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 Releases Its First Chromium-Based Browser

timothy posted about a year ago | from the google-it dept.

Opera 191

hypnosec writes "Opera has released its first Chromium-based, completely re-engineered browser as a preview for Windows and Mac systems (download). The new browser has been given quite a makeover and comes with a refresh of Opera's 'Speed Dial' bookmarking feature. Users can now not only organize their shortcuts into folders, but also group them into folders automatically by simply dragging one bookmark over another. Opera has also included a faster bookmarking tool dubbed 'Stash,' allowing users to return to the links quickly. The new version has combined its search and address bars, allowing users to make searches directly via Amazon, Bing, Google and Wikipedia."

cancel ×

191 comments

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

faster bookmarks (3, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about a year ago | (#43841151)

"Opera has also included a faster bookmarking tool dubbed 'Stash,' allowing users to return to the links quickly."

Was anyone complaining that bookmarks were too slow?

Re:faster bookmarks (5, Informative)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about a year ago | (#43841263)

Beat me.

Someone forgot to sign the version too, playing havoc on my Mac with saved passwords in keychain, dialogue popup for every saved password, I have hundreds of them. A known Chrome bug that's now in Opera Next.

Re:faster bookmarks (4, Funny)

spacefight (577141) | about a year ago | (#43842099)

A known Chrome bug that's now in Opera Next.
A known Chrome bug that's now in Opera. Next.

Fixed the punctuation for you...

Re:faster bookmarks (-1, Flamebait)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year ago | (#43843175)

Except the nightly of Opera is called Opera Next . But by all means, don't let that stop you from karma [whoring] !

Re:faster bookmarks (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843211)

Except woosh.

Re:faster bookmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841285)

with chrom*, they are are now...

slower browsing (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about a year ago | (#43841417)

I really can't find Turbo mode, the only feature I liked in Opera while using MiFi to save bandwidth and when out in the middle of nowhere with poor reception.

Re:slower browsing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841521)

I think it's the 'Off road' option in the Opera menu in the top-left.

Re:slower browsing (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#43842015)

From the linked download page, it looks like it's now called "Off-Road".

Re:slower browsing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843441)

They also split the email client into a separate program. I bet they dropped the built in torrent client, notes, link, download manager, mouse gestures and broke extension compatibility too.

Fuck this. This isn't Opera, it's just another simplistic Chromium clone.

Re:faster bookmarks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841423)

"Opera has also included a faster bookmarking tool dubbed 'Stash,' allowing users to return to the links quickly."

Was anyone complaining that bookmarks were too slow?

You obviously haven't been around here when someone starts bitching about how Chrome or Firefox "mysteriously" eats through RAM when 500+ tabs are open at once (yes, these people openly admit to having literally over 500 tabs open at once as if they weren't just a bit loony-in-the-bad-sense) and were forced to justify this behavior to save face. Find one of those conversations, and I'll assure you you'll find a lot of... well, okay, you'll find very FEW people complaining that bookmarks are too slow for their workflow, but they're very very LOUD, and they seem to think that should count for bonus points, like penmanship or putting your name on top of the paper.

I didn't say anyone that mattered complained about it, just that they exist.

Re:faster bookmarks (4, Funny)

cream wobbly (1102689) | about a year ago | (#43841455)

They may have been complaining there were too many of them, in which case we really should expect to see a feature called "micro-Stash" soon, Stash for short. It should shave off vital microseconds and improve the chops* of more rugged Internet users. Of course, that may be a bare-faced lie.

*mutton

Re:faster bookmarks (2)

cream wobbly (1102689) | about a year ago | (#43841461)

Great. The Greek letter "mu" doesn't show, which completely wrecks my joke.

Re:faster bookmarks (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841565)

I don't think it was the lack of mu that wrecked your joke.

Re:faster bookmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843287)

Now I feel like giving him a pity +1 Funny,

Re:faster bookmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842491)

*golf clap*

Re:faster bookmarks (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#43841481)

"Opera has also included a faster bookmarking tool dubbed 'Stash,' allowing users to return to the links quickly."

That's fine, as long as the rest of you stays away from my stash.

Re:faster bookmarks (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#43842225)

I'm posting from Opera Next now. Stash appears to be a better-looking version of Safari's "Reading List" feature. I actually like it. In fact, I like the browser in general. It has had a nice facelift, with Speed Dial getting new features, and Discover actually seems quite nice. Unfortunately, it also has some annoyances. It doesn't play nicely with some custom Windows color schemes; my black window chrome makes the New Tab button invisible and blends in with inactive tabs too much. It also seems like they've hidden or removed certain settings, which is rather obnoxious (I can't figure out how to get rid of the Google search on the Speed Dial. I already have an integrated address bar, so why do I need that?)

Re:faster bookmarks (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year ago | (#43842653)

So... I just downloaded the thing, installed it, clicked on its shortcut... nothing.
Looking at Task manager, I see Opera.exe, then opera_crashreporter.exe, then opera_autoupdate.exe popping up. opera_autoupdate.exe stays in the list for a while, then it goes away.
That's ALL that happens.

Wow. This browser might be nice... if it only worked.

Re:faster bookmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842741)

In Opera, yes.

Re:faster bookmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842811)

The tool is so fast they forgot the import&export boorkmark children behind.

Re:faster bookmarks (1)

lipanitech (2620815) | about a year ago | (#43842863)

I have not used opera since my old blackberry days. They were best browser for the BB and they do make a decent desktop browser they just need more publicity.

Re:faster bookmarks (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43843329)

Hell I don't get the whole switch...are they broke? Can they no longer afford to keep Presto, is that it? Because while I don't personally use Opera I have several family and customers that do and they were all quite happy with it, honestly the Opera users were some of the easiest to manage, Opera never broke, it never started acting up, it surfed the web and did that job VERY well.

So the only reason I can see for the switch is they are just too damned poor because it takes a hell of a lot less people to just reskin Chromium than it does to have an actual browser. I wonder how this is gonna affect their userbase as already 2 of my long time Opera users switched to Firefox, they didn't want anything to do with Chrome or Chromium.

The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841177)

The problem with the "old" Opera was only the bad JavaScript support. Taking that out and you would get a nice browser. I fear that the WebKit Opera would be just another WebKit browser instead of the ole good Opera we all know. Is there a way to somewhat merge the good features of the Opera and taking only the performance of Chromium there?

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43841309)

I fear that the WebKit Opera would be just another WebKit browser instead of the ole good Opera we all know.

You don't have to fear that because Opera won't be using WebKit at all.

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841405)

You don't have to fear that because Opera won't be using WebKit at all.

Semantically it will. It uses Blink, a fork of Webkit.

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43841663)

Blink is not supposed to be a fork for WebKit. Blink is supposed to be a rewritten layout engine that will offer higher performance for Javascript code by means of JITting DOM manipulation from the Javascript side, and taking advantage of V8 optimizations for doing so. You can't achieve that by "forking WebKit".

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (1)

eric_brissette (778634) | about a year ago | (#43841795)

Odd, I was under the impression that Blink was, in fact, a fork of WebKit.

It's already available in Chrome's Canary builds. I thought I had read that it'd be in Chrome Stable by June or July.

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43842021)

Perhaps it can be described as fork right now, but after the stuff that's going to happen to it, it will have as much common with Apple's WebKit as an frog has with a squirrel.

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842483)

That's how forks (and evolution) work.

Captcha: Atheist

LOL

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843157)

Frogs and squirrels are pretty similar. They are both members of the subphyla Vertebrata. When you compare over the whole of biology, they are quite similar. There are minor differences that add up to the differences you see, but on the inside, they work mostly the same.

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841525)

I wish that were true, but they dropped presto for Webkit and this is the first build of the abomination. Instead of fully featured browser in a neat multilanguage package of about 15 mb, we now have an useless Chrome shell without side bar, M2, RSS client, Bookmarks, keyboard and mouse shortcuts and well.. without anything resembling Opera.

Is still to early to be truly depressed since some of the features will make their way back, but the decision of split M2 as a standalone client is pretty bad signal. If they to drop it from the final version, it will kill it for me (and I've been using it since 1997).

I'm really astonished from the bad decisions they are making since Von Tetzchner left the company. They keep dropping useful features from the browsers and dumbing it down. If they keep the current trend chances it will be dead before release. You don;t need to be a genius to understand that if your users wants a Chrome shell, they'll be using ** Chrome in the first place.

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year ago | (#43841807)

I wish that were true, but they dropped presto for Webkit and this is the first build of the abomination. Instead of fully featured browser in a neat multilanguage package of about 15 mb, we now have an useless Chrome shell without side bar, M2, RSS client, Bookmarks, keyboard and mouse shortcuts and well.. without anything resembling Opera.

Haven't tried it yet but I fear the loss of my short-cuts, one built in is /. taking you to slashdot.org;
I have many more that I've used for ages.

Hopefully this upgrade will allow Opera to play well with all of the sites now, I'm just used to
getting "you need a modern browser to continue". I use Opera as my main browser but have
a secondary FireFox for the pages Oprea won't open or when I want to play Battlefield 3,
which is daily

Somewhere around version around 3.62 or so is when I started using Opera. That browser on a floppy
was one sweet deal, taking all my bookmarks with me as I visited was just handy.

I've been collecting my bookmarks since that time as well, nothing else imports them,
some have tried but but it doesn't work out for me. I'm sure this newest update will
let me keep them and hopefully creating a new bookmark folder won't take very many tries now;
actually creating one was mostly a matter of luck for me.

Opera has always had the latest and greatest features, I hope it isn't "improved" to where
I don't care for it as that would just suck.

The above sound rambling? Probably because I am afraid of what's become of Opera.

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year ago | (#43842947)

I'm really astonished from the bad decisions they are making since Von Tetzchner left the company. They keep dropping useful features from the browsers and dumbing it down. If they keep the current trend chances it will be dead before release. You don;t need to be a genius to understand that if your users wants a Chrome shell, they'll be using ** Chrome in the first place.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the trend all the browser makers are following these days, and unfortunately neither Mozilla or Google is out of business or even hurting yet. And after all their fuck-ups, Mozilla should be hurting like a son of a bitch... but no, they're big and influential enough that they can fuck their long-time users over by dumbing it down endlessly, and it's just business as usual.

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (1)

JabberWokky (19442) | about a year ago | (#43841595)

I believe this initial release is still Webkit, and that they will move to Blink in future releases. Or so TFA says (could be wrong, of course).

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43841891)

They will be probably tracking the changes. I believe that Chromium/Chrome has been using WebKir in such an unusual way that a complete rewrite, if not guaranteed to happen, is highly desirable at least. (I.e., Chrome has its own multi-process architecture, its own security-by-isolation model, its own Javascript engine, its own notion of how the browser engine will be used to do the whole UI of the browser (Shadow DOM, HTML components etc.), virtually everything going against the grain of how WebKit was supposed to be used.)

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43841333)

V8(the Chrome/Chromium javascript engine) is BSD, so there wouldn't have been a license issue with continuing to use Presto; but swapping out Carakan for V8.

That sort of thing probably isn't minor surgery, though, so you'd really want some kind of cool feature in Presto to go to all the trouble instead of just going more-or-less-stock-Chromium with UI tweaks...

Re:The problem with the "old" Opera was JS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842861)

The only Javascript Opera couldn't handle was nonstandard Javascript.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841195)

... they've basically incorporated many of the standard features that modern browsers have developed and made available for years, now? Congratulations for joining us in 2013, Opera! Now, about your mobile browser....

Re:So... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43841647)

You do realize that most of the UI features are a revamp of what they already had, right? Tabs, speed dial, etc... Opera came up with it first and welcomed Firefox, Chrome, etc years later when they finally caught up.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842261)

And if they somehow leap ahead of the pack, we'll make fun of Firefox and IE when they finally catch up. That they were once leaders in innovation conveys little respect and admiration today... or, are you driving around a Model T? It is okay to point out that a product is absurd today, even if it was not always so -- trust me.

Re:So... (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year ago | (#43843073)

Eh... you do know that Opera has been the pioneer of web browsing for many years, right? Everyone else--while more popular and claiming all the fame for "their" inventions in the first place as a result--was always scrambling to catch up with them. Unfortunately, Opera rarely received the credit they deserved. I'm not sure about their status the last few years since to be honest I think web browsers have turned to shit with all the dumbing down and I no longer care, but many of what you'd consider a major "modern" feature in Firefox or whatever else was probably a part of Opera in some way first. Fuck, even tabs started in some form with Opera as a complete and fully-configrable multiple-document interface.

My, how fantastic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841259)

I wasn't using opera for its fancy bookmarking features.

At a guess, pretty soon I won't be using it at all.

Opera was once the best web brower (5, Informative)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#43841287)

Back at version 3.62 it really was the best in a lot of ways. You could fit the entire binary on a 3.5" floppy disk, and it was fast even on the slowest machines. You could kill scripts and formatting and image loading (or enable them) on a window by window basis with a single click. If it had been Free Software it would have changed the world. Instead, it has only bloated with age. Knowing that the new version is based on Chrome I doubt I will even bother to try it.

But will we be forced into it? (1)

justthinkit (954982) | about a year ago | (#43841583)

Will we be forced into Opera "next"? Opera.com article wasn't clear about it. I'd prefer a fork, i.e. choice. For one, to let the bugs shake out of the next great thing(tm).

Re:But will we be forced into it? (0)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43841665)

You can always choose not to upgrade your browser. Saying that you're "forced" into a new version is like saying Windows 7 users are "forced" to get Windows 8. It ain't true, and the current version of Opera likely won't be obsolete for at least a few years as long as you just need a web browser.

Re:But will we be forced into it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841925)

You can always choose not to upgrade your browser.

Only true if Opera hasn't copied the way Chrome is automatically updated...when you least expect it. Does anyone know if this new Opera will call home for updates (or have updates pushed out to it)?

Re:But will we be forced into it? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43842571)

The current version of Opera asks me if I want to update. Even if the new version changes that, it's unlikely that you won't be able to turn it off.

Re:But will we be forced into it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841945)

Tell that to Pandora on my Android phone which used to work but now fails to load songs while I'm driving.

Re:But will we be forced into it? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43842601)

Apps for a specific services a little different from operating systems and web browsers, as they tend to be proprietary and the vendor doesn't have to worry about breaking compatibility with third-party products whereas the OS and web browser exist to work almost exclusively with third party content.

Re:But will we be forced into it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843505)

The current version of Opera will be obsolete as soon as they stop issuing security patches for known exploits.

Re:But will we be forced into it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841997)

I have Opera Next 12.15 and Opera Next 15 running side-by-side.

Re:Opera was once the best web brower (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#43842353)

Absolutely. Opera 3.6 was outstandingly good in its day, fast, small, and did a pretty good job rendering most sites; it was ridiculously better than Nutscrape 4 and Intestinal Expander 4. I was disappointed that v4 concentrated on developing a mail client instead of further improving the browser and v5 on internationalization.

Re:Opera was once the best web brower (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year ago | (#43843109)

Absolutely. Opera 3.6 was outstandingly good in its day, fast, small, and did a pretty good job rendering most sites; it was ridiculously better than Nutscrape 4 and Intestinal Expander 4.

Where are mod points when you need 'em?! That was pretty damn funny.

What exactly is their business plan? (5, Insightful)

nashv (1479253) | about a year ago | (#43841307)

The 'Opera' button is a clone of the Firefoxish and Tab Layout is Chromesque. It seems that Opera Next is a Frankenchild of the two best. And now that it is Chrome based, and thus inheriting all the new-fangled speed advantages, it seems to be go the go to browser for power users and newbies alike.

I guess what Opera is lacking is the 2 reasons why people choose browsers these days : the eco-system of Google and fervent open-sourciness of Firefox. It seems that browsers have gotten to the point where in browser performance is essentially meaningless for user-choice because both of the popular browsers are so good already. And that used to be Opera's USP back in the day. Too bad for them..

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43841419)

FF also seems to still have the edge in plugins. Google has been pushing their 'apps' hard; but those still seem to mostly focus on 'here's a neat thing that you can implement in HTML/CSS/JS' rather than 'here's something that changes the browser's behavior in useful and powerful ways'.

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (2)

gweilo8888 (921799) | about a year ago | (#43842147)

Codswallop. Chrome supports Greasemonkey scripts natively, and you'll find a vast selection of browser behavior-altering extensions here:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/extensions [google.com]
http://www.chromeextensions.org/ [chromeextensions.org]

Basically anything I used to do with Firefox, I do today with Chrome -- and more. And for an added bonus, it doesn't collapse to its knees if I go without a reboot or closing my browser for a few days, let alone having a few dozen windows and tabs open.

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43842385)

And if you use the Onetab extension, it all becomes a web paradise. :-)

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841573)

This reminds me of Yahoo's deal to use Bing as their search engine (admittedly, that came with a truckload of cash from Redmond), and Target's decision (which expired a long time ago) to rely on Amazon to provide their ecommerce site and fulfillment engine.

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841637)

Just looking at my 1GB-memory Firefox process with only simple two tabs makes me cry. I think they have a lot to improve.

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (1)

InvisiBill (706958) | about a year ago | (#43842611)

Just looking at my 1GB-memory Firefox process with only simple two tabs makes me cry. I think they have a lot to improve.

Extensions and plugins? In Cyberfox (a 64-bit build of Firefox), I currently have 10 tabs open, 53 enabled extensions (26 more disabled), and pretty much all the standard content plugins other than Silverlight, even Flash and Java. On my 16GB system, Cyberfox is using 609MB. Try about:memory to see what's sucking up so much RAM.

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (4, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43841713)

Some people would say the Firefox button is Opera-ish (as the Big O had it first) and Chrome's tabs are Operaish (as the Big O had tabs first). They may have inherited some of the refinements the other browsers made, but it's only fair to point out that those browsers copied the features from Opera to begin with.

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842073)

The 'Opera' button is a clone of the Firefoxish and Tab Layout is Chromesque.

Actually, it's the other way around: the Chrome tab layout is Opera-like, and so is the Firefox button.

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842233)

Your post is incredible. Opera is a clone? Opera defined modern browsing. Opera isn't the clone, it's the other way around. Not only that, only about half a year ago, Opera was obliterating Firefox performance-wise. Unfortunately, too many small bugs and missing features persist. Opera does need a business plan, but to say its a knock-off is a bit much. If you're using a browser, you're enjoying the fruits of their labour.

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843463)

Your post is incredible. Opera is a clone? Opera defined modern browsing. Opera isn't the clone, it's the other way around. Not only that, only about half a year ago, Opera was obliterating Firefox performance-wise. Unfortunately, too many small bugs and missing features persist. Opera does need a business plan, but to say its a knock-off is a bit much. If you're using a browser, you're enjoying the fruits of their labour.

I got some strange idea that Opera is just like SAAB, who defined modern cars in terms of turbo (must... not... make a wordplay) and passive safety. Despite their progressive ideas, they were never notably popular. Their products were unique and highly valued by faithful users. They were brilliant in past, but now one's Chrome and other's Opel.

(Well, to be more precise, SAAB is not Opel. It was Opel, but now it's dead.)

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | about a year ago | (#43842933)

The "Firefox-esque" Opera button was there before Firefox's.

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43842981)

You are right in that Opera should focus on its strengths, but that's not speed anymore. Opera's main selling point today is the costumizability and the mountain of extra features built into the browser. Sure, you can have most of them using an extension on Firefox or Chrome, but extensions tend to be badly written. They are slow, bloated and unsecure. Trying to replicate the complete Opera experience in Firefox or Chrome with extension would eat up all memory, slow down the browser and make it crash every half hour.
Opera is a browser for users who know and require the hundreds of features they provide, which is why trying to follow the minimalist Chrome path is shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:What exactly is their business plan? (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year ago | (#43843165)

The Opera button was in place before firefox cloned it (available in a a weekly build).

The current version seems to be just the basics of getting webkit working in a browser - there aren't a lot of the features Opera is known for, but even this stripped down version could be useful for someone looking for a lightweight browser

What is "Opera Next?" (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#43841321)

Is this a different product than the mainline Opera browser, or are they going to be basing future versions on Chromium, and just decided to stop using the clear and understandable "beta?" It's not all that clear to me, but if the latter, at least it's one fewer browser I have to keep installed for testing.

Re:What is "Opera Next?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841387)

'Next' is the development/testing branch.

Re:What is "Opera Next?" (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#43841529)

Thanks

Re:What is "Opera Next?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841561)

And in this particular case is just an alpha build little different from a vanilla Chrome shell and without any traditional Opera feature except the speed dial.

Re:What is "Opera Next?" (1)

Spudley (171066) | about a year ago | (#43841495)

Is this a different product than the mainline Opera browser, or are they going to be basing future versions on Chromium, and just decided to stop using the clear and understandable "beta?" It's not all that clear to me, but if the latter, at least it's one fewer browser I have to keep installed for testing.

Basically what happened is that everyone else decided that "Next" was a cool new way of saying "the version that's currently in development". So we have HTML.next and so on.

Opera decided that the only way forward was to copy everyone else and do the same thing.

Kinda like this whole "webkit, uh, blink" thing.

Re:What is "Opera Next?" (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43841729)

"Next" just makes me think it's a newfangled cola. "Opera Next, now with real sugar and zero calories!"

Re:What is "Opera Next?" (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year ago | (#43843197)

The "Next" is just to distinguish it from the mainline. Versions of Opera Next include weeklies, alphas, betas, and RC builds, but they all install separately from a stable Opera installation.

It's basically a way for people to test a new version without breaking their current installation.

Most importantly for us slashdot users.... (3, Insightful)

I-am-a-Banana (940550) | about a year ago | (#43841501)

the URL /. no longer works...

Bookmarks are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841549)

that thing that we used before we could go to Google and efficiently search for anything, right? Just so I'm on the same page.

Re:Bookmarks are... (1)

kubajz (964091) | about a year ago | (#43841677)

That, and also two more things. First, when I bookmark I tend to add keywords that will help me find the content when I cannot rely on Google keywords (e.g. I read an interesting article about flying robots somewhere but I would not be able to find it using Google - too many false positives). Second, I'd really like to preserve the bookmarked pages as they are today, since they tend to disappear after a time. However, I cannot seem to find a suitable Firefox plugin that is going to save my bookmarks as either HTML archives or PDF files... has anyone had the same problem?

goodbye development tools (1)

Duncecap (1576549) | about a year ago | (#43841621)

As a long time opera user who works in web development I am mostly going to miss the dragonfly development tools. They were much cleaner and easier to use than firebug and the development tools built into chrome. Not really sure Opera serves any purpose at all other than being another option any more. Long gone are the times they would implement new features and other browsers would copy them months later. Can't even figure out how to use mouse gestures now.

Goodbye Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43841865)

Opera is dead. Long live Opera.
I'll use as long as possible 12.15, then when it is not reliable and secure anymore it will be Firefox time "$%^&$£@
I'm a sad sad panda :( :( :(

NOOOOOOO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842027)

Ctrl+tab is broken!

Why would I use this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842029)

Chromium kind of sucks compared to Chrome, not least of which because there's no built in flash player, which is the only way to play hardware accelerated flash videos in linux that I can think of. I like using youtube, justin.tv, ustream, watching playoff hockey on CBC and such.

So what does Opera provide now? The bookmark thing doesn't really sell me, since I never use bookmarks and never have. Not much need to these days.

Is it free now, or are they selling Chromium to stupid people?

Re:Why would I use this? (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#43842335)

Opera has been free for a long time now. Youtube has HTML 5 support.

Re:Why would I use this? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#43842507)

Opera has been free in price since 2000 and ad-free since 2005.

I'm fine with it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842055)

as long as the features I know and love are still there, like mouse gestures and email/irc client.

Re:I'm fine with it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842163)

as long as the features I know and love are still there, like mouse gestures and email/irc client.

Well you won't be fine with it since the mail client has already been taken out. And I'm sure the RSS and IRC clients will also be abandoned. What Opera is doing right now is just batshit crazy. Maybe they've forgotten who their users really are ?
Damn it, if I wanted chrome or a webkit browser I'd be using one. May Opera rot in hell for the stupid decisions to drop Presto and Vega.

Re:I'm fine with it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843105)

But on the bright side, Opera will suddenly work with all websites.

R.I.P. (3, Interesting)

jazman_777 (44742) | about a year ago | (#43842205)

Just a flimsy skin on WebKit now. Starting from scratch they have a long long way to go to get to current Opera feature state. And the new Android version is a dead shadow of its former self. I'm now trying to get used to Firefox.

Re:R.I.P. (1)

nashv (1479253) | about a year ago | (#43843247)

A sincere question out of curiosity : Why not Chrome?

Whiners (3, Interesting)

eric_brissette (778634) | about a year ago | (#43842211)

I find it funny that when you look at the comments on the Blink articles, there are tons of people upset about Google creating yet another rendering engine, and they're worried about standards compliance issues and having another target to design for.

And then you read the comments in the Opera-switching-to-Blink articles, and everyone is upset about losing diversity in the web ecosystem.

Are these two different groups of people commenting, or is it just one big group of whiners?

like google chrome but...better? (2)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about a year ago | (#43842285)

Awesome! Now opera is just like chrome, but without that annoying....uhhhh -- it just like chrome, but with way better....uhhh....hmmmmm. Ok, I guess opera is dead then.

Re:like google chrome but...better? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#43843057)

despite all of opera's hype about a claimed 100+ million users, the real stats from any huge website will tell a different tale: IE, Firefox, Chrome and Safari dominate the hits, while opera is something like 0.5% That's still impressive, to be there at all, but it's kind of like a Linux desktop. small pressence in the world of webdom

Re:like google chrome but...better? (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#43843443)

despite all of opera's hype about a claimed 100+ million users, the real stats from any huge website will tell a different tale: IE, Firefox, Chrome and Safari dominate the hits, while opera is something like 0.5% That's still impressive, to be there at all, but it's kind of like a Linux desktop. small pressence in the world of webdom

Usage share of operating systems [wikipedia.org]

Heavens only knows how accurate that is, but that tells me that Opera isn't even close to the same level of penetration as Linux in the desktop market. There are more Vista users out there than bloody Opera.

Opera users are like Amiga fans, there's only a handful of them, but they're very very loud.

Re:like google chrome but...better? (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#43843507)

despite all of opera's hype about a claimed 100+ million users, the real stats from any huge website will tell a different tale: IE, Firefox, Chrome and Safari dominate the hits, while opera is something like 0.5% That's still impressive, to be there at all, but it's kind of like a Linux desktop. small pressence in the world of webdom

Usage share of operating systems [wikipedia.org]

Heavens only knows how accurate that is, but that tells me that Opera isn't even close to the same level of penetration as Linux in the desktop market. There are more Vista users out there than bloody Opera.

Opera users are like Amiga fans, there's only a handful of them, but they're very very loud.

However, this page [wikipedia.org] says that the Opera market share is much higher than 0.5, putting it firmly in the desktop Linux range.... and still only a fraction of Vista.

Not exactly a great selling point "My product is even less popular than Windows Vista"

Meh. Who cares. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842363)

I used Opera years ago and every so often I try it again, always with disastrous results. In my experience they manage to fuck up something critical with every major release like compatibility with many sites or simple video playback not working or some other random thing I never thought about because it's flawless in other browsers. Firefox and Chrome utterly own the browser market and Opera stands zero chance at this point of gaining significant popularity.

A shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43842687)

As a long time user of Opera it is a shame to see what they have planned for it (Opera Next). Yes, it is lean and fast as usual, but pretty much all the good stuff have been yanked out and dumbed down (settings is a joke now). Opera continues the, sad, decline from the pinnacle of Opera 10.

Quick notes (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | about a year ago | (#43842897)

This is sort of a deal breaker for me. Can anyone see the quick notes anywhere? Chrome extensions seem to work fine with this build. They should've just open sourced presto if they were going this way.

No WebRTC? (1)

canowhoopass.com (197454) | about a year ago | (#43843139)

The previous version of Opera supported the new getUserMedia tag to support cameras and microphones. I had hoped with the move to chromium they'd piggyback off the efforts Google has put in to also add peer connections but instead it appears they've dropped support completely.

What license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43843367)

Given that it is based on Chromium (a bunch of BSD/MIT/LGPL/GPL/MPL)... what is going to happen with the new Opera's code?

hope there is a Linux port soon (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year ago | (#43843379)

i wont switch OSs for a browser
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?