Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Opera 4.0b1 For Linux

Posted by michael on Fri Oct 06, 2000 07:00 AM
from the goods-things-come-to-those-who-wait dept.
Euro was the first to point out: "I happened to browse the Opera Web site and discovered this juicy nugget: Opera 4.0b1 for Linux is available for download. Seems like the Linux browser front is getting better all the time." Well, sure. But it's been a long, long, long, long, long, long, long time.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Opera 4.0b1 for Linux | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 144 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • Hm.... Galeon, anyone? by listen (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:43AM
  • Re:A maze of futility! by talesout (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:44AM
  • by robinjo (15698) on Friday October 06 2000, @02:46AM (#727045)

    It's weird to see all this Mozilla bashing going on. Yes, it has taken a long time and yes, it's not read yet but how many of you Mozilla bashers have really given Mozilla a try? A good one instead of "it segfaulted at startup, so it sucks"?

    Netscape PR3 won't be installed on my computer. Nope, I really don't need all the AOL stuff. That's why I have been downloading Mozilla daily builds and actually use them more than the old Netscape. And let me tell you, the latest builds have been impressive in both speed and stability.

    So here's how you should do it. Go to Mozillazine [mozillazine.org] and check the build bar there. Go read the comments and choose a nice build. That way you can actually choose not to download a bad build. If one of those crashes too much, delete your .mozilla-directory. Chances are you have an old one which is not necessarily compatible.

    That's it. Oh, and don't only talk the talk. Walk the walk and submit bugs [mozilla.org] instead of just complaining about beta-versions.

    Even though I won't buy Opera, it's nice to see some competition. I strongly suspect they will have a hard time with Mozilla, though.

  • Re:Opera for Intel Linux... by Brighten (Score:1) Wednesday October 11 2000, @07:53PM
  • Re:Bad download link by nafmo (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @05:46AM
  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by update() (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @05:57AM
  • Re:Why buy it though (This is a Troll) by magnwa (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @06:01AM
  • Wow!!! by dw3ll (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @06:08AM
  • ... Which is actually of some actual importance in light of the fact that one of its release criteria [gnu.org] is that of having a stable ABI.

    This is quite a significant issue, as libraries compiled with one release of G++ by one person may not work with another release of G++ by someone else.

    This appears to be the root of the problems I had running Opera; it would generally run OK until I actually tried to load in a web page, at which point it would discover it had just tried to violate a segment. That was with the statically-linked version; a dynamically-linked version will be at even greater risk of ABI violations...

  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by prog-guru (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @06:12AM
  • Useless by Eminence (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @06:13AM
  • Re:Why buy it though (This is a Troll) by TBone (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @02:47AM
  • Re:Bad download link by BoredByPolitics (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:48AM
  • Re:Qt ? by gus2000 (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:49AM
  • Re:Why buy it though (This is a Troll) by 91degrees (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:50AM
  • *sigh* by Operandi (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:53AM
  • happy, by evilphish (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:54AM
  • Huh? (Score:3)

    by DragonHawk (21256) on Friday October 06 2000, @02:54AM (#727060) Homepage Journal
    I can't disable JavaScript without going into such a paranoid mode that I can't even download anything...

    1. Go to Tools -> Internet Options
    2. Select the "Security" tab
    3. Select the "Internet" zone
    4. Click "Custom"
    5. Scroll down to "Active Scripting"
    6. Set it to disabled
    7. Close out of all dialogs, saving changes.

    Netscape crashes my machine sooo hard (in Windows and Linux) that only the power switch can bring the machine back to life...

    Dude, if a browser can lock up your Linux box that hard, you must have some serious system-level issues going on.
  • Re:Some known bugs: by umeshunni (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:55AM
  • Netscape, XFree, and stability by DragonHawk (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @06:17AM
  • Re:A rant about browsers and name resolution by ChrisWong (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @06:18AM
  • Oh yea! by Operandi (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @02:13AM
  • So when will it be out? by ChrisWong (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @06:28AM
  • Better than Nutscrape? by destiney (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:14AM
  • Re:Is it stable- sort of... by Svartalf (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @06:35AM
  • Excellent news! by Naum (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @06:37AM
  • Wow by pli (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @06:37AM
  • Some known bugs: (Score:3)

    by edgrale (216858) on Friday October 06 2000, @02:15AM (#727070)

    It crashes now and then, and there is a memory leak problem

    Well it _does_ sound a lot like Netscape to me ;)
    I hope that it's better though.

  • Qt ? by xonix7 (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:16AM
  • Re:Better than Nutscrape- not by much... by Svartalf (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @06:38AM
  • Long, long, long... by Anders (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @02:19AM
  • So all of them are redundant when they are posted: by Xenex (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @02:56AM
  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by Leto2 (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:56AM
  • Try reading the (Score:4)

    by Chuck Chunder (21021) on Friday October 06 2000, @02:57AM (#727076) Homepage Journal
    FAQ [operasoft.com] as it list a rather extensive list of platforms they are "actively persuing". The list includes Alpha, Sparc and Power PC to name just a few.
  • Re:Bad download link by bobv-pillars-net (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:57AM
  • Actually by a_festering_bunny (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:58AM
  • Re:Some known bugs: by umeshunni (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:58AM
  • Re:Why buy it though (This is a Troll) by umeshunni (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:00AM
  • Re:Why buy it though (This is a Troll) by 91degrees (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:04AM
  • by Xugumad (39311) on Friday October 06 2000, @03:07AM (#727082)

    I would like to point out that when Opera first looked into porting their browser to other OSes, the response from Linux users was hardly encouraging (actually, I beleive the Amiga users were the biggest fans of the idea).

    Perhaps if people sent encouraging e-mails to Opera, or any other company that is developing for Linux, rather than complaining that beta software *gasp* has bugs in it, we might get software a little quicker!

    Sorry, but Slashdotters, as a group, seem incredibly negative. On the one hand you complain that Microsoft restrict choice, and then someone asks why Opera bother porting their browser to Linux...

    And someone else said they would give Opera the same chance they gave all the other browsers; if it coredumps, they go back to Lynx. My apologies if that person did actually mean they'd do that test for the release version, but I suspect they intend to run the beta version, which undoubtably will coredump, and will go back to Lynx without giving Opera a reasonable chance.

    This isn't actually meant as a flame, this is meant to give people more of a perspective. In particular, if someone from Opera reads Slashdot (and is that all that unlikely), I wouldn't be exactly suprised if the Opera for Linux project gets pushed even lower down their priority list.

  • hmm, looks like Opera was /.'ed by Naum (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @06:43AM
  • Re:Is it stable- sort of... by FFFish (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @06:51AM
  • Re:Huh? by llywrch (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @06:58AM
  • Re:way over priced by Sloppy (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @07:03AM
  • Re:Why buy it though (This is a Tro.. KARMA WHORE! by 91degrees (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @07:16AM
  • Re:Yess! && /. effect, mirrors? by shae (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @07:16AM
  • Yess! && /. effect, mirrors? by TeknoHog (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:08AM
  • Re:Huh? by King of the World (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:09AM
  • Re:Well, sure. But it's been a long^7 time by MattMann (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:10AM
  • I won't pay by small_dick (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:12AM
  • Re:Huh? by fanatic (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:13AM
  • Re:I won't pay by TeknoHog (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:14AM
  • Re:Qt ? by Chuck Chunder (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:15AM
  • Re: Opera for Linux - a LONG way to go. by bolek (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @07:33AM
  • I luv it! by arasinen (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @07:55AM
  • Re:Huh? (considerably off topic, but oh well..) by AstroJetson (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @08:19AM
  • Re:Opera for Intel Linux... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @08:56AM
  • Let us customize the toolbar by DCMonkey (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @09:05AM
  • by benmhall (9092) on Friday October 06 2000, @03:16AM (#727101) Homepage Journal
    A lot of people here are saying that Mozilla is competition for Opera - I guess it is. Personally, I think Konqueror is closer to home. It's VERY fast, uses QT2.2 etc.

    For anyone who hasn't tried Konqueror (part of kde2base) in a while, you really ought to. I've been playing with the daily builds for Mandrake 7.2 and it has gotten a LOT better at renedering pages over the last month or so.

    Personally, a year from now I can see two main browsers in the Unix world:

    Mozilla (ns6, galeon, nautilus etc.) and Konqueror. Really, Konqueror is THAT good. It's amazing to me that the KDE guys have put together such a great product suite in a few years. It's true that they don;t have to worry about non-unix ports, but they really desrve some recognition.

    Anyway, one nice thing to see about Opera was that it was 2MB for the static version and only 1.1MB for the dynamically linked version. When was the last time we saw a 1MB browser that had that many features? (Galeon doesn't count - you still need mozilla.)

  • not too shabby by tuffy (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @03:18AM
  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by DeadSea (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @03:18AM
  • Re:Cool, now how about shutting up? by AFCArchvile (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:20AM
  • Is it stable? by levik (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @03:43AM
  • Re:Huh? by fatphil (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:21AM
  • Re:Long, long, long... by Crizp (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:22AM
  • Re:Bad download link by dhuff (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:22AM
  • Re:Huh by 91degrees (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:45AM
  • Re:A maze of futility! by mpe (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @03:49AM
  • Re:Bad download link by bobv-pillars-net (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:49AM
  • Re:error: libstdc++-libc6.1-2.so.3 is needed by Carik (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:50AM
  • Well, maybe this will work by DCMonkey (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @09:20AM
  • Not that it seems to work by DCMonkey (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @09:31AM
  • Re:Opera and Konqueror by Chess Cardigan (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @09:44AM
  • Re:Huh? by fatphil (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @10:10AM
  • Re:Long long time, and attitudes by fatphil (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @10:43AM
  • Re:It's not far behind from the windows version by NettRom (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @10:52AM
  • Bloated? by Chuck Chunder (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @03:23AM
  • Hooorah!!! by Tremul (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:23AM
  • Re:Huh? by fatphil (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:23AM
  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by jilles (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @03:24AM
  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by DeadSea (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @03:26AM
  • Re:A maze of futility! by ThrobbingGristle (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:54AM
  • Re:Why buy it though (This is a Troll) by levik (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @03:57AM
  • by cluge (114877) on Friday October 06 2000, @03:27AM (#727126) Homepage
    I've been using Opera for years, although I wish it was open source, I didn't mind paying. Opera allows people that would otherwise NOT use their computer (because it is so slow) a web browser that is functional and useable.

    Many of us are lucky, we are running on systems that are less then 3 years old. Others aren't as lucky, and there are a great many people that can't afford even the most basic new computers. In rural areas where I live people spend 350 bucks for an old P100 monitor speaker and modem and they have to make payments on that! Opera at least gives them a Browser they can use. Even see people use it on a 386, that's impessive.

    It's a welcome addition to the Linux community. It gives some other browsers competition If Opera is like it's windoze cousin, it's very lite and fast. I'll have to fire it up an old 486 and see how it runs in Linux. It seems Opera is extending the life of some of my hardware ;)

  • Re:Why buy it though (This is a Troll) by sammy baby (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @03:29AM
  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by mpe (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @03:58AM
  • A rant about browsers and name resolution by RFC959 (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:59AM
  • Re:Huh? by ptomblin (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @04:00AM
  • Re:Hm.... Galeon, anyone? by nagora (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @04:10AM
  • MOD PARENT TO OFFTOPIC n/t by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @04:12AM
  • Re:Opera Nice addition by discore (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @04:13AM
  • by AussiePenguin (83326) on Friday October 06 2000, @02:22AM (#727134) Homepage
    There is a slight difference... Opera is porting a pre-written browser to Linux... Mozilla is practically rewritting a browser from scratch!!

    AussiePenguin
    Melbourne, Australia
    ICQ 19255837

  • Re:Qt ? (Score:4)

    by Chuck Chunder (21021) on Friday October 06 2000, @02:23AM (#727135) Homepage Journal
    Why not GTK+ or xwWindows?
    The fact that not only are both Trolltech and Opera from Norway, but they also have offices in the same building may have something to do with it :)
    I'd like to see a GTK version too.
    Roll on the final release (and version 4.1)... Paul
  • It's not far behind from the windows version by AussiePenguin (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @02:25AM
  • Re:Better than Nutscrape? by Clived (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @11:49AM
  • Re:Well, sure. But it's been a long^7 time by jbrw (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @02:25AM
  • Why buy it though (This is a Troll) by 91degrees (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @02:26AM
  • Re:Moderators = ? by Operandi (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @12:54PM
  • by Rendus (2430) <rendus@NoSPaM.cox.net> on Friday October 06 2000, @02:27AM (#727141)
    bash-2.04$ time opera
    Segmentation fault

    real 0m21.607s
    user 0m11.890s
    sys 0m1.060s

    This happened several times, taking anywhere from 0.01 seconds to about 30 seconds, but then it works great for awhile, even when going to the same websites (slashdot, etc). Dunno.
  • GTK+? Please. by Karma Sucks (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @01:08PM
  • Re:Long, long, long... by beebware (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:28AM
  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by Tarpan (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @01:10PM
  • Re:Opera Nice addition by Tarpan (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @01:12PM
  • Re:Opera is UNIQUE in its design by Doomdark (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @01:16PM
  • Forgot one by onShore_Jake (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:51PM
  • Re:Quick impressions from Opera 4.0Beta Dynamic by Some Dumbass... (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @04:34PM
  • Opera for embeded Linux press release by Chuck Chunder (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @03:32AM
  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by naasking (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:33AM
  • Re:Bad download link by Chuck Chunder (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:35AM
  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by HiThere (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @04:17AM
  • Re:Opera and Konqueror by bobv-pillars-net (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:37AM
  • Re:Huh? by Tack (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @03:38AM
  • Re:Opera4 for BeOS? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @04:52AM
  • Re:not too shabby by ubermuffin (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @04:54AM
  • by ichimunki (194887) on Friday October 06 2000, @04:58AM (#727157)
    I compile and run KDE2 and Konqueror on a P/133 with a mere 32 megs of RAM, so I find it hard to think of it as bloated. Yeah, it's a little slow, especially when I try to run Apache and an emacs session so I can edit, serve, and view webpages all on my laptop (web development is more fun at the park than in the computer room), but it runs and is amazingly stable-- especially given the beta status of all the object code for the entire K environment.

    [Warning: Zealous rant ahead] I have no interest in paying for proprietary software when I could give that same money to the developers of Free software, so how much is the Opera registration price? In fact, I find confounding the constant expectation of Linux users that anything with a GPL-type license should be gotten for $0, while it's perfectly fine to shell out $$ for software that limits freedom just because they are supporting Linux. It's this exact attitude that helps starve people writing Free software, while enriching those who have made it clear that they don't care about your freedom. For instance, I'd love to test Opera on one of my faster Linux machines at home, but it's a PPC-based system, so no luck. If the software were Free, I'd at least be able to try to compile it on that machine. So instead of praising the Opera team, I guess I'll ignore them and get back to figuring out which Free software projects I use the most and making sure I'm assisting them financially.
  • Re:Huh? by TheAncientHacker (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @05:03AM
  • Re:Huh? by TheAncientHacker (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @05:06AM
  • by fatphil (181876) on Friday October 06 2000, @02:30AM (#727160) Homepage
    Sorry, this will come over as flamebait, and yet it's a rant. Mod me down now, and don't bother reading any further.

    I have real problems with _all_ the current browsers, and always try new ones on the hope that they are better than the ones I've tried before.

    all of these include using the latest 'stable' version. And I only mention my most recent annoyance, often there are many...

    IE - I can't disable JavaScript without going into such a paranoid mode that I can't even download anything, even .tex and .tiff files! I also find it unwieldy to use.

    Netscape - crashes my machine sooo hard (in Windows and Linux) that only the power switch can bring the machine back to life.

    Amaya - dropped core within 5 minutes of running it. lather rinse repeat... Also has a slightly wierd feel to the UI.

    Mozilla - dropped core within 10 minutes of using. lather rinse repeat... Also suffers from too much clutter which removes vital inches from my desktop (hey, my girlfriend's blind and likes 640*480 on my 21" monitor) OK I can turn it off, but that means having to navigate arounf another maze of configuration options, I've only just become comfortable finding options in Nutscrape.

    So, I'm giving Opera the same chance that I gave the others. As soon as I start seeing core files, I'll go straight back to Lynx, which for most of the kinds of sites I visit (boring technical ones).

    Do I have anything good to say about any browsers?
    Yes -

    Netscape - Great Newsreader, my favourite ever.
    Mozilla - Great cookie/image management, really
    handy.
    Lynx - Never had a problem with it at all.
    Shame about the web-pages though...

    Rant, rant, rant, rant, rant...

    FatPhil
  • I don't think so. by Chuck Chunder (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @02:31AM
  • Cool, now how about Solaris? by bjb (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:31AM
  • The more the merrier by jjr (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:32AM
  • Re:What about the cost? by beebware (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:33AM
  • by Brighten (93641) on Friday October 06 2000, @02:33AM (#727165) Homepage
    ...but not for Alpha, Sparc, or (in my case) PowerPC. I guess they don't have any alternative-platform test boxes, or they don't want to deal with the (probably minimal) cross-platform issues right now, which I can understand. Too bad the source isn't available so we could help them out with that. :-)

    On the other hand, even though it's of no use to me, I have to give them points for including a statically linked binary -- no need to install Qt only to try out their browser for an hour or so.

  • Re:Long, long, long... by Anders (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:33AM
  • First impression by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:34AM
  • Bad download link by bobv-pillars-net (Score:2) Friday October 06 2000, @02:35AM
  • Not better, PRICIER ! by Taco Cowboy (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @10:00PM
  • Re:A maze of futility! by Darren Winsper (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @10:30PM
  • not again by samantha (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @10:46PM
  • Re:Opera and Konqueror by Taurine (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @05:13AM
  • Re:Useless by larsga (Score:1) Saturday October 07 2000, @03:19AM
  • Re:hotmail problems in Konqueror... by naasking (Score:1) Saturday October 07 2000, @08:47AM
  • Alpha -> Beta ??? by TeknoHog (Score:1) Saturday October 07 2000, @02:12PM
  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by nachoman (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @05:15AM
  • Re:Why buy it though (This is a Troll) by VWswing (Score:1) Saturday October 07 2000, @06:51PM
  • Re:Let the Mozilla bashing begin? by jesser (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @05:17AM
  • Re:Rendering problems with Opera by domc (Score:1) Saturday October 07 2000, @10:10PM
  • Less memory used is all well and good, but... by Svartalf (Score:2) Sunday October 08 2000, @04:44AM
  • Works fine on NetBSD by hubertf (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @05:36AM
  • hotmail problems in Konqueror... by SethJohnson (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @05:38AM
  • by ChrisWong (17493) on Friday October 06 2000, @05:45AM (#727183) Homepage
    I get annoyed when I see people talk about how large/small a program is without actually quantifying it. Here, I will do my part. I loaded Netscape 4.75 and Opera 4.0b1 and went to Slashdot (this very article). Their memory footprint can be seen below.

    11:32am up 4 days, 59 min, 4 users, load average: 0.65, 0.52, 0.33
    67 processes: 66 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
    CPU states: 3.3% user, 1.3% system, 0.0% nice, 95.3% idle
    Mem: 63032K av, 60300K used, 2732K free, 29840K shrd, 1308K buff
    Swap: 64476K av, 15704K used, 48772K free 21484K cached

    PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
    731 root 15 0 14392 13M 1044 S 0 0.9 21.8 31:48 X
    14806 chris 7 0 13164 12M 8088 S 0 0.0 20.8 0:07 netscape-com
    883 chris 0 0 12172 11M 2232 S 0 0.0 18.0 22:05 xemacs-X11
    14785 chris 0 0 7172 7172 4392 S 0 0.0 11.3 0:09 opera
    14786 chris 0 0 7172 7172 4392 S 0 0.0 11.3 0:00 opera
    14530 chris 0 0 4424 3740 2608 S 0 0.0 5.9 0:05 kfm
    14822 chris 0 0 3724 3724 3148 S 0 0.0 5.9 0:00 netscape-com
    654 xfs 0 0 3472 3052 988 S 0 0.0 4.8 1:01 xfs
    735 chris 2 0 3252 2276 1708 S 0 0.0 3.6 0:43 kwm
    771 chris 0 0 2848 1844 1260 S 0 0.0 2.9 0:43 kpanel
    14782 chris 17 0 868 868 664 R 0 2.3 1.3 0:05 top

    In short, Opera looks a lot smaller than Netscape, even when statically linked to Qt 2.2. Mozilla usually needs 30MB or so. Anyone care to post numbers for Galeon and Konqueror?

  • Re:Quick impressions from Opera 4.0Beta Dynamic by Rendus (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:37AM
  • Re:Why buy it though (This is a Troll) by magnwa (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:40AM
  • I'm not so sure about that... by Millennium (Score:1) Friday October 06 2000, @02:43AM
(1) | 2