Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Opera 9.0 Released 395

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Opera 9.0 Released

Comments Filter:
  • Finally (Score:4, Insightful)

    by amazon10x ( 737466 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:02AM (#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.
  • by Nurgled ( 63197 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:18AM (#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 ZzzzSleep ( 606571 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:21AM (#15568450) Homepage Journal
    Right click, select "Block content..." click on what you want to go away, and that's about it.

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

    by FinchWorld ( 845331 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:22AM (#15568452) Homepage
    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.

  • by ceeam ( 39911 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:25AM (#15568487) top []

    Open in Opera, then in Firefox. I don't know how to answer you better.
    Oh, don't even bother with MSIE... ;)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:25AM (#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 ?
  • Re:Good, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cruachan ( 113813 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:30AM (#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.
  • by infestedsenses ( 699259 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:32AM (#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.

  • Bless them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by professorhojo ( 686761 ) * on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:37AM (#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 Nik13 ( 837926 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:51AM (#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.

  • by trifish ( 826353 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:12AM (#15568882)
    > 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).
  • Re:Good, (Score:2, Insightful)

    by X3J11 ( 791922 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:24AM (#15568991) Journal
    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.

    I'm guessing you don't use a whole lot of F/OSS, do you? In most cases, the reverse is the biggest complaint. A lot of F/OSS has tons of great functionality, and you could really accomplish so much with it... if only it had a better interface.

    Rather than try to word it myself, I'm going to quote from html []

    Open Source software is produced by programmers. Programmers are very different from the general public (a far greater proportion of programmers are intuitives than in the general public, for instance). This means that when programmers produce open source software, since they are largely scratching their own itch, they will tend to produce the software for themselves, and in particular be perfectly content with the (programmer-oriented) user interface. - Steven Pemberton.
  • by Nurgled ( 63197 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:40AM (#15569142)

    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. :)

  • by Ninjaesque One ( 902204 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:40AM (#15569146) Journal
    They already switched to the pay TV model. What do you think the cable/sat people do with your $60?
  • Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RonnyJ ( 651856 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:43AM (#15569166)
    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. This takes you here []. You have to then browse this website to see if the parameters needed for that particular search box have been created by somebody already.

  • Re:BT Client sucks (Score:2, Insightful)

    by iknowrobocop ( 934493 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:45AM (#15569186)
    I'm torn. Obviously "Joe Average" isn't using Opera, but Opera does require less technical savy to use than BT. I think integrated BT is a great feature for the "Joe Lazy"s who want to quickly download something without worrying about details of BT.
  • Opera topic? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Some Pig! ( 103985 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:54AM (#15569262)
    How about adding an Opera topic to Slashdot? It seems popular enough. (I swear by Opera myself.)
  • Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pstorry ( 47673 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:13AM (#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:Good, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rits ( 453723 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:15AM (#15569453)
    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.
  • Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Autonomous Crowhard ( 205058 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:32AM (#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 FireFury03 ( 653718 ) <slashdot@nexusu[ ]rg ['k.o' in gap]> on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:33AM (#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 drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <> on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:49AM (#15569751) Homepage Journal
    Makes me happy.
    Maybe it's time to grow up (unless you're something like 10, of course).

    Take your own advice. The world would be a better place without television as we know it, anyway. It would be an even better place without advertising, again, as we know it today. The broadcast model of television is on the way out regardless (though it will be a long time going) and play-on-demand is on its way, already proliferating throughout cable.

  • by slagell ( 959298 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:53AM (#15569772) Homepage
    A real disappointment is that you have to use "Wand" to manage passwords. I wish it would integrate with Apple's keychain and Apple's bookmarks. Then I could sync it more easily. I guess the Mac market isn't large enough for them to create better NAtive support for OS X.
  • by piquadratCH ( 749309 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:15PM (#15570479)
    PS - Or another example, if everybody blocked Google ads, Google would die (99% of their income is from ads, which is verifiable).
    Good you mention Google ads. Google is the only major ad provider which I don't block. You know why? Because their ads are unobtrusive, don't slow down my system to a crawl with some badly written Flash and, God forbid, sometimes they are helpful! If all the other ad providers where as consumer friendly as Google, we wouldn't even need AdBlock.
  • by NichG ( 62224 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @03:10PM (#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.

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.