×

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 Reaches 1 Million Downloads Thanks To Google

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the product-placement dept.

Google 287

auckland writes "More than one million people have downloaded the Opera browser in the days since Opera announced it was dropping the ad banner and going completely free. All made possible because Opera signed a search referral deal with Google." From the article: "'The current most important deal now is with Google,' the spokesperson said to Mr. Malik. That deal, and similar ones with Amazon and eBay, give those companies prime placement in the Opera search box. Mozilla has a similar arrangement with Google, with its search box and its default right-click menu search option on highlighted text sending queries straight to Mountain View."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

287 comments

I think I made it... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13633817)

Fr1st ps0t!!!

Microsoft Says... (5, Funny)

aklix (801048) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633823)

Opera free? Without ads? But Microsoft says companies can't survive like that!

Re:Microsoft Says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634002)

Opera CHARGES for their mobile client. The hope is to get people hooked on the dsektop client so they'll pay for the mobile one...

Re:Microsoft Says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634022)

Translation...they won't survive.

Re:Microsoft Says... (2, Funny)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634210)

"Opera free? Without ads? But Microsoft says companies can't survive like that!"

Of course, that's why Microsoft started to distribute IE for free.

yup (5, Interesting)

pizzaman100 (588500) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633824)

A search for "internet browser" [google.com] brings opera back at #1.

Re:yup (5, Funny)

CSHARP123 (904951) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633871)

If you search using MSN Search. The #2 result is STOP IE. You know even MSN search knows stopping IE is required. :)

A search for "web browser"... (2, Insightful)

Thu25245 (801369) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633886)

...turns up a link to Firefox [google.com] as #1.

But I'm sure you knew that.

Interestingly enough, Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, and Safari are all listed before IE.

Re:yup (1)

blibbler (15793) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633887)

A search for Web Browser" [google.ca] brings Mozilla at #1

I think people would be more familiar with the "web browser" term than the less accurate "internet browser" term.

Re:yup (5, Insightful)

Gnavpot (708731) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634157)

I think people would be more familiar with the "web browser" term than the less accurate "internet browser" term.

Actually, most people refer to IE as "the Internet".

Re:yup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13633892)

but search for web browser and you get firefox as #1...opera at #2 though.

Re:yup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634107)

Yeah dude those are funny, try "miserable failure" as well.

Similar results: (3, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634152)

"free internet browser", gives you www.mozilla.org
"best internet browser" gives you www.opera.com
"bad internet browser" gives you an article on Internet Explorer
"worst internet browser" gives you home.netscape.com

Amazing. Simply amazing.

Search just "browser" gives Mozilla. (1)

MTO_B. (814477) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634205)

Most people as far as I know just say you need a "browser", not an internet browser, free browser, web browser, or other two word compositions.

Searching for "browser" gives Mozilla & Firefox number 1 & 2 position.

Hmmmm. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13633827)

So how much does KDE and the Mozilla foundation get for their implementation in Konqueror and Firefox respectively? Missed opportunity?

Doh!

ah, no (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13633888)

Google pays MoFo for that placement.

They also seem to get to hire the best Mozilla developers, but I'm not sure if that's part of the deal.

Killing IE? (1)

ezweave (584517) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633834)

Hopefully this well help more people switch from IE. Or at least introduce some of the computer using public to the fact that IE is just a web browser and they can pick from many...

That is, as long as FF still gets users ;-)

Re:Killing IE? (1)

murmurr (703247) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633853)

... but that there IS no choice of search engine as Google is the only one.

Re:Killing IE? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634100)

You mean you can't go to altavista.com? or Lycos? or MSN?

It's a small price to pay if you ask me... much less than seeing a banner.

Re:Killing IE? (1)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633936)

On the one hand, I don't like opera. (feels kinda squishy). But on the other hand, I have a computer (Dos6.22 upgraded to win3.1 upgraded to Win95 (For playing old DOS games)) that I could not install firefox on. Opera has a niche. but I don't think it will kill IE..

So what is their business model? (1, Interesting)

bergeron76 (176351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633840)

How exactly do they plan on making money now?

So what is their business model?-Counterfitting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13633859)

"How exactly do they plan on making money now?"

Printing press out back.

Re:So what is their business model? (4, Informative)

wyatt12 (462857) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633868)

They split the advertising revenue generated by the searches through the Google toolbar. This is how firefox pays their employees too. Google pay per click advertising is BIG money. It's a win win for both Google and firefox/opera. Both sides earn more revenue, and Google also takes market share from Microsoft.

Wyatt

Re:So what is their business model? (2, Informative)

Loualbano2 (98133) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633870)

Probably mobile devices. Deals with Nokia, for example, to license Opera on phones.

Re:So what is their business model? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634034)

Look here [business2.com]:


"only about a third of our revenue comes from our desktop business"


"Today our browser works in most midrange to high-end phones. We can easily adapt them to any mobile platform. We even have a browser for Microsoft smartphones. It's better than Microsoft's own mobile browser."


"Q: Apart from Nokia, what other major phone makers are bundling Opera -- and do they pay for it?

A: Motorola (MOT), Sony Ericsson, Kyocera, BenQ, Casio -- and we get paid for each unit shipped."


by selling licenses for other platforms (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634142)

IIRC they are giving away thouer browser to PC (both windows and linux) and MAC users but they are not giving it away for other platforms. Presumablly thier aim is to gain mindshare (among both users and web developers) with thier free PC browsers and then sell browsers for platforms like mobiles either to the mobile vendors or direct to end users.

OMG!!! Google is teh EVIL!!!!!! (1)

pdpTrojan (454023) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633845)

Why's Google helping out a free (as in beer) browser?!?!!??!
If Google wants to do no evil, it should only help push
open source ones!

Rememeber everybody, INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE!!!!

spreadopera dot com (3, Interesting)

lonedroid (888148) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633855)

Damn, I was going to register spreadopera.com and start competing with a certain other browser, but a whois shows that Opera already registered that domain!

anyone else see a problem with this? (3, Interesting)

hashfunction (861726) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633865)

With this kind deal between companies? Sure, it may bring Internet Explorer down, but what does this spell for other browsers who do not have 'deals' with Google?

Re:anyone else see a problem with this? (1)

liangzai (837960) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633940)

Well, it doesn't matter, as long as we get rid of IE.

There is no fairness in real life, and this is WAR.

Re:anyone else see a problem with this? (0, Troll)

NineNine (235196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634117)

Google can do no wrong. Even when the violate the #1 rule of search engine integrity and manipulate their results, they can do no wrong (according to the Slashdot crowd). But yes, Google is still a profit-making company like every other one on the planet. I really doubt that they'll let their "do no evil" philosophy get in the way of profit. I've never known ANY company to keep their original idealistic philosophies once they get to a certain size.

Unfair (2, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633866)

When Microsoft does the same thing with IE/MSN, then it's called 'anticompetitive' and 'unfair'.

Lack of competition when you have no competitors is not exactly my idea of monopolistic behavior.

Heck, I'm almost ready to make the case in favor of MSN - at least if Yahoo goes down Google won't have a search monopoly.

Re:Unfair (5, Insightful)

mat1t (772346) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633910)

When Microsoft do this though, they are cross-subsidising, as it doesn't cost them anything to include MSN search with IE.

Google are paying Opera for this, so it becomes a business transaction. Also, Opera is a low market share browser, so it can't be considered anti-competitive. People can choose not to use/install it.

Re:Unfair (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633958)

And how much do you figure the Mozilla Foundation paid Google for the cross-licensing? The probable answer is zero dollars. Now that's what one would call "anti-competitive", no?

Of course not, but that's not the point.

Re:Unfair (1)

mat1t (772346) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633976)

but with that arguement, you can say that by giving away the web browsers is anti-competitive...

Re:Unfair (4, Informative)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633978)

Did you even read the article? The whole point is that Google pays the Mozilla Foundation and Opera to include Google in the browser, of course Mozilla doesn't pay Google.

Re:Unfair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13633989)


Google is paying Mozilla, not the other way around. Why would TMF pay Google to use Google as their default search engine when they can just do that anyway for free?

Re:Unfair (2, Insightful)

glwtta (532858) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633972)

When Microsoft does the same thing with IE/MSN, then it's called 'anticompetitive' and 'unfair'.

Well, "unfair" is sort of a subjective term, but 'anticompetitive' is exactly what it's called when a monopoly uses it's dominance in such a manner.

Lack of competition when you have no competitors is not exactly my idea of monopolistic behavior.

You have an odd idea of "monopolistic behaviour" then: no competitors == monopoly. And yes, just being a monopoly means that you are not allowed (in theory, anyway) to do some things that companies that are not monopolies can.

Heck, I'm almost ready to make the case in favor of MSN - at least if Yahoo goes down Google won't have a search monopoly.

Just because of the nature of web searching, it would be pretty hard for Google to get an MS-like monopoly on it. There's dosens of search engines that work more than well enough; if Google, Yahoo Search and MSN Search disappeared tomorrow, it would have very little effect on people's ability to find stuff on the internet.

What? (0, Troll)

timmerk15 (753792) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633876)

When Google first started out, the bragged how they won't let advertisors pay to be ranked higher in the search results, like Yahoo and other search engines did - that's what made their seaches such great quality. But it seems now that Google has changed their mind?

Re:What? (2, Funny)

mroch (715318) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633908)

No, Google is paying Opera to be the default search engine in the toolbar search. It doesn't make any sense for Google to pay Opera to list Opera higher in Google's rankings...

Re:What? (1)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634102)

That's why the story title and body is misleading too: The downloads of Opera are totally independant of this deal with Google. The profit of Opera ASA of course is not, but the downloads are!

Re:What? (1)

SpaceAdmiral (869318) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634181)

The story text is sort of misleading, but the downloads of Opera aren't "totally independant" as you suggest. What the submitter means is that, because of the deal with Google bringing in money, Opera can now fund their business with no ads in the browser. The newly ad-free browser is being downloaded more now.

Goooooooogle! (2, Interesting)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633882)

*Sigh*
*bats eyelashes*
Is there anything they cannot do?

kinda sick, heh?
But, hey, I remember when Micro Soft (original name) used to treat its users with a modicum of respect.
I clasp my hands and hope Google stays, well, relatively Good.
Right now, a diversity of free browsers looks pretty good.

Re:Goooooooogle! (1)

mat1t (772346) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633926)

their original name had a hypen in it; micro-soft

Re:Goooooooogle! (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634126)

You are correct.

I do have some documentation from MS that has the usage Micro Soft on it, however, from a period in the late 70's. That's when I first got to know them.

This is a terrible injustice! (5, Funny)

badmicrophone (858946) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633884)

People should pay to see the Opera! after all, when you download it you miss all the fantastic costumes and corpulant players!

when will the RIAA do something about this!?

I'm not sure now (4, Insightful)

Synli (781075) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633885)

I'm not sure but was the headline to suggest that "No, Firefox doesn't suck, and it's still THE ONLY decent alternative to IE, because Opera CHEATS! -- They exchange traffic with Google!!!"

If so, then let me quote from the article:
"Mozilla has a similar arrangement with Google, with its search box and its default right-click menu search option on highlighted text sending queries straight to Mountain View. "

Re:I'm not sure now (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634128)

Two things inspire me to awe -- the starry heavens above and the moral universe within.

Uh... man... I really think it was Kant who wrote that.

This is not a good thing (1, Interesting)

NakedPenguin (744429) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633889)

In the beginning, browser competition was good. Like it or not, Microsoft's "Embrace and Extend" policy pushed the need for standards, even as it proceeded to ignore them.

Now, we have Firefox. It's good. It does a pretty good job of supporting standards. It's available for all platforms, free of charge. It's also open source. As a web developer, I think there's no reason for anyone to use anything but firefox, barring any special need for ActiveX or some such proprietary thing.

Opera, while certainly better than IE, hurts the world wide web by dividing the population even further. With more browsers out there, I can't count on my (standards compliant) code working everywhere, and I have to add hacks for each browser to make it work. Things get even uglier when I try to write a "fat" web app - different browsers support radically different scripting standards.

The chances that all web developers can account for all browsers is slim, and this mean s that any given website is less likely to work in your browser of choice. We need to work to pick a browser and dominate the market with that browser. This is one case where a monopoly would be somewhat beneficial. Capitalism SHOULD take care of this: if a browser has shoddy standards support, people wouldn't use it. Unfortunately, John Q. Public knows next to nothing about standards, and so many sites are still coded to IE that they are broken in other browsers.

Anyway, the point is: No more browsers, please.

you're a moron (1)

rebug (520669) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633965)

"I think there's no reason for anyone to use anything but firefox"

Ever use Firefox on Mac OS X or FreeBSD? It sucks, badly.

People will always have a reason to use alternative browsers, whether it's usability, suitability for their platform, or (gasp) personal choice. If you're such a hack of a web developer that you can't make your sites work in different browsers, perhaps you should find another line of work.

Firefox on Mac OS X (2, Insightful)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634040)

Ever use Firefox on Mac OS X or FreeBSD? It sucks, badly.
I agree. Safari has its weaknesses, but it's way better than the OS X port of Firefox. I really don't "get it" when it comes to all the hullabaloo over Firefox other than weening people off IE. If you ignore the IE factor and consider Firefox on its own merits, there's nothing special about it: it's just another browser (at least for OS X).

Re:you're a moron (1)

NakedPenguin (744429) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634053)

I have used Firefox on MacOS X. I prefer it to Safari. And way to be a jerk. I never said I couldn't make my code work cross-browser. It makes more work for me, though, and many developers won't do it. Maybe try making a better argument than, "Firefox sucks. You're a hack."

Re:you're a moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634085)

Someone who resorts to personal insults usually doesn't know what they are talking about. Can you name all of the browsers out there that fully support CSS 2.1? Guess what: There are none. You can not download today a browser that passes the Acid 2 test [webstandards.org]. Until browsers support the standards, people can't just code to the standards and expect their page to work in a standards-complient browser.

Yes, a page that looks good in Firefox will usually work in Safari. Usually. But Opera doesn't support some things that Firefox and Safari support. Such as the "opacity" tag.

About Macintosh browsers, there is a lot of cruft there that I can't test my pages to, such as iCab, older versions of OmniWeb, and, yes, Cyberdog. I really with iCab had no CSS support whatsoever so a page rendered in iCab looks like the page in Dillo [dillo.org] or another non-CSS browser.

Re:you're a moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634265)

Firefox runs as well on FreeBSD as it does on Linux. Which is to say that it's easily the best browser available for FreeBSD.

Re:This is not a good thing (1)

vcv (526771) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633984)

Opera hurts the web? Hahaahha, that is the more ridiculous and retarded statement I have read on Slashdot this week, and that means a lot.

Re:This is not a good thing (1)

NakedPenguin (744429) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634093)

I doubt that very much. Put a little thought into it. Each browser is a schism in the de facto standards. Until all browsers support the same standards equally, the more there are of them, the worse off we are. In other words, it is logically apparent that the public is better off when one browser can render all pages the way they were intended to be displayed. That will never happen, of course, but the closer we can get, the better. More browsers makes this goal harder to reach. Instead, why don't all the browser makers collaborate on a great browser? Because that's pinko commie talk, that's why.

Re:This is not a good thing (1)

vcv (526771) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634121)

Firefox hurts the web too then.

Re:This is not a good thing (1)

NakedPenguin (744429) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634219)

True.

My POINT is that there should be One Browser to Rule Them All.

My OPINION is that it should be Firefox.

Both are open to debate, of course.

Re:This is not a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634217)

Mod parent up: Opera is all about correctly working with web standards.

Re:This is not a good thing (3, Insightful)

the arbiter (696473) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634078)

If your code is truly "standards compliant", then the only browser you have cause to be concerned with is Internet Explorer.

As for your suggestion that a browser monopoly would in any way be a good thing for anyone...well, you're just wrong.

get ready kids (-1, Offtopic)

crabpeople (720852) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633891)

For your friday afternoon SLOW NEWS TIME!!! yes thats right, every friday afternoon est people get off work and go have a beer, while us PST people have jack all to do! This wouldnt normally be a problem as slashdot provides ample abilities to waste time, however all the editors are on EST time! YAY

so without further adue, i give you some offtopic link i found on the internets!(patent pending)
http://www.notproud.com/ [notproud.com]

an online confessional! a very very nice waste of time, if i do say so myself.

some gems:
http://www.notproud.com/lust/lust10128.php [notproud.com]
http://www.notproud.com/sloth/sloth1966.php [notproud.com]
http://www.notproud.com/lust/lust5143.php [notproud.com]

*tried to post anon but aparently its been 28 minutes since i posted a reply. guess they didnt fix that bug yet :(

And now (3, Insightful)

MatD (895409) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633896)

And now, we are going to start seeing exploits getting released for Opera. As well as articles about how IE is more secure than Opera. Just give it a little time, trust me.

Google = Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13633900)

www.uncoverip.com

I can hear it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13633932)

Somewhere, a CEO is throwing a chair through a wall ...

Lots of money in open source? (4, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633934)

According to some blogs, there are rumors that the Mozilla foundation gets 30 million dollars a year for the search box in Firefox defaulting to google. Also, only the financial details for 2003 have been made public by Mozilla. So it requires someone to file a special request under the law to check Mozilla's dealings.

So, remember, everytime you do a search in Firefox, some money goes from google to Mozilla, estimates ranging from 50 cents to 1 dollar per user per year.

Re:Lots of money in open source? (0, Flamebait)

raoul666 (870362) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634068)

I honestly can't tell from your post: are you trying to say that it's a good thing or a bad thing Google gives Mozilla money?

Re:Lots of money in open source? (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634106)

Does it have to be good or bad and do I have to have an opinion on it? I know this is slashdot and all but I am just giving the information for what it is worth and fuel further discussion. I never knew that the Mozilla foundation gets so much money from google, so I thought it was interesting enough to share.

omfwgas (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13633951)

oh my fucking who gives a shit

A thought on how this affects CSS designs (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13633985)

There is no browser out there with full CSS 2.1 support. Not one. Certaintly not Trident (IE's engine). Not Gecko (Firefox's engine). Not KTML (Konqueror's engine). Not Webcore (Safari's fork of the KHTML engine). And not Presto (Opera's engine).

People talk about designing to the standards, but without a single web browser actually following said standards, web designers on the front lines have to work around different browser's quirks.

For example, a number of browsers support bits and pieces of CSS 3.0. Gecko and Webcore have support for opacity (translucent elements on a web page); Trident can do the same thing with the non-standard "Filter:" tag. However, Presto in Opera 8 has no support for this.

The workaround for Opera users is to use a translucent PNG instead. However, a translucent PNG used in mouseovers triggers a Firefox/Windows 1.0.x bug (probably fixed in Deer Park) where the mouseover image will not be loaded unless visible somewhere else on the page (I can mostly eliminate this bug by making the PNG in question visible on the page as a single 90% transparent pixel in the upper right hand corner. Which mostly, but not completely, works around the bug.)

Basically, with yet another CSS rendering browser out there gaining market share, while only implementing a subset of the CSS standard, web designers now have to work around the quirks of yet another browser. I like this kind of work, but a lot of designers hate this stuff and just throw their hands in the air and make their web page a 100% flash web page or what not.

Re:A thought on how this affects CSS designs (1)

vcv (526771) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634030)

On the whole image not loading unless it's visible thing, that's what image preloading is for. Pretty easy to do.

Re:A thought on how this affects CSS designs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634203)

The client would not allow any javacript on the page. Don't ask.

Yay, Mountain View! (-1, Offtopic)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 8 years ago | (#13633999)

Mozilla has a similar arrangement with Google, with its search box and its default right-click menu search option on highlighted text sending queries straight to Mountain View.
As I happen to live in Mountain View, it's kinda cool to see your town mentioned. :-)

Re:Yay, Mountain View! (1)

merreborn (853723) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634123)

What with yahoo just down the street in sunnyvale, HP up north a touch in Palo Alto, and Apple a bit South West, in cupertino, A microsoft campus, and S3 in santa clara, the greater mountain view area hits slashdot quite often, I think.

That's why they call it sillicon valley.

Still sticking with FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634009)

With extensions like flashblock, adblock, linky, etc, I don't see myself switching to Opera any time soon.

I did see the adblock solution on the last story, and it seemed to be a convoluted scheme. So did the flashblock CSS suggestion, which seems to just block all flash objects unless you click one of them.

Still, it is nice to have another browser for testing HTML, and not having to see their ads is a plus(although, I wasn't too bothered with them to begin with).

stats (2, Insightful)

tuggy (694581) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634031)

now that opera changed the USER AGENT ID, what i'm really interested is in seeing how much will change in the stats for IE...

Opera (1)

Saiyine (689367) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634036)


Opera is a nice browser, but I just can't understand their policy on the keyboard. If you use KDE it says you have to change some hotkeys of the enviroment, instead of changing them on the program.

And they really should change to Ctrl+T to open a new tab, IMHO.

--
Superb hosting [dreamhost.com] 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, $7,95.
Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634083)

And they really should change to Ctrl+T to open a new tab, IMHO.

No they shouldn't. Firefox should use Ctrl+N to open a new tab. Ctrl+N to open a new document and view has been a standard in MDI user interface design for a long time.

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634218)

Amen. Control-T is one of the things I hate about Firefox.

Re:Opera (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634088)

And they really should change to Ctrl+T to open a new tab, IMHO.

What on earth is wrong with Ctrl-N for "New"?!

Besides that, can't you just change the setting in Opera anyway?

TWW

Google as a many-tentacled monster (3, Interesting)

l00k (910333) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634041)

So Google infiltrates yet ANOTHER aspect of the Internet. This strategy of embedding itself into the fabric of the Internet looked cute before the company went on to become the next stockmarket darling, now I can't help but see each new step in increasing its mind-share as Bill Gates in double.

This stockmarket-listed company's strategy is to 'organise the world's information'. The Internet is resembling one large Google Ad to rule them all!

Do we believe in the inherent goodness of this corporation's dollars as it buys, sponsors, advertises its way into open source?

Unclear summary (5, Informative)

TrentL (761772) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634114)

The summary of this article is very unclear about the point. To be clear: people didn't download Opera because it uses Google. Rather, they were *able* to get Opera for free because Opera had an alternative revenue stream with Google.

:D (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634135)

Opera, my favorite browser, supported by Google, my favorite search...

It's paid placement, and I realize that, but I would probably end up at google anyways, even without the placement. For me, its a feature.

Thanks to Google (4, Insightful)

loconet (415875) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634149)

"Thanks to Google"

It goes side by side with the story about MS's worst nightmare being the web as the next platform. In order for this to happen, the web needs to become truely standard across all browsers and platforms. This will not happen with IE the way it is. Google being a major player in that nightmare, needs to make sure MS's handle on proprietary web technologies ends soon. This can be achieved by helping Opera and Firefox which is exactly what they are doing.

STOP SWITCHING TO OPERA!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13634166)

It has great using Opera all these years:

1) the best and most flexible POWER browser, bar none, and;
2) security through obscurity

#1 won't change, but #2 may get more iffy.

I Like Opera (4, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 8 years ago | (#13634199)

I bought Opera a few years back, and it's till my main browser because

- no virus / exploits, prolly not because it's better code, but because it's so little used that hackers don't bother
- native tabbed browsing (years ago, Ffox didn't have THAT, and Opera's is still good now)
- native mouse gestures, I can lay back and browse without the keyboard, and without endlessly monving the pointer back to the tool bar (I actually switch those off, and use it full-screen most of the time: F11)
- it just works, very few sites have problems with it
- it's easy to switch plugins on/off (flash...)

-> I still haven't found a compelling reason to switch to FFox (which I also installed). But then again I doubt there IS a reason to switch from Ffox to Opera nowadays, except maybe security IF all those alerts about FFox result in a major problem sometime.

The mail client sucks, they should just give up on it. It doesn't support ActiveX, which is a blessing and a curse. And of course, it's closed source. But at least it's NOT M$.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...