re:Javascript?? Please, NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883369)

And the moron of the thread award goes to:

Re:Javascript?? Please, NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883405)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaand, you are a moron

Good idea. (1)

Spaztian (1041588) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882777)

One of the reasons I didn't use Opera was actually because Web developers never tended to create content with Opera's rendering engine in mind. This lead to a few weird quirks on some badly(lazy?) coded web pages, sometimes breaking the whole thing altogether. Now, I'm going to give Opera another go. I really like browsers features, however now I don't need to compromise my web experience on the rendering level in order to use it. Good move in my opinion, as I don't think the web really benefits from multipul rendering engines /unless/ one of them goes stale and prevents innovation (Anyone remember Internet Explorer 6?). So long as the rendering engine to webkit or Mozilla's web engine allows the web to grow, I am happy with only one or two out there.

How much of this is down to crApple... (-1, Flamebait)

Assmasher (456699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882783)

...not allowing non-webkit browsers..?

Inquiring (and under-caffeinated) minds want to know...

Re:How much of this is down to crApple... (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882981)

Opera was the first alternative browser available on iOS as a result of Opera Mini being classified as a "remote content viewer" rather than a browser.

Re:How much of this is down to crApple... (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883077)

Opera for iOS operated in this fashion - it's a hack forced on Opera by the wonderful people at crApple.

Re:How much of this is down to crApple... (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883365)

Actually, Opera Mini works this way on Android as well.

Opera Mobile is the more classical version of Opera for mobile devices.

Re:How much of this is down to crApple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883713)

But it works this way because Opera would be loony to build a hack for crApple that made it 'platform free' (in that the platform specific app is just a container for a web served 'browser experience') and then create an individual browser for Android when they don't know where their code base is going.

Opera would gladly build a platform specific web browser, but if they can't for iOS it makes no sense to do it for Android when the same hack gives you easy Android support.

The Vikings and their phones (1)

ixarux (1652631) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882787)

Do the Scandinavians hate to be away from the mobile phone markets?

Re:The Vikings and their phones (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883423)

Do the Scandinavians hate to be away from the mobile phone markets?

Besides, mobile phones do not work from mars.

Cost related? (5, Interesting)

Tridus (79566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882795)

Just speculation, but I wonder if this is cost related. It can't be cheap to keep Presto up to par with Webkit and Gecko. Using Webkit instead means they can spend less money on that, and devote more to the UI without particularly affecting the browser's standards compliance.

So in that sense it seems like a sound business decision.

Re:Cost related? (2)

thoth (7907) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883251)

That's exactly what the first link says is the reason:

it [maintaining Presto] ends up taking up a lot of resources - resources that could have been spent on innovation and polish instead

and

Not only will it [switching to Webkit] free up significant engineering resources at Opera and allow us to do more innovation instead of constantly trying to adapt to the web

Why? (1)

Lazere (2809091) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882871)

To what end are they doing this? I was never a big fan of Opera, but somebody was. Their engine was one of the big things that made them different. Now that they've switched to webkit, can anybody tell me what makes them different from Chrome now?

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883051)

Everything other than the rendering engine? That's what really set Opera apart. The email client is really nice and the IRC and torrent clients aren't bad. I also prefer the UI to Chrome.

Re:Why? (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883907)

ow that they've switched to webkit, can anybody tell me what makes them different from Chrome now?

Everything other than the rendering engine?

Well, not everything, since they are switching to V8 Javascript engine, as well.

OTOH, differentiation on lots of axes may not be as important to them as being able to drive the web in the direction they want. Opera-pushed changes to web standards may be easier get accepted by other browser vendors (and, consequently, standards bodies on which those vendors sit) if, when Opera pays the cost to develop their implementation, they've already automatically got patches to WebKit to implement them -- plus, Opera doesn't have to expend as much effort reimplementing new and widely used features from other vendors if they can just pull them in from upstream.

Working from a common open source base means that each vendor can focus on what they want to do that is new rather than duplicating other vendors' work.

Re:Why? (1)

PhloppyPhallus (250291) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883259)

I always thought Opera's selling points had more to do with the customizable UI, and not so much to do with it's rendering engine. For your typical end-user, the impact of Opera having a unique rendering engine is that some pages look funny in Opera because few websites test against Presto. Webkit can't be ignored these days, so by adopting it Opera has less to worry about and gets an engine that keeps up-to-date at a much lower cost than rolling their own. Moreover, should Opera wish to add features to the rendering engine (such as new proposals for the HTML spec) it's a hell of a lot easier to get other to adopt them when you've implemented it in Webkit than a closed source implementation in Presto. It's a win for everyone; the only surprise to me is that they didn't adopt an open renderer sooner.

Opera is developing backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882877)

First they axed Unite, now Presto. Looks like Opera is jumping on the bandwagon where innovation means removing features instead of adding them.

Re:Opera is developing backwards (1)

tommituura (1346233) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883015)

Well, it has worked for Apple well enough...

Re:Opera is developing backwards (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883073)

It was a shame when they ditched Unite, it was very innovative imo. I wish they would re-release it, possibly as a separate software package.

Re:Opera is developing backwards (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883773)

Yet when developers add features, it's called bloat. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

This is bad news. And sad news. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42882885)

Monopoly is never good. Diversity is power. Since everyone walks into a different direction, and then on top of that can take the best of everybody else. That way we get a lot more, than with a single path that everybody follows. It saves time to imitate instead of innovating, yes. But because less work is done, and hence it results in less.

Just look at a mono-culture forest or plantation, versus a diverse mixed one. Or a pure breed dog versus a cross breed. The latter ones always are stronger, live longer, and can adapt better. The former develop illnesses, and one weakness is everyone's weakness. If a critical flaw is exploited, the whole forest goes down.

That why bitching about "fragmentation" is so ignorant, completely backwards, and stupid. Fragmentation doesn't mean loss of compatibility. All it requires, is a common standard. And in that, the web community shines.

Re:This is bad news. And sad news. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883989)

Monopoly is never good.

A common open-source base implementation for core features of a class of applications for which interoperability is an important feature isn't the same thing as a monopoly. It doesn't have any of the problems that come from a monopoly (it may have some of the problems associated with monoculture, which is a different issue than a monopoly.)

Diversity is power. Since everyone walks into a different direction, and then on top of that can take the best of everybody else.

That's actually the selling point of having a common base open source implementation. Everyone can focus their development efforts on their unique interests, and at the same time pull in the common features from the base rather than, if they want features that someone else has, having to reinvent the wheel to implement on top of a different base engine.

It saves time to imitate instead of innovating, yes.

No, it saves time to pull from upstream rather than reinventing the wheel for common features, which frees up resources for innovating for innovative features. This means that features that are intended to work the same across browsers actually will, while more resources are available for each vendor to implement new features.

Makes sense... (4, Interesting)

dejanc (1528235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42882977)

As a web developer, I should be happy about this development, but the fact is: Opera was always standards compliant and as a user I liked how it rendered pages (qucikly and without any white screen gaps between page loads).

But it probably makes sense for them. Webkit is solid and their costs will probably go down dramatically.

"rendering ending"? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883021)

Do you mean rendering engine?

After all the complaints of slashvertisements yesterday, at least something is back to what we are used to over the last 15 years. Complete lack of grammar and editing.

You talk like an effeminate cat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42883207)

They've already submitted patches to improve multi-column layouts even.

Snagglepuss?

R.I.P Opera (1)

zixxt (1547061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883461)

Opera is dead after this move. Ever since the founder of Opera left (forced out) Opera has been a sinking ship.

It was good know you Opera, the web browser that could fit on a floppy in my Windows 98 days.

And the winner is... Mozilla?!! (4, Insightful)

Matthew Raymond (2631275) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883901)

The W3C requires at least two implementations of a standard before it can become a Recommendation. Thus, Google needs at least one ally with its own independent browser implementation to push standards through to Recommendation status. Of the five major browser vendors (Microsoft, Google, Apple, Mozilla and Opera), three of them (Google, Apple and Opera) are now all using a single rendering engine: Webkit. Apple may have a separate JavaScript engine, but it's a fierce competitor of Google, as is Microsoft. This leaves only Opera and Mozilla as potential standards partners, and Opera just went Webkit/V8. So, basically, Mozilla becomes Google's de facto ally for Web standards. (As if they weren't already, considering WebRTC.)

Congratulations, Mozilla. Your continued Google funding is assured.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?