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 a New Version For Linux

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 months ago | from the not-quite-abandoned dept.

Opera 99

motang (1266566) writes "Opera released Opera 24 for Linux. Currently it is in testing (developer) mode, and only for 64-bit Ubuntu, but hey it's a start since everyone thought Linux support was abandoned. In my test it is pretty rough around the edges, only has ambiance theme as it has been hard coded, and all the window controls are on the right and not on the left like what Unity has. But it is a start."

cancel ×

99 comments

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

Awesome! (5, Funny)

mirix (1649853) | about 2 months ago | (#47303357)

Instead of having firefox which wants to be chrome, or running chrome directly... I can now run a wrapper around chrome!

Re:Awesome! (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about 2 months ago | (#47303507)

It's a lot more than a wrapper.

Re:Awesome! (2)

SpzToid (869795) | about 2 months ago | (#47303765)

That's just like before I wrapped the fish and chips with it, I read the Daily Mirror first. Its a lot more than a wrapper; its a dog trainer too!

Mod parent up. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303521)

Instead of having firefox which wants to be chrome, or running chrome directly... I can now run a wrapper around chrome!

I'm still running Opera 12 for Mac OS for precisely this reason. I had no clue about this retarded Opera gambit until I auto-upgraded to Opera 15 one day and suddenly found that all the Opera features I knew and loved were missing with no plans to port them.

What's with the state of the browser market? It seems to go through great cycles... there was a early burst of diversity in the mid 90's, but that zenith was supplanted by the nadir of the IE monoculture (we are still feeling the effects of IE 6). Early versions of Firefox represented a bloom of reinvigorated innovation (such a variety of add-ons!) but firefox was eventually slowed by bloat and the demons of its single-process paradigm. Chrome then seized the mantle of stability via its multi-process approach.

Now, "do-no-evil" Google has established another monoculture. I almost ragequit using Chrome last Friday when I learned it is now impossible to install any Chrome extensions on Windows Chrome without using a Google account. WTF?

These are bad times for browser users. I await the beginning of the next great cycle. I hope to be inspired by the next innovator. "Disruptive" is a cliched term, but god damn it, this monoculture needs to die.

FireFox, in contrast (4, Insightful)

SpzToid (869795) | about 2 months ago | (#47303725)

On Linux, it also seems to be impossible to install chrome extensions without a Google account. At least open-source firefox doesn't require registration just to make use of its open-source extension code. Mozilla also works to protect users against extensions that aren't kept up-to-date..

Re:FireFox, in contrast (1)

qupada (1174895) | about 2 months ago | (#47303977)

Even more fun is installing native code plugins, which requires the root password. I went hunting in Chromium's code recently, trying to work out what locations it would load Google's Talk/Hangouts plugin from, in an attempt to trim the list of locations the plugin's files have to be symlinked to when installing it.

Whereas the "old" NPAPI plugins have a bunch of allowed locations, but usually /usr/lib/nsbrowser/plugins is common to most browsers suporting them and Firefox even appears to allow them to be in in your user profile at ~/.mozilla/firefox/*/plugins/ (MDN docs [mozilla.org] ), the path to the PPAPI plugins directory is hard-coded in the source for Chrome browsers, to <directory-containing-chrome-binary>/pepper/ (/usr/lib/chromium-browser/pepper, /opt/google/chrome/pepper, etc), AND the filenames of the (very short) list of supported plugins is similarly hard-coded.

There appears to be a command-line option to load plugins from arbitrary locations for development, whether that would work to load a "released" plugin like Hangouts I couldn't say.

Re:FireFox, in contrast (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47304177)

On Linux, it also seems to be impossible to install chrome extensions without a Google account. At least open-source firefox doesn't require registration just to make use of its open-source extension code.

In that case we're talking about free and non-free software (as speech), not open/closed source.

Re:FireFox, in contrast (3, Informative)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 2 months ago | (#47304783)

I just tested out chromium (the non-google version of chrome) and that allows you to add chrome extensions without a Google account.

Re:FireFox, in contrast (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about 2 months ago | (#47304845)

This is very good news, thank you!
[sarcasm]Hopefully Google will start to promote open-source Chromium more heavily, as opposed to registered-account-required Chrome. [/sarcasm]

Re:FireFox, in contrast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304985)

chrome wants to protect users from "out-of-date" extensions as well.
Although this is more a side-effect of them wanting to kick all "youtube download" and similar extensions out of their browser...

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 2 months ago | (#47303953)

Me too, i can't find a way to use sessions in the new opera so i'm stuck at 12.16 until they implement it. i'm surprised no other browser has stolen "sessions", they stole pretty much everything else from opera

FireFox has a nice session manager extension. (2)

SpzToid (869795) | about 2 months ago | (#47304165)

Firefox has had a sessions plugin for years already, that I couldn't live without. The closest thing I found to use in Chrome can't hold a candle to it:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]

Another extremely useful FF extension is called Scrapbook, which I use to collect and prioritize web pages, sometimes ads I am interested in, saving only the precise HTML part I want to my disk, note-like. It also saves a link to the original source, which may or may not disappear as time passes.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]

Not to mention Adblock Plus, FireBug, bla bla bla.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47308867)

Just to say that latest is 12.17.

Mod parent up. (1)

gnite (3701059) | about 2 months ago | (#47304043)

The new Opera is even worse in this regard. They have made it impossible to get rid of google search or to set your own search engine as default. They force google search upon you. Even Chrome doesn't do that.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304053)

I think the big difference is that now, pretty much every major web browser except for IE is open-sourced. (Ok technically "Chrome" isn't open-sourced, but 90% of Chrome is open-sourced in the form of Chromium).

If you don't like Chrome you can always fork Chromium to do the things you want, same for Firefox etc. I think the days of making a browser from scratch *is* over given the complexity of modern HTML/JS/CSS but there's still plenty of open-sourced WebKit-based variants that are alive and kicking.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Tsolias (2813011) | about 2 months ago | (#47304089)

Do not get me wrong on this, but you say that you are using apple's products. This by itself is a *thumbsup* to those companies who like to index their users messages, spy on them and jail them into a sandbox forever, because they make a shitload of money. Google would care less if you stopped using its browser, since you are using google, google+, youtube, gmail, have several android phones over the last years and so on. I am not trying to persuade you or someone else to stop using those services, this is something that one must realize without any someone else forcing him/her. What I want to point out is that if you are waiting, in this example, a new iteration of browsers that do not abuse you and your privacy, how do you expect this to happen, when you are supporting the big companies, which buy anything or anyone else that innovates in the market.

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | about 2 months ago | (#47304219)

Still on 12 here, too. I'm still a bit miffed that they took the choice away from having tabs below the address bar or having bookmarks or buttons to the right of the main menu or having a dedicated stop loading button from 9 or 10. The only thing keeping me from going Firefox full time is mouse gestures.

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

loonycyborg (1262242) | about 2 months ago | (#47304375)

There are gesture add-ons for Firefox.

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 months ago | (#47304699)

I give it two versions before they're the only input method.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304263)

we are still feeling the effects of IE 6

It is perfectly OK for most websites (including /.) to say one has to install some special plugin (most times flash) to be abled to do various stuff. With google chrome frame, you could program a HTML5 website and didn't have to mind IE6 as you could display: sorry the website only works if you install the chrome frame plugin or a modern browser.
Google shouldn't have abandoned chrome frame.

I almost ragequit using Chrome last Friday when I learned it is now impossible to install any Chrome extensions on Windows Chrome without using a Google account. WTF?

My first plan for my smartphone included to install play store and have a few closed source apps. When I found out you need an account to install even free apps, I abandoned this plan and now only have f-droid.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47308363)

I almost ragequit using Chrome last Friday when I learned it is now impossible to install any Chrome extensions on Windows Chrome without using a Google account. WTF?

My first plan for my smartphone included to install play store and have a few closed source apps. When I found out you need an account to install even free apps, I abandoned this plan and now only have f-droid.

The difference is that in Android you can side-load apps via clicking a single "are you sure?" button. Chrome for Windows now refuses to load any extension that isn't expressly obtained via the Google walled garden... and the Chrome store requires a google account.

So, for example, on android you could avail yourself of the Amazon app store, or download apks directly. Can't do that kind of thing on Chrome for Windows. Ragequit.

BTW, fdroid and pdroid are old and busted. The new hotness is XPrivacy via XPosed.

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 months ago | (#47304311)

How is it a monoculture? Can you give examples of sites that only work in Chrome or say "this site works best in Chrome" a la IE6? I think it's unlikely website owners would annoy all the iDevice users who don't have access to Chrome.

I didn't know you needed a Google account to install extensions so I just logged out and installed a random extension. It didn't ask me to log in again so I don't know if it was happy that I just exist in the Google world or whether they've taken that requirement out again in the latest version (35.0.1916.153 on Windows 8.1).

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47311249)

How is it a monoculture? Can you give examples of sites that only work in Chrome or say "this site works best in Chrome" a la IE6? I think it's unlikely website owners would annoy all the iDevice users who don't have access to Chrome.

It's trending toward a monoculture of WebKit-derived engines, which google is leveraging. The market can be logically separated into WebKit-derived (Chrome, Safari, Android Chrome, iOS Safari, Opera, Chromium, et al), Gecko-derived (FF, whatever), and Trident-derived (IE). With the death of Opera's engine, it became nothing more than a poorly implemented clone of Chrome.

I didn't know you needed a Google account to install extensions so I just logged out and installed a random extension. It didn't ask me to log in again so I don't know if it was happy that I just exist in the Google world or whether they've taken that requirement out again in the latest version (35.0.1916.153 on Windows 8.1).

Thanks for checking, but I'm guessing that Google still has a unique ID for you via cookie or something. They can expire your login without deleting the cookie/identifier. My test was via a Win 7 64-bit fresh install from last month and a version of Chrome downloaded at that point. I have never logged into any Google services on that machine.

The ragequit really started when I discovered they blocked all side-loading. You either install via their walled garden, or you can't load an extension without diassembling it, treating it like its your own dev project, etc. FFS, why can't they just give a warning about security like every other browser? I don't need to be "protected" from myself, especially when the thinly-veiled agenda is to force more people into Google accounts/Google+.

FWIW, if you are willing to run the nightlies (the Canary build channel, or whatever they call it), the security system is disabled. Seriously, though. That's not an option at work.

Fuck you, Google.

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 months ago | (#47313673)

It's not really a monoculture when there are 4 separately developed rendering engines. IE isn't going away thanks to corporate users, Firefox is still going strong although nowhere near where it was, Apple have a strong market position that will not go anywhere in the near future and Google has forked Webkit to go their own way so I can't see any single browser dominance any time in the near future and I certainly haven't come across a single site that insists I use a particular browser like used to happen in the bad old days of IE5 and 6.

I'll have to investigate the apps issue further because I'm not happy with them saying where I can install apps from. They don't do it on Android so why should they do it on Chrome.

I'm not defending Google here by the way but people's fears of a return to the early 2000s IE only nightmare seem largely unfounded to me. Google have contributed a number of technologies to everyone - a long way from the One Microsoft Way of yesteryear.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47314869)

Here's an example of "can't install a free extension without logging in" (at least for me, on Win 7 x86_64, w/ Chrome Version 35.0.1916.153 m):

Advanced REST client [google.com]

Clicking the "+Free" button to install takes me to accounts.google.com for a mandatory login. No sideloading allowed, unlike Android.

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 months ago | (#47314935)

That really does suck. I'm not best pleased about that since it's totally unnecessary. My misunderstanding of your point was that I installed an extension (I had no idea there was a difference between that an app which I guess is obvious now I think about it) which didn't require my password. As soon as I followed your link and tried to install it asked me for my login details. That's really shit. The developer check box doesn't make a difference either.

Re:Mod parent up. (2)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 2 months ago | (#47305265)

Browsers are really, really, really hard to make, and Microsoft, Mozilla and Google all give theirs away for free, insuring anyone who tries to compete also has to do the same. Opera couldn't make any money. They're trying to survive.

And if you think these are bad times for browsers then you have no idea my friend. Not too long ago it was IE or nothing. And what Monoculture? We've got 3 major players all meeting the standards pretty well (4 if you count webkit/safari, which with iOS installs is nothing to sneeze at). Office is a Monoculture. Browsers? Not so much. :)

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47308899)

(Disclaimer: I'm an ex-Opera employee; pretty much all of what's below has been said by others before or can easily be inferred from it.)

Opera ceased selling a web browser to consumer years ago. Opera, having been ad-free for around nine years, with the exception of a couple of quarters in the black in 2009/2010, has been pretty profitable; this is well before any work started on anything based on WebKit or Chromium. Since 2010, Opera has basically been posting record profits quarter after quarter. You can find all this in the quarterly reports (as a publicly traded company, this is all public knowledge). The move to the Chromium Content API and WebKit and later Blink beneath it was not driven out of lack of resources to develop Presto; it was driven out of an unwillingness to do so.

In terms of revenue, Google, as the default search engine, have been paying handsomely, primarily because they wanted to break into markets where Opera had at the time significant marketshare, especially around the CIS. However, given Chrome's rise in those markets since, I would be very nervous about being dependent upon Google for revenue. That said, last I looked, search affiliation deals were only about 50% of total revenue (for comparison, in 2012, 90% of Mozilla's revenue came from Google!). Considering all the various acquisitions of advertising networks and related companies, this has undoubtedly fallen (they will likely soon be the biggest source of revenue for the company!).

However, it the other side of the business that drove the change to the company: the B2B side, selling browsers to OEMs for mobile devices and TVs and set-top boxes, etc. We've gone from a dozen or two platforms on mobile a decade ago down to half a dozen now; these phones mostly run systems where high quality web browsers are included by default (hey, look, they don't just support WAP!).

"WebKit" (in about a million different forks!) has been what all the cool kids (say, iOS, Android) have been using, and hence many companies not using OSes including a web browser, whom typically Opera would have got a larger proportion of the business (we're talking > 50% of the market), essentially decided they were going to get a WebKit browser and turning either of consultancy companies around WebKit or building their own teams in-house. Along with this, iOS and Android's rise has led to a monoculture around mobile, with many mobile sites practically requiring WebKit, so mobile badly suffered (this led both the IE and Opera to seriously consider supporting various things with explicit WebKit prefixes, as the market demanded we support websites, and websites were unwilling to support anything that wasn't WebKit; both IE and Opera have decently sized outreach teams that tried to get many notable websites to change and utterly failed).

B2B customers either wanting WebKit explicitly or implicitly (i.e., requiring support for sites that very much only supported, and were only willing to support, WebKit) drove the move more than anything else, as far as I could see. The change of management at the top, going from people who cared about the web (go look at Opera's vision statement, it's great!) to people who cared more about quarterly profits, certainly didn't help either. (If all you care about is quarterly profits, why employ 100 people to develop a browser engine B2B customers don't want?)

This was all not helped by Presto falling further and further behind the competition; a number of engineers were let go during the black quarters in '09/'10, the "Core" department (i.e., that which worked on Presto) let go about as many as any other at the time. Opera 10.00 looked diabolical when it came out (Sept '09) in terms of standards support, but this was mainly systematic of poor development methodology rather than Presto being that far behind (in reality, the Core department had stable releases of Presto that already included virtually everything in 10.50 (March '10) by the time it shipped, that Desktop wasn't shipping it is a failing of process rather than technical incompetence). The real hurt was that when the company started posting profits again, Core never began hiring again (only a very few hires were made before everyone was let go or moved to other departments with the end of Presto), and certainly not enough to keep up with the rate that MS, Mozilla, Google, and Apple were hiring people to work on their respective browser engines; there simply weren't the resources to keep up, yet alone catch up the slight gap we had in 2010. As a result, Presto ended up fairing worse and worse to what more and more of our customers wanted. By 2011 it was inevitable Presto was dead (I know others who'd put that date back as far as 2009!); the gap had become too large to really be viable to catch up, even if the resources were forthcoming. That we were heading towards its inevitable death had been obvious for years; nothing was done about it.

The fact the Presto carried some technical debts didn't help; much of its current state goes back to the early 2000s. Many within the team then working on Presto held a strong view that as long as the browser followed the standards we were sufficing, and the blame for any web compatibility issues lay with the websites. Of course, this was completely untenable as IE reached its monumental peak of >95% marketshare. Things started to be added, reluctantly, to match IE, while avoiding changing others. Many of these would come back to bite years later as CSS truly became widespread as a layout tool. A good example of this is rounding of numbers in CSS; Presto always performed integer arithmetic, everyone else used floats. This probably was a reasonable implementation choice when it was made over a decade ago; mobile devices lacked FPUs, hence avoiding floating point led to notable performance gains, yet as the market progressed, it became clear that it was hurting Opera (causing all kinds of bizarre layout issues) and mobile devices gained FPUs. Still, nothing was done about it, as $shinyNewFeature is more important for marketing purposes than having to change types that are relatively pervasive across the layout engine.

There was also plenty of wasted engineering work until about a few years ago. The state of testing was... diabolical, at best. This was really driven by a view of testing as nothing but a cost (and there are plenty of terrible releases of Opera!) and something that can be avoided by proper development process so bugs aren't introduced in the first place (which of course is nonsense). Regressions were aplenty, typically caught months after the code was changed (many were only found once the Presto release found its way into a public Desktop build), by which time nobody knew quite what was going on. Bugs would often languish for years, eventually get fixed, just to be reintroduced a year down the line. Thankfully, that was eventually fixed, but really far, far too late. People only started truly caring about automated test results in about 2009, when suddenly it became part of the process, at which time the automated test system was basically formed of random old scavenged workstations. You can guess how well that system stood up to the sudden load; it became the bottleneck of merging, well, anything. Yet there was apparently no budget to buy new hardware for it, so instead man-years were wasted waiting on the bottleneck and trying to speed the bottleneck up (spending six man-months for a 25% performance increase is so much more expensive than just doubling the amount of hardware, and as designed the system would've scaled horizontally massively beyond where was and ever did).

Ultimately, Presto died not because of a lack of money, but because the leadership was weak (it was obvious Presto was going to die if investment didn't increase in 2009, and yet nothing was done; had the investment been made in Presto we might not be talking here today, had the decision to move to WebKit been made in 2010 the two could've been developed in parallel for a while until the new product was in a far better state than the panicked, rushed Opera 14/15 was when it shipped). What the Core department achieved with the staffing levels it had was nothing short of astonishing, and there are countless examples of really great people in the department who helped pull that off, yet ultimately, it was all for nought.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320477)

Did you hear Otter Browser? http://otter-browser.org/
It's amazing, how ONE developer able to recreate the whole Opera 12 UI.
Yes, it's still evolving, but ONE developer implemented more features from the old Opera than the official developers during the same period.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47311369)

Browsers are really, really, really hard to make, and Microsoft, Mozilla and Google all give theirs away for free, insuring anyone who tries to compete also has to do the same. Opera couldn't make any money. They're trying to survive.

...and two out of those three engine families are open source projects (Webkit and Gecko). What's your point?

And if you think these are bad times for browsers then you have no idea my friend.

I think I do, given that my first browser was NCSA Mosaic about two decades ago. Hell, I even tried Cyberdog and Konqueror.

Not too long ago it was IE or nothing.

When exactly was it IE or nothing, pray tell? Was that before or after Netscape devolved into Mozilla? Was this on some magical timeline where Opera 2.0 was never released?

And what Monoculture? We've got 3 major players all meeting the standards pretty well (4 if you count webkit/safari, which with iOS installs is nothing to sneeze at).

When iOS, Safari, Chromium, Android, Opera, et al, are all derived from a single engine (Blink is a Webkit fork) and they differ primarily by UI widgets, then that's a freaking monoculture. Opera had a lot of useful features baked into its engine. Now that they have sold out to Webkit and have completely dropped all those features they are just another "flavor of Chrome". If I want to use Chrome then I will use it, not "Chrome but with a different icon and no redeeming differentiating features".

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 2 months ago | (#47312937)

When exactly was it IE or nothing, pray tell? Was that before or after Netscape devolved into Mozilla? Was this on some magical timeline where Opera 2.0 was never released?

I think he's referring to sites blocking other browsers or not working. Mozilla and Opera weren't even relevant at all early on (no users = no compatibility). For a while after Netscape died there was basically just IE if you wantes to be able to actually browse the web.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47314923)

I think he's referring to sites blocking other browsers or not working. Mozilla and Opera weren't even relevant at all early on (no users = no compatibility). For a while after Netscape died there was basically just IE if you wantes to be able to actually browse the web.

That really never happened for me, though. Very few sites actually wouldn't work with Firefox or Opera—intranet sites using ActiveX are a definite exception. For general browsing, though, when a site blocked me based on User-Agent, I just engaged a FF add-on to change it or used Opera's masking (which is yet another feature that isn't in "Chrome Opera"). Most sites actually worked just fine.

If you want to talk about actual barriers to site entry, let's talk about Flash. Ugh.

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 2 months ago | (#47312847)

Opera couldn't make any money. They're trying to survive.

Opera has been profitable for a long time. They've had tons of cash in the bank most of the time as well.

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | about 2 months ago | (#47306769)

You should see what they've done to the mobile version of Opera. I'm still bitter about the whole thing.

Re:Mod parent up. (1)

CrashNBrn (1143981) | about 2 months ago | (#47310033)

I wish I could still use Opera 12.x - I've run into far too many JavaScript problems. Go to any sitepoint article that has "disqus" comments, each Opera (sitepoint) tab will consume 12-20% of the CPU; other sites are worse than that.

Opera would of been much better off either replacing their JS engine, or Hooking up with FF to bring out a browser that is stable with lots of tabs, and still has a usable (non-lagged UI). FF is getting their with the multi-process Nightly.

I think if Mozilla would stop pulling options out of the browser, and leave the infrastructure in place (Add-On Bar, Status Bar options) without forcing users to recover removed features via Extensions they could very well be on track to be the best browser: both in terms of Stability (with heavy tab usage) and customization --- the new "Customize" option is a page out of Opera's playbook, and its pretty damned cool.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47310249)

I still run Opera 12 because the Blink based Opera is complete crap. It's missing tons of features, it can't be customized in the slightest and it doesn't even respect the UI of the OS, much like Chrome.

I have to say I was surprised to see 12.17 come out. It goes to show that many other Opera users feel the same as I do, prompting a new revision for v12 to get released.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47331351)

I've actually been using the new opera since v21 or so, for some reason I'm still preferring it to chrome or fx. Its still got the speed dial which is way better than the new tab pages found in chrome/firefox (and I've tried the many speed dial addons for both, they all suck compared to operas), and its still got basic mouse gestures support which is nice. I also prefer the UI to chrome/firefox, particularly on windows 8, has a much more native feel to it (chrome is especially bad in recent versions with hardcoded windows xp style menus and non native scrollbars).

Some of the the opera 12 features are planned to return in the new opera according to comments from mods I've seen on their blog, bookmarks and opera link. Here's a comment I just saw from a mod on their most recent blog post:

http://blogs.opera.com/desktop/2014/06/opera-developer-24-tab-preview/#comment-1456012808

"We mentioned this many times already: We are working on Sync and Bookmarks and many other interesting things. It took very long to get a rock solid basis, now the fun begins ;)"

Probably not the most popular opinion, but IMO people are being a little too harsh, this is pretty much a complete re-write of the browser (much of opera's UI and features were heavily integrated with presto, and they couldn't just drop chromium in there, they had to take chromium and do the UI and features from the ground up). Its only been in development for a year or so...

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47357349)

Meh. I'm more inclined to believe the truth is closer to this:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47358291)

That doesn't discount anything I said. I'd agree opera 15 was released way too early, but the fact stands that the new version of opera is a complete re-write of the browser, and its silly to expect it to be full featured at this point in development, and they also aren't aiming for it to be a clone of opera 12. I think the new opera is pretty decent, looking at it for what it is.

I understand why opera 12 die hards are disappointed with it, because they just want opera 12, and this isn't it nor will it be, but all of these 'zomg new opera suxx', 'zomg its a chrome clone' comments that pop up under every opera article are just getting dumb.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303527)

A 'chrapper' if you will?

Re:Awesome! (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 months ago | (#47303543)

or just 'crapper'.. or maybe 'crappest'

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303663)

Wrap your chrome, bro. There's a porn mode for that.

Re:Awesome! (1)

xfizik (3491039) | about 2 months ago | (#47303709)

In what way does Firefox want to be Chrome?

Re:Awesome! (1)

mirix (1649853) | about 2 months ago | (#47303735)

Have you even seen the last few releases?! I've used firefox since the beginning, and the last while has been a steady decline into a chrome clone.

I'd change browsers if there was something to change to... Everyone seems to want UX designer wetdream minimalism, fuck functionality.

Re:Awesome! (3)

dragonquest (1003473) | about 2 months ago | (#47303807)

Have you tried Seamonkey [seamonkey-project.org] ? It feels a lot like Firefox classic.

Re:Awesome! (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 2 months ago | (#47304321)

I'd change browsers if there was something to change to

There's Seamonkey, and there's Pale Moon. Make the effort to switch. Vote with your feet; it's the only possible way to force Firefox to actually start listening to users.

Re:Awesome! (1)

xfizik (3491039) | about 2 months ago | (#47306235)

Not only have I seen the last few releases, I have been using Firefox since version 2 and my primary browser on Linux and Windows. And I am generally happy with it. If you don't like the UI/UX, you have multiple options starting from countless addons that can customize just about every pixel of Firefox. And as others mentioned, there are other builds of Firefox for people just like yourself who are not happy with the default UI.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303757)

Tabs on Top.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304163)

Tabs on Top.

What is this "tabs on top" you speak of? It sounds like a terrible use of screen space compared to something sane, like the Firefox Tree-Style Tab [mozilla.org] extension, which puts the tabs on the side.

That's why Firefox still shines: UI addons can still change almost every aspect of the interface, so if you don't like it, you can modify it. There's even Classic Theme Restorer [mozilla.org] for people that dislike the Australis update, though I haven't needed it due to things like Tree-style Tab.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47316231)

Tabs on the side is fucking stupid and wastes far more space.

Re:Awesome! (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 2 months ago | (#47313177)

Not Chrome. Chromium. Which Opera is a major contributor to.

Opera soldout/dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303397)

I wonder which Opera Execs received the goodies from google for them to fold their companies uniqueness/any reason to exist.

Still using Older versions of Opera until web incompatibility forces a full time change(google and ebay is good at that, making simple buttons and forum functions not work without proprietary/newer crap.

Re:Opera soldout/dead (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 2 months ago | (#47313175)

I wonder which Opera Execs received the goodies from google for them to fold their companies uniqueness/any reason to exist.

Sites not working and a mess of confusing features and slow growth is a reason to exist? Remember, after they dumped Presto they've started growing users again.

and where's the source code (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303413)

Do you think GNU/Linux is a mule to pull around your proprietary crapcode? Go back to OSXBSD where you belong, dung peddling scum leeches.

Re:and where's the source code (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304183)

Who cares. You wouldn't understand the extremely complex code of a modern web browser anyway.

So (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303443)

what you're saying is that Opera has little to no use but it's still being developed?

Business as usual for Opera.

Re:So (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303461)

Those developers have to keep themselves busy. I mean there are only so many times you can masturbate in one day, you know? Gotta fill the rest of the time somehow.

Re: So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303581)

Point well made.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303941)

I mean there are only so many times you can masturbate in one day, you know?.

There are?

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303971)

Share with us your lubricating secrets, Fap King.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304333)

Fleshlight.

You're welcome.

Re:So (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 2 months ago | (#47312835)

With more than 300 million active users and counting I'd say there are about 300+ million uses for it.

Just leaving... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47303943)

Just yesterday I decided to abandom Opera after about 15 years of exclusively using it (trying out Firefox for now). Been using opera 12 up until now, but can't stay on an unmaintained platform forever. And Opera's google-based versions after that smell badly. They've completely lost their reason to exist when they just clone the other browsers and remove all the features that made them the most user-friendly browser out there.
So long Opera, and thanks for all the fish.

Re:Just leaving... (1)

xorsyst (1279232) | about 2 months ago | (#47304459)

I did this a few months ago. Went to firefox with TreeStyleTabs, which is not a bad combination. I miss Opera Link (Firefox has similar but it's not as good), but otherwise most things have worked ok.

The 1 really annoying thing that there doesn't seem to be a plugin for, is that if a website in the background does a javascript.alert(), firefox will change to that tab. In (old) Opera, it would just make it flash on the tab bar, but leave it in the background. And there's a site I have open in the background (yucata.de) that does this a lot :(

Re:Just leaving... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304701)

I've used Opera since 1998, but after trying version 15 and finding it didn't even have bookmarks I realized there was no other option than finding a new browser. I switched to Firefox too, and I find that the following addons will make it more friendly to old Opera users: Addblock Plus, Clear Search 2, FF Rocker (only works in Windows), KeeFox, Last Tab Close Button and Paste Email. I also recommend HTTPS-Everywhere.

Opera (5, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | about 2 months ago | (#47303987)

"like what Unity has"

And... I stopped reading.

Honestly, as a life-long Opera user and supporter, Opera is dead on all platforms. They refuse to make it work like it used to (or are incapable of that), and there hasn't been an update since the 15 series that actually did anything, and most of those updates broke stuff.

They are trying to play catch-up from an unnecessary code-base change to what they used to have. The coding team has changed. The company has changed. There is no interest in preserving users any more. Bug reports get answered with "We haven't got around to that yet" or "We never intend to put that functionality back in.

I was there in the pay-for days. I was there in the ad-supported days. I was there right up until last year, when the company that I defended against others changed and the software I used everyday became unusable. They removed every major feature that did something useful, so it's now a very, very poor Chrome clone.

Opera supporters will tell you to stay on the old codebase. We hoped the company would see sense and start re-using that codebase after they realised their catastrophic mistake. It never happened. The only patches they ever put out to the "real" Opera codebase broke it along the way, presumably because they just don't understand the code at all.

Save yourself the effort - find another browser. There's even a "Let's rebuild Opera as it was" open-source effort doing what Opera SHOULD have done if they wanted a Chrome renderer in there. But, sorry, despite my best attempts to resuscitate it and even exhume it, it's dead.

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304097)

Honestly, as a life-long Opera user and supporter, Opera is dead on all platforms. They refuse to make it work like it used to (or are incapable of that), and there hasn't been an update since the 15 series that actually did anything, and most of those updates broke stuff.

Mobile included. I used to like the android version because it was lightweight and fast compared to the others, but once it became a chrome re-skin it became just as bad as the rest. Worse, even, because the android built-in browser and Firefox both run better than Opera does on both my tablet and phone.

Re:Opera (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 2 months ago | (#47313051)

once it became a chrome re-skin

A skin is just a bunch of visual elements. Opera actually coded a new interface. Calling it a re-skin is just silly.

Re:Opera (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 2 months ago | (#47320653)

The cloned the Chrome interface then removed half the features. Calling it a re-skin is being very generous.

Re:Opera (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 2 months ago | (#47330703)

No, they rewrote the interface and made their own. They didn't remove any features because when you rewrite something there's nothing to remove. You have to add all features back.

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47342977)

I've got an older galaxy s2 and opera runs great on it, and I prefer its interface to chrome or firefox (the tab switching UI mainly). it definitely runs better than firefox does... chrome performs pretty similarly.

Re:Opera (1)

Sr. Zezinho (16813) | about 2 months ago | (#47304349)

There's even a "Let's rebuild Opera as it was" open-source effort doing what Opera SHOULD have done if they wanted a Chrome renderer in there.

Link, please?

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304523)

Link, please?

http://otter-browser.org/

Re:Opera (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 2 months ago | (#47304355)

It also bears mentioning that Opera inexplicably deleted everything on their forums during the November 2013 makeover, removing lots of useful information in the process. I supposed they thought all the spam on the new forum would adequately fill the void.

A literal scorched policy with regards to everything they had done before.

Re:Opera (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 2 months ago | (#47313009)

They did not delete everything. They migrated lots of threads and posts from the old forum to the new one. Check the facts before making silly claims like that.

Re:Opera (4, Informative)

TheP4st (1164315) | about 2 months ago | (#47304365)

There's even a "Let's rebuild Opera as it was" open-source effort

http://otter-browser.org/ [otter-browser.org]

Re:Opera (1)

xorsyst (1279232) | about 2 months ago | (#47304469)

I look forward to when this hits version 1 and has a windows binary build.

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47305017)

Indeed, Opera is still great, if you use the pre-chrome versions. But their getting on in years and are not as supported or safe anymore :(

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47305383)

Realism. You have to look up that word. The people at Opera want and need to make a living. It was a browser with a tiny market share where people don't want to pay for the product, and where innovation required technically and resource challenging dick contents on javascript and html5 rendering speed. They are not Santa. From a business point of view, they are doing the right thing, i.e. not being interested in "preserving users any more." What you are suggesting is that they should preserve users at their own expense and success as a company.

Re:Opera (1)

ledow (319597) | about 2 months ago | (#47307729)

Tiny market share?

You mean the Wii Channel?

Or the Opera Mini which sold in millions on app stores and tablets?

Not to mention thousand of no-name kiosks (Opera has a /kiosk switch on it).

It may have be MORE niche than their competitors but their biggest selling point was that they weren't those competitors, they had the smallest, faster, most portable, most customisable browser which was *sold* as part of the Nintendo Wii launch (you call it The Internet Channel...).

I'm suggesting that a company that makes MONEY by having users use it, should strive to keep those users. Rather than become yet-another-Chrome that even less people use.

What is their revenue stream now? They are just making a browser. With no-one to use it, they don't even get the Google Search premium. And, in case you missed it, at one point they were a profitable company selling a product so good that people bought it rather than use the free competitors.

They got bought out, they shipped off the developers that knew how to program, they ended up with a Windows-only Chrome frontend dependent on someone else to do the hard work of making them money. And in the process lost a LOT of users, who are really their only revenue stream now that they DON'T pump out versions for other platforms like the Wii any more...

Re:Opera (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 2 months ago | (#47312925)

they had the smallest, faster, most portable, most customisable browser which was *sold* as part of the Nintendo Wii launch (you call it The Internet Channel

And guess what, Nintendo dumped Opera when choosing a browser for the Wii U. Being small, fast and the most portable doesn't matter anymore. The hardware is fast enough to run just about anything anyway.

I'm suggesting that a company that makes MONEY by having users use it, should strive to keep those users. Rather than become yet-another-Chrome that even less people use.

Yeah, except Opera's reports to its owners indicate that the new Opera is growing faster than the old one ever did, and people who try it out are less likely to stop using it again.

They got bought out, they shipped off the developers that knew how to program, they ended up with a Windows-only Chrome frontend dependent on someone else to do the hard work of making them money.

Opera was never acquired. It's still an independent commpany.

They didn't ship off any developers, as most of the people who used to do development are still working for Opera.

Opera is not Windows-only. It was also released for Mac. and now Linux. And of course iPhone, Android, etc.

Someone else is not doing the hard work. Opera is one of the biggest contributors to the Chromium project.

But let's ignore the facts shall we...

And in the process lost a LOT of users, who are really their only revenue stream now that they DON'T pump out versions for other platforms like the Wii any more...

They didn't lose a lot of users. And besides, the new Opera is growing faster than the Presto-based Opera ever did anyway.

And of course, Opera's revenue has never been higher than it is now.

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47305619)

If there was ever a project that NEEDS to be open sourced, it is Opera 12!

Re:Opera (1)

x_t0ken_407 (2716535) | about 2 months ago | (#47308525)

This x10000! God I wish they'd just release it to the community who loves and cherishes it. It was such a slap in the face to the long-time users when they ended Presto development. Not that they have a responsibility to making us happy, but fuck I miss my browser. I keep pissing myself off when I use Opera 12, because I know it's not going to continue being updated and only a matter of time before it's obsolete. So I change to FF, which eventually came with their interface "upgrade' which looks exactly like chrome, at which point I decided, "hey, might as well just use Chromium!" -- and thus, here I am posting this from Chromium. Alas, without some hacking (more than I care to do at the moment), I can't even try this "long-awaited" dev release outside of a VM since they've only made a .deb package.

Excuse my rant.

Re:Opera (1)

richlv (778496) | about 2 months ago | (#47306697)

i'm considering a move to firefox, but it just does not work as nicely as opera with lots of tabs and needs 10 extensions for features opera had/has out of the box, like mouse gestures... it will be a complicated move for me.

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47308717)

Funny, I made the switch a while back, and noticed that performance with lots of tabs was better (until I installed some addons to ease the transition, then it was about the same).

After a couple months though, I've found the Awesomebar has improved my experience to the point where I wouldn't want to go back to Opera 12.

The big thing to bear in mind is that Firefox is a bit less stable than in the past, as they're revamping the codebase to better-handle hardware acceleration and other things.

Re:Opera (1)

richlv (778496) | about 2 months ago | (#47308859)

would that be https://support.mozilla.org/en... [mozilla.org] ?
opera (12) has such a feature, too.

one area where opera is MUCH better - handling of a large amount of tabs. ff starts to do scrolling way too soon (even with some extensions). opera's tabs scale down perfectly, even to the point of scaling down those favicons on each tab...

Re:Opera (1)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | about 2 months ago | (#47306809)

Are you me? Because I could have written exactly the same thing. I was also there from 4.x, it's one of the few bits of software I ever paid for as a penniless uni student. So disappointing to be abandoned like that.

Re:Opera (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 2 months ago | (#47312893)

there hasn't been an update since the 15 series that actually did anything, and most of those updates broke stuff

What stuff was broken with updates after 15?

They are trying to play catch-up from an unnecessary code-base change to what they used to have.

If they hadn't changed, they would have lagged more and more behind. At least now they get the latest web tech.

The coding team has changed. The company has changed.

The coding team hasn't changed more than a team normally changes in a couple of years according to the teams themselves. The company has changed? All companies change.

There is no interest in preserving users any more.

Really? Because switching to Blink seems to be preserving users in a better way than the old version. Opera's report to its owners indicates that people who start using the new versions are less likely to move on to something else than versions before 15.

Bug reports get answered with "We haven't got around to that yet" or "We never intend to put that functionality back in.

You get answers to bug reports? That's new. When did they start doing that? Sounds like a massive improvement. On the other hand, bugs seem to be fixed at a much faster rate now than they used to.

They removed every major feature that did something useful, so it's now a very, very poor Chrome clone.

They didn't actually remove any features. They just started from scratch. It's far from being a Chrome clone. Just becase it's a simple browser doesn't make it a Chrome clone.

We hoped the company would see sense and start re-using that codebase after they realised their catastrophic mistake. It never happened.

A "catastrophic mistake" which made the desktop version grow faster in number of users than any versions before it? Right.

The only patches they ever put out to the "real" Opera codebase broke it along the way, presumably because they just don't understand the code at all.

Why would they suddenly stop understanding the code they wrote? Most of the same people who worked on Opera 12 are still working for Opera.

How did they break it when patching it? Got any examples? Or are you just making up things.

Funny thing is, simple changes in the old Opera often broke things. You know, when all the developers you mistakenly thought had left were still working actively on Presto.

Re:Opera (1)

ledow (319597) | about 2 months ago | (#47313749)

- Cookies aren't remembered properly.
- The font cache corrupts and requires restart of the browser at regular interval (unless you like Chinese Unicode squiggles taking the place of your normal page text).

The original coding team were ditched, the replacements were all new - the forums/blogs describing this were purged but you can still find them if you try really hard.

People who start on new versions? If there are less of those than your ENTIRE existing customer base, you're losing out. See replies to this post - a lot of old-time supporters, people who were buyers of the software over a decade ago and still using it, have left it behind.

Bug reports used to be answered. Your snarky answer is precisely the problem - nobody cares about replying to them now. And most of them are literally WILLNOTFIX.

They removed the entire mail and chat clients, the integrated Bittorrent download, the bookmarks, the entire UI customisability (the strongest point of Opera), the kiosk modes, all the stuff that made them unique. Go download a 12.16 and look how many features there are that just aren't there. Nobody uses them? The bug reports, the cries for their return, and the fleeing users suggest otherwise. Don't say they didn't remove features.

Nobody knows that the Desktop version grew. The only numbers you have are from Opera themselves. It was already a niche player.

The dev team CHANGED. It was announced several times on the forums. The old ones were shown the door, the new ones only broke the old codebase and couldn't advance it. It was part of the reason they "started again" - they didn't know how to do anything else (and Linux, etc. clients were left in the wake of the change).

Breaking it? See bugs at top of page - not present in 12.13 (before the dev change), present after and getting worse until 12.x branch was abandoned.

And I used Opera since before 3.6. The number of bugs that weren't replied to, fixed in the next minor and never affected much (except the occasional rendering bug) were few and far between... or I wouldn't have paid for it, wouldn't have used it, wouldn't have fought for it, wouldn't still be mourning the loss of it.

Opera dev team were shown the door, new dev team can't get close to replicating their functionality even after - what - a year or so with NO HTML engine to worry about (Chrome handles all that now)?

If you don't know this stuff, you probably weren't using old Opera or weren't on the forums at the time all this was announced (before the new versions even existed).

Re:Opera (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 2 months ago | (#47330739)

- Cookies aren't remembered properly.
- The font cache corrupts and requires restart of the browser at regular interval (unless you like Chinese Unicode squiggles taking the place of your normal page text).

Works fine here, and I haven't seen anyone else with these problems.

The original coding team were ditched, the replacements were all new - the forums/blogs describing this were purged but you can still find them if you try really hard.

No, the original coding team is still there. There were several hundred developers. A handful left when they switched to WebKit. Some people were making up stories about entire teams being let go, but that turned out to be a lie.

That means that a tiny percentage of developers are actually new, which happens to be something that happens naturally.

By the way, if you can prove that the original team is gone, please do so. But it's weird that you claim the original team is gone when members of the original team are still at Opera, saying that they weren't.

People who start on new versions? If there are less of those than your ENTIRE existing customer base, you're losing out.

Maybe short-term but not necessarily long-term. The new Opera is apparently getting new users at a much faster rate than the old one and fewer people stop using it than the old version as well.

See replies to this post - a lot of old-time supporters, people who were buyers of the software over a decade ago and still using it, have left it behind.

Not really "a lot." When there are millions of users, a handful of people is not really relevant. Also, as they reported to their owners, the new Opera is growing faster than the old one ever did.

Bug reports used to be answered. Your snarky answer is precisely the problem - nobody cares about replying to them now. And most of them are literally WILLNOTFIX.

Bug reports did not get answers back in the day either. In fact, if you had read the forums you would have known that this is something people have been complaining about for years.

They removed the entire mail and chat clients, the integrated Bittorrent download, the bookmarks, the entire UI customisability (the strongest point of Opera), the kiosk modes, all the stuff that made them unique. Go download a 12.16 and look how many features there are that just aren't there.

They still weren't removed. Removing is taking something away. They made the new Opera from scratch so there was nothing to take away.

Nobody knows that the Desktop version grew. The only numbers you have are from Opera themselves. It was already a niche player.

Actually, Opera is required by law to report accurate information to its owners. The numbers from Opera are also audited. So yes, there is actual documentation on the growth.

The dev team CHANGED. It was announced several times on the forums. The old ones were shown the door, the new ones only broke the old codebase and couldn't advance it.

This is a lie. No such thing was announced on the forums. Why on earth would they announce something like this on the forums anyway?

If the old team was shown the door, how come all those people from the old team are still posting as Opera employees on the blogs and forums?

It was part of the reason they "started again" - they didn't know how to do anything else (and Linux, etc. clients were left in the wake of the change).

This is yet another lie. The old team is still there. In fact, the first Opera patch for WebKit was made by a developer who has been there for more than a decade, IIRC.

Breaking it? See bugs at top of page - not present in 12.13 (before the dev change), present after and getting worse until 12.x branch was abandoned.

What? Those "bugs" that you mentioned at the top (that no one else is seeing) were supposed to be for Opera 15. We're talking about Opera 12 now.

You can't even keep your own lies straight...

And I used Opera since before 3.6. The number of bugs that weren't replied to, fixed in the next minor and never affected much (except the occasional rendering bug) were few and far between... or I wouldn't have paid for it, wouldn't have used it, wouldn't have fought for it, wouldn't still be mourning the loss of it.

Another lie. Had you read the forums you would have seen tons of unhappy people because of bugs.

Opera dev team were shown the door, new dev team can't get close to replicating their functionality even after - what - a year or so with NO HTML engine to worry about (Chrome handles all that now)?

Again, this is a lie. People from the original dev team are still posting as Opera employees on blogs and forums. Also, Opera is one of the main Blink contributors, so claiming that they have no engine to worry about is another lie.

If you don't know this stuff, you probably weren't using old Opera or weren't on the forums at the time all this was announced (before the new versions even existed).

It's clear that it is you who never used either of them.

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47363441)

"The dev team CHANGED. It was announced several times on the forums. The old ones were shown the door, the new ones only broke the old codebase and couldn't advance it. It was part of the reason they "started again" - they didn't know how to do anything else (and Linux, etc. clients were left in the wake of the change)."

"Opera dev team were shown the door, new dev team can't get close to replicating their functionality even after - what - a year or so with NO HTML engine to worry about (Chrome handles all that now)?"

You are clearly just spouting complete nonsense, this isn't true in the slightest. Lets see you find a legitimate source that the opera dev team was "shown the door". You wouldn't just go on the internet and tell lies right? http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/562/544/0b4.jpg

"- Cookies aren't remembered properly.
- The font cache corrupts and requires restart of the browser at regular interval (unless you like Chinese Unicode squiggles taking the place of your normal page text)."

I've been using chromium based opera for a while now and have never seen either of this issues.

Your opinion (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 months ago | (#47314659)

There are old Opera users who agree with your opinion. From what I can see, most don't. Then there's the vast majority of the potential market who don't.

You won't agree with this but with the limited resources from Opera Software and the web again diverging from WWW standards, there was no real alternative.

What all the moaning is about is the slow pace of development. Time lacking features (O15+) goes slower than time where those features were introduced (O10-O12).

What I greatly regret is the end of work on the Presto version of Opera Mobile. Having a tabbed browser that would run in 128MB is a great boon on mobile devices.

Themes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304543)

Like every cool app there, themes are at the top of the list. Fuck the rest of the functionality. Fuck that I want to use the app for its core function. Themes is what I _need_ man... Without themes, I'll give your app a rating of one, and moan about it.

Fuck the themes. Make the app do what I need, and let me run a bare metal version of it if I want. I don't want any fucking bells and whistles!

Still sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304555)

Why wont they just give up and do something else ?

Norwegian company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47304711)

The upside is that Opera is developed by a Norwegian company and is closed source, so NSA cannot inject any backdoors in it.

Re:Norwegian company (1)

laffer1 (701823) | about 2 months ago | (#47305025)

No.. it's Google's blink and it is open source with some closed code.

Re:Norwegian company (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 2 months ago | (#47308129)

so NSA cannot

I think the NSA has demonstrated there's very little they *can't* do, although there's plenty they *shouldn't* be doing.

bookmarks menu (2)

musikit (716987) | about 2 months ago | (#47304811)

awesome! but does it have bookmarks? I.E. a bookmark menu. not a bookmark bar.

A bit too late for me... (1)

Gort65 (1464371) | about 2 months ago | (#47306261)

It's a pity that I completely uninstalled Opera some months ago, after waiting several months with vague promises and excuses about a coming release. It was mostly a secondary browser for me, so I didn't lose much sleep purging it. It also has lost a lot of the features that enticed me in the first place.

Now that it's finally here, I'm not sure I can muster up the effort to install it. Maybe I'll wait a year... or maybe longer.

Check for New 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>