Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Opera 9.0 Released

Posted by timothy on Tue Jun 20, 2006 08:00 AM
from the too-bad-it's-not-open-source dept.
Nurgled writes "After teasing us for months with betas and snapshots, Opera Software have finally released version 9.0 of their web browser. The new version features correct ACID2 rendering, native support for the SVG Basic profile, a built-in BitTorrent client, support for Microsoft's designmode and contenteditable extensions, per-site configuration, Atom support, Web Forms 2.0 support, Canvas support (and some Opera-specific extensions), NTLM authentication, some support of parts of CSS3 and lots more. The full changelog is available." p14nd4 adds "And for you *nix users, it hasn't hit their .deb repository quite yet, but there are regular installers available for the major players, including a fixed Ubuntu installer and an x86 Solaris version."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Opera Seeks Developer Input For Opera 10 387 comments
taskforce writes "Opera Watch is reporting that the folks Opera Software are asking web developers for input on what they think the most important features are which could be added into the next version of the Opera desktop browser. Considering what has been added in Opera 9, what do you think would be most important for the browser from both a developer and a user standpoint?"
[+] Technology: Browser Comparison - Firefox 2 b1, IE7 b3, Opera 9 528 comments
mikemuch writes "The browser wars have heated up again, with Microsoft putting Beta 3 of Internet Explorer 7 out for all to download (not just developers anymore), Firefox coming out with the first beta of its version 2, and Opera releasing version 9. ExtremeTech has a shoot-out of the three browsers, with feature comparisons and tests of resource usage, startup time, and Acid2 standards compliance. Standout features are Opera's built-in BitTorrent support, Firefox's spellchecker for forms, and IE's Quick Tabs view. Firefox is still ahead in extensions, while Opera has some slick UI conveniences."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • How about an API (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Magada (741361) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:02AM (#15568301) Journal
    I love Opera. I'd love it even more if it came with the possibility to create extensions.
    • Re:How about an API (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mark Gillespie (866733) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:31AM (#15568545)
      It supports netscape plugin API, and Widgets, is that enough entensions for you?
      • Re:How about an API (Score:4, Informative)

        by Bogtha (906264) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @11:17AM (#15570002)

        Not just plugins and widgets, it also supports user JavaScript, which is basically the same as Greasemonkey. In fact, it was the original inspiration for Greasemonkey, and Opera has even added compatibility support so that lots of Greasemonkey scripts can run in Opera unchanged.

    • by Nik13 (837926) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:51AM (#15568696) Homepage
      Most people seem to take your comment as "I wanna block ads", while it's one purpose of extensions in firefox, there are so many other great ones, like the web developper toolbar and such.

      I really love opera, and it's really innovative and advanced (you don't see features like xhtml + voice in most browsers, it's pretty cool stuff), very standard compliant, lightweight, fast, etc. But the thing that keeps me primarily on firefox is the extensions (even though it pretty much always takes over 500MB of RAM even with tweaks, and crashes every couple of days).

      The day Opera gets extensions I'm definitely switching - instantly. I'd even pay good money for it. I think they'd increase their market share significantly - much more than by adding a BT client really.

      • Re:How about an API (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        What I love about Opera is that all of the extensions I use in Firefox come by default in Opera (ok, it doesn't have FireSomthing but I can deal without that). And it's configuration is simple to back up and copy between machines. Anytime I sit down to Firefox I have to remember which of the tabbed-browsing extensions actually works and gives me the functionality I want (session-saving, duplicate tab, ability to reorder tabs, open absolutley everything in a tab not a window)
      • Re:How about an API (Score:4, Informative)

        by pkiff (959365) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @10:09AM (#15569393)
        If you like Firefox because of the the web developer toolbar, then you may be interested in the Opera W3-Dev Menu: http://tobyinkster.co.uk/opera [tobyinkster.co.uk]
    • Re:How about an API (Score:4, Informative)

      by TAiNiUM (66843) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @09:21AM (#15568958)
      Opera does have extensions. They call it User JS.
      Here is a good repository: http://userjs.org/ [userjs.org]
      • Re:How about an API (Score:4, Informative)

        by Jugalator (259273) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @12:13PM (#15570463) Journal
        Opera's User JS is just equivalent to the particular Firefox Greasemonkey extension, not an extension system on its own. You can "only" add site specialized Javascript functionality with User JS, not change chrome, and so on up to providing complete application extensions like DownThemAll [downthemall.net].
      • by ZzzzSleep (606571) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:21AM (#15568450) Homepage Journal
        Right click, select "Block content..." click on what you want to go away, and that's about it.

        Easy.
      • Re:How about an API (Score:5, Informative)

        by neonprimetime (528653) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:40AM (#15568613)
        Have you ever used Opera? There is quick & easy to use ad-blocking capabilities built-in ... It's under Tools->Options ... and there are like 4 stages ... ranging from Allow-All to Block-All
        • That's not ad-blocking, that's popup-blocking. You may argue that's just semantics, but I can guarantee that a 'Block-All' setting on popup-blocking won't block all ads.

          Anyway, Opera 9 does have what would be commonly known as an 'ad-blocker'. To get to it, right-click somewhere and select 'Block content'.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:25AM (#15568491)
          > Maybe the correct approach is NOT to browse the sites that bother you with ads. Otherwise, it's like going to the movies but not paying for it.

          Do you consider switching channels when commercials come on as stealing as well ?
          • > Do you consider switching channels when commercials come on as stealing as well ?

            Actually, if nobody watched the commercials, the TV channels would have only two options:

            1) Switch to pay TV model
            2) Announce bankruptcy

            PS - Or another example, if everybody blocked Google ads, Google would die (99% of their income is from ads, which is verifiable).
            • by FireFury03 (653718) <slashdot@@@nexusuk...org> on Tuesday June 20 2006, @10:33AM (#15569629) Homepage
              if everybody blocked Google ads, Google would die

              True. However, if everyone blocked popups and Flash banners that play music then these forms of advertising would die and be replaced with things that don't get blocked, such as Google's text-only ads. This is a Good Thing.

              So to reiterate: blocking all adds - bad, blocking only excessively annoying ads - good.
            • by NichG (62224) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @02:10PM (#15571432)
              However those who actually pay for the site aren't people who view the ads but ignore them anyhow. The people who pay for the site are the small fraction who actually go and buy whatever it is being shown. Without that fraction, advertisers see no return on their investment in ads, and would stop funding sites anyhow.

              So a logical extension is that we all must buy junk we see advertised to support our favorite sites? Well, in that case, why don't we just give the site the money directly. It may feel weird to financially support a free website but its certainly a better way to do it than to pay some other company so that they keep funding the site via advertisement.

              Of course, its not that everyone has to pay in either model. In the advertisement model, you're basically feeding off of those who either have enough money they can toss it at random things at a whim (i.e. just based on seeing some banner ad deciding to spend $50 or so) or who are very gullible or easily manipulated (the same people who purchase things they get spam for).

              So to make the analogy go over, what most sites need is a way to get donations from the idle rich and the gullible. They need hooks, gags, things which make no difference to the average site user but which someone with money to burn can donate to get special priveleges. The same sort of stuff that leads people to buy cellphone ringtones and screensavers and the like. Like letting their posts use some special inline images or whatever.
  • Finally (Score:4, Insightful)

    by amazon10x (737466) <amazon10x@ho!tm! ... nus exclamations> on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:02AM (#15568303)
    I'm glad they finally released; I'm looking forward to it.

    However, I am weary of all these new features; it seems like it is possible they could turn Opera into a bigger resource hog.
    • More of a resource hog?

      In my experience, Opera is the least resource hogging browser there is that supports the latest standards (except IE maybe, but that's broken so it doesn't count). I usually use firefox but will start Opera when I'm low on RAM.
      • Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Danga (307709) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:39AM (#15568599)
        I used to agree but after downloading and installing Opera 9.0 it is using 33MB RAM with just this slashdot article open while IE and FireFox are hovering around using 23MB RAM. While typing that last sentence it has now gone up to 34.5MB. I love Opera and it has everything I need and has always been fast and reliable but this is starting to worry me. There are only 34 comments in this thread so far, what is so much memory being used for? I suspect some type of caching but of what on a slashdot article page? Strange.
        • Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)

          While it's true that Opera and Firefox run neck and neck, with Opera losing the overall resident memory battle in some cases, Opera doesnt suffer from the runaway memory issues some people report with Firefox (although i've never experienced it that badly myself) and it always seems to _feel_ much more responsive and snappy than the fox.

          I personally find myself using Opera exclusively on Windows and Firefox on my Gnome/Linux desktop.
          • Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)

            by Danga (307709) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @09:23AM (#15568983)
            I totally agree about the responsiveness and how snappy Opera is versus firefox, that was what initially got me using Opera a few years ago over Moz. It is my main browser as well on Windows. I have noticed that on some websites Opera does seem to have run away memory issues where I have to close it using task manager, it does not happen very often but it does occur. I have also noticed that if I leave msdn.com open in a tab that there seems to be a memory leak and I need to close and restart Opera to get the memory back as just closing the tab does not seem to work. When this last issue occurs the mem usage goes to 100MB+, it is quite annoying. Overall I am a happy Opera user, I don't need all of the extensions available to firefox as Opera has everything I currently need.
    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ceeam (39911) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:30AM (#15568535)
      They tend to try different combinations of features and then check users feedback. They had built-in ICQ client once, for example. If no-one uses something it will probably go away.
      • Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)

        by pstorry (47673) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @10:13AM (#15569430) Homepage
        They didn't drop ICQ because it wasn't used, but because Mirabilis(?) kept changing the ICQ protocol to get rid of non-ICQ clients. Opera got tired of having to chase a moving spec, so they dropped it and eventually put an IRC client in instead.

        My observation is that Opera wants to produce a great web browser that also contains unobtrusive, useful but lightweight Internet tools that some people expect from their "internet suite".

        Their bittorrent client isn't the best in the world - but it works, it's fast and for a quick download it's far more useful than firing up another torrent client. Their chat (IRC) client isn't going to give mIRC sleepless nights, but it's fast and convenient. Their mail application is fast, powerful and small but subject to personal preference. Their RSS reader works fine for small numbers of RSS feeds, but lacks the organisational finesse of a purpose-built reader.

        But the really nice thing with Opera is that all of these things add very little to the footprint, yet are there if you want them. Personally, I use Trillian for my IM needs and The Bat! for email, and serious torrenting will still be done with Azureus. But Opera's RSS reader is great for my needs, and if I'm just quickly downloading a smaller torrent why should I start a second bit of software?

        Anyway, gotta go download O9 and install it, as I'm still running the beta... ;-)
    • Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)

      by RonnyJ (651856) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:34AM (#15568566)
      I've been using Opera weekly builds for ages now, and I haven't noticed any difference in resources from Opera 8.51 (and it certainly uses less than Firefox). Opera 9 does contain BitTorrent support, an IRC client, a mail client, widget support, etc, but I certainly wouldn't be able to tell that from running it.

      Anyway, my favourite new feature in Opera 9 has to be the 'create search' function to easily create new search engines for Opera to use (and to use in the search dropdown). I'd explain how to use it (exceedingly simple), but a good overview is perhaps here [opera.com]

        • It works slightly different in Opera, a bit more user-friendly I believe.

          In Opera, you can right-click any search-box to add it to the search engine dropdown box, as well as defining it as a 'search keyword' at the same time.

          Firefox lets you define a search keyword in a similar manner (rightclick, 'Add a Keyword for this Search'). This doesn't add it to the search dropdown box though like Opera does - if you want to do this, you need to use the 'Add Engines' feature located in the search drop down box.

  • Acid Test (Score:3, Funny)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:26AM (#15568498) Homepage
    So, I guess once you can see that face on acid correctly in your browser you really have reached the end of the Internet, there is nothing more to see. Good bye, all the Opera users, it's been nice while it lasted.
  • Bless them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by professorhojo (686761) * on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:37AM (#15568584)
    Ah, I see they fixed some stability issues. That's pretty much the only problem I had with Opera 9 Beta 1, though even when it crashed, it wasn't an issue, because Opera simply let me continue my last session from before the crash. Bless the hearts of those Opera developers. :)
  • by zxSpectrum (129457) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:37AM (#15568587) Homepage Journal

    The canvas extension in question is the opera-2dgame [opera.com] context. Some of what it features is:

    • setPixel and getPixel
    • point in path-detection, using checkCollision
    • canvas update locking

    There is work underway to get a similar API for the canvas into the specification. [whatwg.org]

    Disclaimer: I am the author of the mentioned blog post detailing the opera-2dgame context.

  • by porneL (674499) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:48AM (#15568657) Homepage
    • adblock
    • user-defined search engines, opera:config
    • mht (web archives) reading and writing
    • XSLT, XPath, JS XSLTProcessor, xml:id. DOM2 Stylesheets in weekly version.
    • TLS/1.1 with workaround for buggy TLS/1.0-only servers
    • fixed long-standing bug with z-index of <iframe>
    • Well, I'm going to give Opera a try for a week to see if I can get used to it. I will say that the ad blocking features aren't as good as the Firefox Adblock plug-in (so far as I can tell). I could block IFRAME elements with that, but seemingly cannot in Opera. I'll keep trying...

  • nice! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrP-(at work) (839979) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:51AM (#15568700)
    Just upgraded to 9.0 on my work PCs (windows and ubuntu linux) without any problems.

    Will upgrade my home PC within a week probably.

    I just love how easy it upgrades, from version 7.x to 8.x and now 8.x to 9.x I've had my same skin/custom buttons and it just works. I remember upgrading previous versions and the skins would no longer work and I'd have to find a similar one and customize it from scratch again.

    Now its so easy.

    Only bad part is the new widgets menu.. I'm very anal/obsessive compulsive and I hate change (which is why ive had the same skin since version 7 and similar skins in 5 and 6).. now im all twitchy.. i hate when they add/remove menus =P
  • pet bugs still there (Score:4, Informative)

    by richlv (778496) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @09:08AM (#15568845)
    unfortunately, my own pet bugs still are there...

    1. opera constantly stats all files in the download list, including already downloaded ones;
    2. bittorrent downloads don't work through an http proxy;
    3. systray icon in kde breaks icon arrangement with 48px tall kicker

    though it is good that google maps buttons now work and icon is transparent :)
  • by ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @09:12AM (#15568884) Homepage
    "# Initial support for NTLM authentication."

    It's about farging time already.
  • Frightening the Fox. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by delire (809063) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @09:34AM (#15569082)


    Reading changelogs such as these [opera.com] should strike fear into the hearts of the Firefox developers, while that they squander so foolishly their hard-earned market share. If it wasn't for Opera, Joe Clickit wouldn't have reason to think FF was so poorly cobbled together.

    Firefox, while it started with good intentions has become thick around the midriff. It's memory useage is embarassing, and I use Linux which is apparently the build target Firefox is most optomised for. [howtocreate.co.uk] How long can we be told we're sick of being told they're imagining FF's gushing memory leaks.. Why does an open-source application fall so miserably behind a closed-source competitor? The trend is the inverse.

      • by Kelson (129150) * on Tuesday June 20 2006, @12:57PM (#15570847) Homepage Journal
        2. Firefox 'memory leaks' are just a myth. Firefox keeps the last few pages stored in RAM for the instant back/forward functionality.

        If Firefox memory leaks are just a myth, then what are all those memory-leak bugs that were fixed in 1.5.0.1, 1.5.0.2, and 1.5.0.4?

        Firefox does have memory leaks, but not to the extent that detractors often claim. Mozilla is working on these, and has even released a tool to help track down more leaks. It also has features, like the back/forward cache you mentioned, that consume lots of memory, which probably overshadow the actual leaks by several orders of magnitude.

        The problem comes when people oversimplify, as in "I hope they fix the memory leak (singular)" or "Firefox doesn't have memory leaks, it has features." Either way, it obscures the actual problems.
  • EMAIL CAUTION (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sl3xd (111641) * on Tuesday June 20 2006, @10:00AM (#15569303)
    Opera's email client is awseome in general (and is usually my primary email client) -- but there is one issue that I've found that they have yet to fix: IMAP mail...

    It's a bit of a weird one: If you use a non-opera email client (with IMAP, at least -- I don't use POP), and that email client is the first to see a new message, there are a few issues. (Say, you use your 'company mandated' email client to get the mail at work, then Opera at home.)

    Opera doesn't acknowledge the existence of emails that have been first detected with a non-opera browser. I noticed this because I kept looking for particular emails that had seemed to vanish on me. I finally noticed the problem -- Opera simply wasn't detecting the messages. They were sitting there in my inbox, but Opera coudln't see them.

    Otherwise, I've been using the Opera 9 (beta) series, and I've been quite pleased.
  • Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Autonomous Crowhard (205058) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @10:32AM (#15569618)
    Background) I'm an Opera user from way back. In fact I'm currently typing this in Opera 3.62 which I paid for. 3.62 is fast, tight, renders ugly as sin, and the javascript doesn't work. But it is the fastest best thing I've ever used for scanning huge number of pages at once. Tabbed browsing is a gimic that steals screen space and makes me move my hands from the keyboard to the mouse.

    Today) Opera has missed the boat. They may have more features and more neat and whizzy things in a tigher package than anyone else, but they don't have the few things people want. Firefox is The Way and what I use when I want anything more than raw reading capability. The delays in getting versions out shows just how dead the "We'll do all the work for you" model is.

    I'm sorry guys. I'm glad I could support you when IE was free, but you're just not fast enough or extensible enough.

    A lesson for everyone) If you change the UI you put me into a position where I have the learn something new. It could be new elements, new keystrokes, or removing old keystrokes that used to work. Ultimately, if I have to learn something new to use you're product, I might as well learn something new to learn a product that works a little better. People like to be comfortable. If you force them to change, don't expect them to just change a little.

  • by guidryp (702488) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @11:06AM (#15569895)
    I used Opera for years, but once firefox hit 1.0, I switched. I kept trying new Opera versions, but they fell short in compatability area or content control like Flashblock that I just couldn't live without.

    But now with all the per site configuration, I may finally switch back. Per site identities, per site masking, per site control of multimedia; These were things I always said Opera needed to deal with a poor web pages. The diehard Opera heads would always tell me we have the change all the bad web sites. Being a realistic person, I knew that wasn't going to happen. So I stuck with Firefox.

    But now I am ready to give Opera another shot. It was a great browser, now with more control and compatability, it may be back in my books.

    Bravo Opera dudes.
    • by Nurgled (63197) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:09AM (#15568351)

      The main Opera.exe plus the Opera.dll that contains all the fun stuff still only adds up to a paltry 3.12MB (Windows version, obviously) even with all this stuff. It might be experiencing a bit of creeping featurism, but it doesn't seem to be suffering for it. I've noticed no speed decrease from Opera 8.51.

      I'm actually quite pleased with the BitTorrent support; There have been many occasions when I've gone to download something and a site has offered both BitTorrent and a normal HTTP download, and I've picked HTTP just because it saves me launching some other app. Obviously the prolific downloaders aren't going to use it in preference to Azureus or uTorrent, but I expect it'd come in handy for more casual users and is also a good first step to greater adoption of BitTorrent.

    • by infestedsenses (699259) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:32AM (#15568557) Homepage

      "Sounds like"...? Have you actually tried it?

      I am an avid Firefox user but I have always been impressed with the speedy interface Opera offers, despite all the extra features they put in. And from release to release, they manage to simplify the interface more and more. The options menu is no longer the scary mess it used to be, I suppose they are learning from Firefox's success. They may be adding a lot of stuff in that people would consider bloatware, but they manage to add it in a way that the browser doesn't seem to be suffering from it one bit. Take into consideration the constant advancement of the rendering engine and the unusually wide spectrum of platforms it supports and you've got quite a good browser.

      I'd also like to hear your reasoning for complaining about the built-in BitTorrent client. After all, downloading is one basic feature of a browser, so why not jump in at exactly that point and help advance the system to a more server-friendly standard. Most common users don't know about Azureus and uTorrent and whatnot, so I think it's a good way to introduce the protocol to a wider audience.

    • by Nurgled (63197) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:18AM (#15568413)

      I didn't want to bloat my summary by going into too much detail about that, but to be specific they've created a new rendering context for canvas which is designed to make it easier to create 2D games by giving more raw access to the framebuffer. It is using the designed-in extensibility for canvas (which was, of course, a Safari extension to HTML in the first place!) and Opera is working with other browser manufacturers on a 3D rendering context for canvas which will allow full hardware-accelerated 3D when it's done.

      It's becoming increasingly vaugue these days what constitutes a "standard" in the web sphere. Various other organisations are springing up outside of the W3C and proposing their own extensions and new specs, and I for one am quite enjoying the new stuff we're seeing as a result of this "competition". Other such third-party "extensions" include XMLHttpRequest (Microsoft), canvas (Apple), opera-2dgame (Opera), Web Forms 2.0 (WHATWG) and probably other stuff I'm forgetting. Opera supports all this stuff and also supports several W3C standards to boot!

        • by Nurgled (63197) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:40AM (#15568610)

          It varies. Web Forms 2.0 is open and specified at the URL linked in the original summary, though it isn't actually finalized yet. It's also designed to be backwards compatible, so there's no reason why you can't go ahead and use most of it on sites now and suffer no ill-effects. As for canvas, I believe it now works in Firefox, Safari and Opera but obviously not IE. SVG can be added to most browsers via a plugin if they don't support it already.

          Certainly we're not going to be making use of most of these things tomorrow, but it's getting to the point where IE is the only one left that doesn't support them. Obviously that's a biggy, but the IE team has shown recently that they are willing to play nice by implementing everyone else's adaptation of their XMLHttpRequest object, so it's not inconcievable that they'd implement some of these other new toys if they prove useful.

    • by ceeam (39911) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:25AM (#15568487)
      http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html# top [webstandards.org]

      Open in Opera, then in Firefox. I don't know how to answer you better.
      Oh, don't even bother with MSIE... ;)
    • Joe average will not care, nore try to understand any of that. He'll just see it as another way to download things.

      The only problem with it would be if it automatically (not overridable in settings) used its built in when ever you click a torrent file. Though I understand a half decent built in client would be nicer.

    • Re:BT Client sucks (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:27AM (#15568508)
      Obviously you haven't used Opera9 at all. The BT client in Opera9 works similar to regular downloads and so does indeed show transfer rates and the number of seeds/peers. In addition to that when you download the torrent file it will allow you to limit your upload and download speed. It also shows the amount of data uploaded/downloaded and the number of current connections going out/in.
    • Re:Good, (Score:5, Interesting)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:23AM (#15568464)
      While it is closed source (and doesn't benefit from extensions like Firefox) I'd still like to say that, in my experience, Opera is probably the best browser out there for both supporting standards like Acid and simultaneously rendering IE-specific pages with a great deal of fidelity. In fact, at one time, I actually suspected it was just a skin for IE--since it was so consistently good at rendering IE-specific pages that sent Firefox into a tailspin.

      -Eric

    • Re:Good, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cruachan (113813) on Tuesday June 20 2006, @08:30AM (#15568538)
      Insightful? Good god. Opera may well be closed source but it's a far better browser than Firefox which still suffers from memory issues and runs like a pig if you happen to hit the wrong website with the wrong combination of plugins installed.

      Firefox has been getting better of late it's true, but it still suffers from the common Open Source Project issue that the sexy visible eye-candy stuff gets priority over unexiting but essential background code.

      Which is not to say I don't like and use Open Source software, indeed given the choice between equal programs one Open Source and the other not then Open Source usually gets my vote. However to roll out closed source as if it's some fundemental problem with a truly excellent browser smacks of RMS zealotry.
        • Re:Good, (Score:3, Interesting)

          As an anecdotal evidence: back in the day (Opera 3.60) it did not support unicode (few browsers did) and it displayed russian pages in Unix encoding (KOI8) all quirky. I did not have source for Opera, but the binary was quite clear enough so that I could hack in a menu item and optional transcoding subroutine (disassembler, debugger, hex editor - usual tools) - I'm not making that up. You know - Mozilla may be open source but it is bloated enough that I don't want to fuck around trying to make it compile on
        • Re:Good, (Score:3, Insightful)

          Extensions have nothing to do with Open Source, and a lot to do with APIs. Both MSIE and Firefox offer the possibility to add extensions that change the browser quite a lot. The only difference is, that Firefox is better in politely asking the user before installing them, and has always offered a way to remove them as well :)

          Note how, for example, the Google Toolbar was developed first for MSIE, and only much later for Firefox.
    • One could equally ask why web browsers tend to include FTP clients. In practice, many people tend to use their web browsers to download stuff, and BitTorrent is an increasingly-popular way to download stuff.

      Note also that Opera manages to do everything but the kitchen sink in less than 4MB, while Firefox's executable (on Windows) is 6.5MB before you even consider the multitude of XPCOM components, XUL documents, XBL bindings and JavaScript source files that make it actually work. I'll stick with Opera. :)

    • have you found any decent skins for Opera on OSX? The nicest one I've found has variable tab length, which is annoying. (for example, if you go to a page with a long title, it takes up most of your tab bar. see this example [imageshack.us].)

      Not a deal breaker for most people, but the lack of good skins is enough to keep me using Safari+Saft (it looks very nice with Unified Aqua applied). Anyone have any ideas?