Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

Latest on Opera web browser 197

Posted by Hemos from the fast-and-small dept.
Steelehead wrote in to tell us that Opera Software's Project Magic page has a Linux Port. From their page: "The Linux port of Opera will be built on the new and redesigned Opera 4.0 code....the entire front and user interface in Qt...you, the Linux user, should have the latest version of our code along with the Windows user. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Latest on Opera web browser More

Latest on Opera web browser

Comments Filter:

  • It's about time... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    we had some choices besides Netscape and Lynx. Now, if only Microsoft would port their wonderful Internet Exploiter to Linux, we could have an Active Desktop!

    Jim Boswell
    Not a member of the Durango Owners Club!

  • Re:BeOS, Epoc & Mac... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    /. should stop the pretense and replace the "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" with "News for linux nerds. Stuff about linux that matters" Doesn't sound as cool, but is more accurate. /. is a linux advocacy site, not a news site. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but I think its a shame as /. had the potential to be a good DIY news site.

  • Doing the Right Thing (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Having used the windows version, I do tend to like
    the MDI more than the create-whole-new-instance of
    Netscape. (Ok, so maybe it isn't a completely new
    instance, but I do find it irksome.)

    However a feature that has been asked for, yes
    by win* users, is an option to make the child
    windows 'desktop windows' as in mIRC. Whether
    this will be done I do not know, but I would
    certainly like to have the option. Perhaps with
    a *minimal* (and small, unobtrusive) toolbar, at
    least navigation, on the seperate child windows.

    This could allow the best of both worlds: MDI for
    those who want it and yet not have child windows
    locked inside a parent a window for those who find
    that distasteful.

    It's all about the enduser's choice and control,
    is it not?
  • This leads to a big IF on their part. Will Opera be shipping before Mozilla is released to the general public? Will there be a compelling reason to buy Opera by the time it reaches completion?
  • MDI would be the kiss of death for any web browser I use. I usually have two or three windows open on different desktops (under WindowMaker). For instance, I'll have the Netscape HTML reference on desktop 3, the web page I'm currently working on in desktop 2, and several xterms with my current work on desktop 1. With WindowMaker's excellent ALT-# desktop switching, I find this a very efficent way to work. MDI would kill that by forcing me to stick all of the windows inside of a single window (on a single screen) and use some sort of clumsy ALT-TAB scheme or something to switch between windows.
  • The UI is one of my favorite things about Opera. Being able to turn off images, change the background color of a page, zoom in/out, all from the toolbar (without going into menus) is really useful. Netscape and IE don't even come close.
  • MDI is the main reason I use Opera. There's around 8 sites I check daily, and if it wasn't for Opera's MDI, my taskbar would be constantly cluttered with open Netscape windows.
  • Just because the free software browsers suck compared to Opera doesn't give you the right to steal Opera. Either live with Mozilla, or pay for Opera.
  • Mainly because, compared to Opera, Mozilla is still a big bloated piece of (something). I seriously doubt that the final version of Netscape Communicator 5.0 will be available in a 1.15 meg download, as Opera is.
  • Well, MDI is one of the main reasons I use Opera. I like opening Opera, and having slashdot.org, segfault.org, hackernews.com, and several other sites automatically begin loading. Not to mention that I don't like Netscape taking up 8 slots cluttering up my taskbar, compared to Opera's one.

    As for "back," you have to go all the way to the menubar thing in Netscape and Mozilla too. In Opera, the "back" button is in nearly the same place as in Netscape. Plus, if you don't like that, you can press ctrl- to go back. Try that with Netscape.
  • you can press ctrl- to go back.

    that's ctrl-[leftarrow]
  • Well, IMHO, Mozilla sucks compared to Opera. Not as badly as Netscape 4.5 sucked, but still not as good as Opera. Mozilla lacks useful buttons that Opera has such as the ability to toggle between the page's colors/fonts and user-defined colors/fonts without going into menus (to read those horribly designed pages), the ability to toggle graphics on and off without going into menus, and the ability to zoom in and out on a page (without changing your screen resolution).
  • That doesn't do me any good. Actually having the buttons in Opera, on the other hand, does do me some good.
  • Posted by mathman100@geocities.com:

    NS 4.0+ and IE 4.0+ come really close to supporting navagation completely via keyboard, if not completely. Also, i think some of theese browsers should offer customizeable keybindings. Then someone could set their own set of keys do things like bring you back x number of pages, add the current page to a specific folder in your favorites, or run a macro.
  • Posted by fling93:

    What's wrong with the UI? I've found its configuration much more intuitive than Netscape or IE. As far as usage, what more do you use beyond the back/forward/reload buttons? The extra options for toggling graphics loading, toggling CSS, and zoom are highly useful. The keyboard shortcuts can't be beat.

    The only thing that sucks is the buttons, but the later versions let you do your own or download others.

    Well worth the $$. Still, I wish they'd make it open source!
  • Heck,
    I'll pay for it if it's worth it. Shouldn't that ALWAYS determine what software I will and will not pay for?

    In my opinion, NS 4 is not worth paying for. It's slow, crashes often, and generally angers me. MSIE is not worth paying for either...it's a decent web browser, but all its extra baggage (active desktop, etc.) makes it ugly and not worth it either.

    If Opera is good (and many comments about it seem pretty positive) then I'll pay for it.

  • They're expecting people to pay for their software? To pay for a web browser? Some things boggle the mind.

  • The UI design, (or lack thereof in its case) in the Windoze version of Opera is an absolute Joke.

    I'm trying to use it now...

    Why the F*** did they think that the address bar should go at the bottom in an MDI application? The toolbar and Address bar are a whole screen height sway from each other

    Oh, and how many menus???

  • 'Cept for all of us student types...Netscape used to only be free for academic use...

    Personally,I'm waiting for the BeOS port of Opera to be ready...it's progressing a lot faster, and it'll give me a reason to reinstall Be on my hard drive...it should also give me occasion to install Be (read: not Windoze) on my Dad's computer. He can type about one and a half words a minute, and half the time his emails have the sig at the top of the message...but he loves Opera, so go figure...;)
  • Price had nothing to do with my buying linux. Not just a minor factor, but *absolutely* nothing to do with my choice. LyX (which I also would happily pay for, but instead occasionaly code for) is simply hands-down better then any of the alternatives on other platforms, and more than makes up for not being able to run quicken (the only thing I want that isn't easily findable. OK, and a decent spreadsheet, but try finding one of those since excel 4.0 stopped shipping . . .).

    I buy hardware. I buy software. If something better is available at no cost, of course I'll use it instead. If quicken isn't a disaster by the time they port it, I'll be first in line (though looking at the trends for products, I'm more likely to buy a mac emulator to run version 1 or 2 :).

    But I'm not likely to buy a browser. I still use netscape 3; 4.0 and later are too much trouble and missing useful features. And the only reason I use it instead of lynx is that it can pop open extra windows from links. I very rarely have a use for graphics--basically reading comics, whiyh pop-up with xv from lynx, and have none at all for java and javascript. And lynx' cookie handling is much better; junkbuster is unneeded. Once I have a couple of spare hours, I'll patch lynx to do this.

    But the point is that, yes, the majority of the potential user base will pay for software. There is certainly the High Church of Emacs, which won't use anything that isn't GPL, or can't be assimilated by the GPL, but these are a minority now, and will become a smaller minority as linux actually gets purchased for the desktop--into the hands of people who have proved they're willing to pay for software, and will already have paid for linux.
  • In fact, they asked Opera users more than a year ago who would be willing to pay for a port of Opera to (insert-platform-of-choice) and how much they'd pay. The response level was high enough for them to go ahead.

    I will pay for Opera/Linux. In fact, I am even willing to pay for v4 on Windows, even though I have already paid for v3 and don't need to pay again. Opera Software need our encouragement.

    Static.

  • I was _so_ hoping Opera would do the smart thing and code their browser for gtk/gnome...
    Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita

  • Oh that's real smart. I don't have a bias against Linux, I have a bias against it as a server because it can't handle the loads that my Solaris, AIX and Dynix boxes can.

    Bah, open source bigots are getting just as bad as Redmond.

  • I have tried posting stories about BeOS( I feel that it is a wonderful technology that many nerds would love if they get exposed to it) However none of the stories I have submitted have been posted, hence my assertion that this is Linux news site, not a "News for Nerds" site.

    We do not have a bias against BeOS because it is not Linux, but because it its a closed source product. I get mail from Mac sites all the time talking about a new "product" they have comming out. This is not news it is advertizing. Microsoft has a whole department that does nothing but produce "news"!

    In the meantime, I'll wait around for Mozilla. Netscape suits me just fine at the moment. ditto!

  • Apart from the license question I am not in favor of programs using a library that is almost exclusively used by one set of programs.

    Since they will link the binary statically (I guess) against Qt they also could have chosen a widget set that is somewhat more widespread in use. If they've used a more common set, they could have used shared libraries. We all know the trouble with statically linked programs, don't we?

    Actually Shared QT libs are available in every single Workstation or Desktop Linux distribution. Even RedHat and Debian.

    Opera is closed source shrink-wrapped per user licensed software. I really don't think the GPL compatibility of QT keeps them awake at night.

  • you, the Linux user, should have the latest version of our code along with the Windows user.

    They're probably not using the best words when dealing with the open source community. It sounds a bit like we're going to have access to the latest CODE, but somehow I doubt that's what they meant.
  • Will my windows license be transferrable? the simple answer (caveat: last time someone asked this question and i looked) - is no.

    but i may be wrong. ...i will check this out soon. the main reason i used opera is standards. opera has worked hard to comply with w3's [w3.org] standards. plus having mdi allowed me to have multiple sites open w/o having multiple browsers....
  • well after a bit of a search on the site i failed to find any references to yr question. I distinctly remember this being discussed on the 'magic project' page saying the cost would be > expensive than the windows port. Someone if they can proove me wrong. the turn around time in emailing support/sales will be too long.



    Opera do themselves a bit of a disservice here because the balence between developing a browser, keeping it complient to standards and release time is difficult. Is the oss community up to it?

    Nothing is really 'free'. It is merely subsidized by other products. It is done in the interest of market share and domination, but not necessarily in the interest of the user.

    i put this in for a laugh :)
  • Please don't let /. turn into yet another BeOS News site with continuous reruns every hour! I use www.beoscentral.com myself since they report anything ALL the other Be sites report. There are like what, 20 BeOS news sites, that's more than enough for me.
  • Pay for a browser, that's crazy! I'd rather reboot and use IE than pay for Opera. Screw that. For those who say that they would happily pay for a good browser, do you happily pay for a good OS (i.e. Linux)? While you may buy a CD from Red Hat, I think you should all send in a $50 check to Linus himself. There are things that should be free: OS's and browsers! :)
  • Get a monitor that can support 1600x1200. :) (I wish I could afford that...)
  • I just bought vmware and when Q3A is out, I'll buy that too. Were there free (beer) vmware or Q3A clones out there I'd probably use those and keep my money. It's not what people would like to hear, and I'd like to tell them otherwise, but that's the truth. I'm almost certainly not going to buy something like Opera when there are good, free, alternatives available.
    --
  • Jeez... Can't they just concentrate on the more popular systems? What's next? Osborne? TRaSh-80? Imsai? C-64?

    Look here [geocities.com] for more ideas. :)

    Today's English Lesson: Oxymorons

  • While I have nothing against Qt, I think it's a bit of a stretch for them to refer to Qt as "the leading toolkit on Linux."

    That would seem to imply that it's used measurably more often than Xt, AW, GTK, and Motif, which I seriously doubt.

  • Most efficient? My benchmarks as well as others show a very different picture. Qt's signal system is quite slow in comparison with a modern callback system, over 30 times slower. It is a good kit with a clean design and a good ease of use, but it is hardly the end all be all toolkit. (My yet unreleased benchmark page is available for review on request.)

    Hopefully at some point we can all agree on a kit that truly is elegantly designed, most efficient C++ lib. Unfortunately, Qt at this time is not it. (But neither is any other C++ kit.)

    --Karl

  • What you are describing is C callbacks. Please read my glossary of terms [ucdavis.edu] for my callback library. You will find that I know exactly what a signal/slot is. Signal/Slot is little more than an abstraction of a Caller and a Callee, with the additional concept of multiplicity. It can be done as a simple extension of Hickey's callback model [bestweb.net] when combined with lists.

    My comparison is completely fair as I was comparing a signal/slot implementation with another signal/slot implementation from the Gtk--. Both have multi-callbacks. Both have signal concept. Gtk-- skips the slot concept, but any function can be used as a slot. One just happens to be 30 times faster. Since they do the exact same thing, I can definately say although Qt is a very nice library, it is not the most efficient C++ library out there.

    For independent confirmation of what I have said please read this usenet post. [deja.com] That user found a 25 times difference between template based (gtk--) and string based (Qt) signal/slot implementations. We have improved since then.

    But you are quite capable of testing it out for yourself. Grab my library, libsigc++ [ucdavis.edu]. I think you will be surprised by exactly how much a callback system can do. Qt was only scratching the surface.

    --Karl

  • How it the state of the Gtk-- wrappers say anything about the signal system that is now split from it? This was part of Gtk-- and is now seperate. So I am not comparing Gtk-- to Qt (which would end up with Gtk-- getting its ass kicked.) Libsigc++ is a real toolkit and I have compared everything it has with Qt, not just one function. Class data members serve the same function in a non-string base implementation, so there is no difference there.

    FUDing by association is hardly a rational argument.

    -Karl

  • Mwah.. taskbar design is stupid.. what if you want to have like 30-40 open xterms..? Don't make bad design decisions based on previous bad design decisions ;-)

    Btw, I don't even have a taskbar on my desktop ;-) I don't need it.. I have virtual screens and a reasonably organized way of placing things.

    Tal.
  • I purchased Civ: CTP from Lokisoft. I'll probably buy Opera (I use the Windows version at work and LOVE it). I bought Abuse from Crack.com when it first came out and was hovering over my checkbook waiting for Golgatha (*sigh*).

    Of course, I'd prefer if everything was GPL'd, but some things it isn't necessary or possible. I'll try to avoid an OS that isn't GPL because my OS is too important to trust to someone else. But if I find something that I really want, and a similar product isn't available from OSS, I'll feel free to buy it.

    I guess I'm rabid about somethings and not others.
  • The best thing, IMO, would be to use MDI, and have the option of spawning additional MDI containers as needed. That serves to keep related browser windows nicely grouped together, while allowing you to play the workspace game, too.

    Bonus if you can drag windows between MDI containers. (hrm... potential "killer feature" for the Qt version? I know that'd be pretty painful to implement in Windows, so I doubt we'd see it there... might be easier with a from-scratch MDI implementation)
    ---
  • it's something you either love or you really hate. I hate Opera because it uses MDI. I hate Netscape Messenger and all those email clients because they _don't_ use MDI (I use pegasus). I think someone will work on an MDI version of mozilla
  • what about news about open source apps for BeOS? We have news for closed sourced apps for linux...
  • my website lists some of the interesting ones: http://members.xoom.com/mozilla5/beos/ (oh and check out http://members.xoom.com/mozilla5/ while you're at it)
  • if it really was a quality browser I'd pay for it. But it's not-the UI is terrible. On the other hand, doczilla looks interesting. It can do everything mozilla does plus SGML and Hytime. There will be support for many image formats including CGM
  • you don't need to spend $1900 to develop shareware on BeOS...
  • that's ridiculous: either free or expensive commercial apps? There's a role for shareware too
  • re: last paragraph. In Netscape there's close and exit. close closes that one window while exit closes all open windows. IE doesn't do this -it should be a windows standard but there's very little consistency in Windows
  • try doing alt left arrow to go back in opera like I do in Netscape. I mean who cares? Besides, in Opera there's alot of clutter on the button bar until you find the back button.
  • shouldn't be too hard to add those buttons
  • Ton writes: BeOS Blender is back! Last thursday (May 20) a delegation of Be inc. visited NaN. In the meeting Be took responsibility for the errors in communicating with NaN. In fact, there was no matter of disagreement at all. As a result of this meeting I decided to make a freeware BeOS Blender available by the end of this month, when BeOS 4.5 will be out.
  • heh.. i'm downloading it right now.. just to test it out.. but yea if it uses mdi.. dunno if i'll be usin it a lot.. not used to it or nuttin.. but i remember win3.1 when MDI was like.. AWESOME.. butnow we have taskbars... don't we ?

    MDI is nice for Ultraedit.. but for a browser ?
    bleh.
  • Alt-left arrow seems to work just fine, though(and Alt-right arrow for forward)

  • With Opera if you buy Version 3.x you are entitled to any version of 3.x that comes out. I assume that the same will be true of version 4.x.

    So you get some upgrades for free, but not forever.

  • Hmm.. (Score:1)

    by Splat ( 9175 )
    I've used Opera for Windows. It's quite good actually. Speed would be it's major advantage I'd say. But who is Opera Software really targetting with this release? Mozilla will (hopefully) be out by the time this is fully released. Why would anyone want to choose Opera over a easily expandable, up-to-standards Mozilla? While I do applaud the efforts of Opera porting the browser to Linux (about time... they were "looking" into this" about a year and a half ago I think..) it may be a little futile.
  • Have it spawn additional MDI containers or be able to take them out of the container entirely, ala mIRC. A window-bar wouldn't be a terribly bad design either.

  • Re:qt (Score:1)

    by scrytch ( 9198 )
    Looks very nice, but wow is that text jaggy. Are we ever going to see antialiasing? A little bird tells me that X already has antialiasing with the XAA extension, and a font that heavy on diagonal strokes is in sore need of it indeed.
  • Since they will link the binary statically (I guess) against Qt they also could have chosen a widget set that is somewhat more widespread in use.

    What library would you suggest as being in more wide-spread use? isn't Motif still the most widely used?

    The Trollish licence issue aside, installing GTK and Qt is about just as much pain. But you need both, because some of your favourite apps require GTK and some require Qt. The good thing is: We can have both. That's no problem.

    Using Qt was also a predictable decision for several reasons:

    1. Try to get an external company to develop a GTK version. Sure, there are a lot of volounteers that would gladly do this if Opera open-sourced their browser, but they have chosen not to do so.
    2. Since both Opera Software and Troll Tech are norwegian companies, the choice was probably made even easier. Being able to get in touch easily helps the development process.
    3. Troll Tech is actively trying to make Qt more wide-spread. Therefore I think they might do this port virtually for free, just to show of what Qt can do.
    4. Qt is also available for other platforms. A good Qt version may find it's way back into windows as well.
    Just my few thoughts on the subject, though. I hope Opera/Troll manages to get a stable and fast version. Netscape is starting to crash just a wee bit too often lately.
  • No. I have to agree with Jim here. Having something "Active Desktop"-like would be nice. I currently use small netscape popup windows for this (I never thought I would see those doing anything useful), configured with Afterstep as StaysOnBack and without any window decoration. It's almost there, but not quite.

    It doesn't have to be IE though, but there are some other features in IE as well that might come in handy. I for one hate waiting for the huge tables on /. to load before I get to read what's in them. If Opera fixes this problem, I might consider buying one.

  • The BeOS, Epoc and Mac versions of Opera have also progressed, with the Epoc and BeOS versions nearing beta.

    Now, I know that /. has a big Linux bias, but really! BeOS is about to have it's first ever 3rd-party browser released, and it's not even mentioned?
  • Personally I love having MDI on my browser. The only thing I don't like is when one of those annoying ad boxes pops up and takes up the whole window over the top of whatever I was viewing...

    However, it wouldn't suprise me if MDI is an option on future versions of Windows Opera, and I aslo wouldn't be suprised to find that many of the other versions of Opera run SDI anyway.
  • Okay, I agree, the 'You make me sick' was over the top. I apologise.

    However, I still feel my original point was valid. I *do* understand free software. I also understand that free software is a choice. If someone wishes to keep their code which they've invested considerable resources into proprietary, then that's their right. If someone wishes to release their code under an open source license, then that's also their right. Good for them. However, it's also not proved (yet?) to be a feasible buisiness model for software development, and I suspect that in many areas it will stay that way (Games development springs to mind...)

    cheers,

    Tim
  • I really don't see what's wrong with charging for a web browser. It's just another piece of sofware, after all. Opera's success will hinge on whether it offers sufficient advantages over it's free competitors for people to pay for it. If you don't think it's worth it, fine; use one of the other browsers. At least this way you get a choice - if Opera was free we wouldn't *have* Opera. The programmers working on it would we working on something else to support themselves instead.
  • In what is Opera not helping Linux? Opera software is producing another alternative browser for the system. The only reason we view browsers as 'basic applications' is that we've become accustomed to them being given away for free due to the MS/Netscape war. Browsers are fairly complex programs, which take a lot of time to develop - Netscape and IE were (and are) developed off the back of other, non-free software.


    I just don't see how increased choice can be bad for Linux users.

  • Theft (Score:3)

    by EnglishTim ( 9662 ) on Monday June 07, 1999 @04:37AM (#1863902)
    So let me get this straight... You're advocating cracking the Limux version and then distributing it for free? Otherwise known as 'Software Piracy'? Just because you happen to think that Open Source software is the Way To Go, doesn't give you the right to steal their intellectual property. Jeez, here comes a small company, trying to make a good browser so that you don't have to feel stuck with the weighty IE or Netscape, and all you can do is encourage people to fuck them over.

    You make me sick.
  • I think Opera is contracting development out on each of the ports. They aren't concentrating on each and every port. Consequently, when the People's Republic of China (IIRC they're the ones who built/were going to build all those C64's a couple of years back) asks for a port, Opera will contract yet another team to do to the port.
    ----------
    mphall@cstone.nospam.net
  • ... this is true.

    I don't even worry about the accuracy of the banner, though, since the beauty of the web is the sheer mass of fine-grained information available. It forces the individual to be a better and more discerning information consumer, though.

    Anyone even marginally clueful will look around Slashdot for a day and see the biases are writ large for all to see, both in terms of editorial choice and in the comments posted. Every specialty site is like that, and we all ought to be sophisticated enough to know that the 'price' of micropublishing in whatever form is less compulsion to even appear unbiased.

    The only real danger here is nothing we haven't all seen before: people who latch on to Slashdot as their sole source of 'news.' On the other hand (and this is not a slam on Slashdot, which I read plenty in the context of a healthy media diet composed of plenty of other sources) people like that will develop the stunted world view they've got coming to them, and the rest of us will learn to ignore them when they actually venture into the real world with their woefully narrow perspectives.

    ObOnTopic: I'm looking forward to Opera for Linux. I ran it on a Win95/5x86-133/16 meg box some time ago and loved it. Much more nimble than the competition.
    ----------
    mphall@cstone.nospam.net

  • It's even one of those things they like to brag about on their website. Dunno about the 4.0 support, but I'd imagine that's pending too. Opera likes to pride themselves on standards support, which is nice to see in an ever-more-proprietary world.
  • I just wonder which will get finished first, Opera or Mozilla? Both seem to creep along at a snail's pace. Graphical browsers are in short supply as it is, so the addition of Opera on Linux will be nice.

    I'm sure we don't all use the same mail reader, or news reader, or text editor, or desktop clock, so why should we have to use the same web browser? Not that I have anything against Lynx, but more competition in this area is long overdue.

  • Actually, there are so many different perspectives on Slashdot that I think it gives pretty much all the news you need, as long as you read the comments. Certainly both pro and anti-Linux viewpoints are well represented there, and there are plenty of mainstream "FUD" articles listed.

    I first found out about BeOS from a Slashdot story, and I subsequently bought and installed it. I quite like NetPositive - I wish they'd add a decent JavaScript implementation to it. It's small, lightweight and fast, while not being totally retro like Lynx.

    Be lovers will appreciate my ironic story, by the way. I had Be installed on a system with Windows, and it was working great. I finally transferred the things I needed Windows for on that machine to another, and enthusiastically gave Be the entire disk. The network card then stopped working, rendering the system unusable - and the only way to get it to work would have been to boot Windows on the machine that no longer had it!

    Oops.

    So now that system's running Linux. One of these days I want to restore Be since I think it's a truly fantastic environment. I even like a lot of the oddball commercial software created by tiny companies (like BeProductive).

    So Be, I'll Be back.

    Jean-Louise Gasse must have a strong stomach to withstand all these awful Be puns!

    D

    ----
  • Well Opera and TrollTech are almost next door neighbours if you check their adresses.
    So that might be a contributing factor for choosing QT/TrollTech.

    Anywayz if their parking habits is something to go by, the BETA is long way of. Its now 15.25 CET and both the Opera and TrollTech parking spaces are empty :)


  • A lot of people - myself included - have happily paid for the Windows version, because it's fast, small, featureful, and not made by Microsoft.

    You see, not everyone feels software should be "free" through cross-subsidizing from sales of other software, like the Big Two are.
  • Well practically every Windows-originated app is MDI, the exception being Notepad. So it's quite natural, really...

    I prefer having multiple windows inside one app window rather than a Windows taskbar with two pixel wide "buttons" because of an excessive number of top-level windows.
  • It drives me nuts not being able to hide all windows of a particular application at once. And it also drives me nuts when I hit Alt-F4 intending to close, say, one image window in Photoshop and having it close the entire application, rather than just the document window I wanted to close.

    Well, in that particular case, Windows MDI is somewhat consistent: The keyboard shortcuts using Alt on the "top level", are represented using Ctrl on the MDI level - that is, closing a MDI window is accomplished using Ctrl+F4.

    Non-MDI programs of course use them differently: On Netscape, Ctrl+Tab will cycle between the open "top level windows", whereas on MSIE will cycle between the frames and location bar on the active window.

  • Since it is the many hackers who made the free OS possible (in the sense of freedom) the standards for the OS are already settled down.

    But Opera isn't a part of the OS, it's an application for it. You're not forced to buy it, you're not forced to use it, what's the problem?

    Or do you also argue against free Windows software, since the OS costs money?

  • Use "simple" button bar, then you only have six buttons.

    Plus, I've become too accustomed to keyboard navigation using Q/A (link navigation), Z/X (back/forward), W/S (heading navigation) and +/- (zooming) to ever switch. The customizability is hard to match, too.

  • Since it is closed source we have to wait for them to make upgrades, and we are dependent on them to write the software the way we want it. If we had a GPLed browser we could give it the features that geeks want, keep the code slimmed down, and not have to worry about the issues of closed source and proprietary software.

    Then use Emacs/W3. It supports CSS1, frames, and whatnot - if your Emacs is up for it, and not if it's not.

    What I don't like is how the space bar mapps to whatever the mouse last clicked on

    Blame Microsoft accessibility guidelines: The space works as the mouse button.

  • Although I really appreciate the efforts of the guys over there at opera, I am not quite sure if using Qt was a good descision.

    Apart from the license question I am not in favor of programs using a library that is almost exclusively used by one set of programs.

    Since they will link the binary statically (I guess) against Qt they also could have chosen a widget set that is somewhat more widespread in use. If they've used a more common set, they could have used shared libraries. We all know the trouble with statically linked programs, don't we?

    Anyway, thanks a lot! Can't wait to have this little gem.

    belbo. I support zero score posting.

  • I agree that MDI is not good for a web browser. But I'll still use it if it is faster than netscape!! I absolutely *hate* netscape..

    PS: I really wish Gimp would have an MDI option!.. .. and more Photoshop-like in general

  • Looks like they're only 25% done or so... no mention of when even a beta will be available.

  • The signal/slot mechanism is slightly superior to message maps in MFC, however they are merely a kludge, they don't fit at all in the C++ object model. (Hint for framework developers: If your language is class based, try to use its class construct) What is more, the classes in QT are convenient for a couple of apps, but that's it; they're no thicker (?) than MFC stuff.


    Qt does use the C++ class construct... Qt classes are C++ classes, with a macro thrown in. The macro, and the code created by the moc (meta-object compiler) just creates some standard functions, and framework, to allow the signal/slot system to work. Here's a quote from Qt 2.0's qobjectdefs.h


    // The following macros are our "extensions" to C++
    // They are used, strictly speaking, only by the moc.
    #define slots // slots: in class
    #define signals protected // signals: in class
    #define emit // emit signal


    moc uses the signal and slot definitions to decide what to put into the moc code. You may call it a kludge, but the only other way to conveniently add that functionality to all objects independently would be to modify the compiler. And that may be theoreticallly possible for gcc, but Qt aims to be a lot more portable than that.


    (I haven't examined QT2.0 very closely, so you can attack from that angle ;)


    How much have you actually examned Qt 1.x? Have you ever studied the output of moc on a non-trivial class?

  • QT is just about the best GUI toolkit available for Unix at this time.Your comment simply shows that you are not familiar with QT.
  • So tell us what is your verdict ? Which GUI lib on Unix would be worth your time ? If you don't like QT then surely you must hate Motif or GTK ..
    what else is there ?
  • I if you think that QT code is ugly then it is obvious that you have no idea about C++. C maybe but not C++.
    (btw I was there 2 years ago ... and trust me , GUI and C don't mix well )
  • I was encouraged by the buzz about Opera over a year ago, when Netscape was looking increasingly bloated and Microsoft was, well Microsoft.

    But with Opera's choice of making their browser MDI (Multiple Document Interface: meaning one father window contains all of the daughter windows) they have made it a product I don't want to use.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love a nice browser for Linux; but IMHO MDI is not "nice". Give me an SDI option and I will gladly check it out, and pay $$ if I like it.
  • Are you refering to the article I posted or another earlier in the thread? If its the one I posted, I was simply posting the LATEST news [the news before my news was simply that Troll Tech was doing the port]. I've known about the linux port since Project Magic was started, as well as others here... appologies if i misinterpreted your post.
  • You may have misinterpereted my story submission, or I just wasn't very clear in my explaination. It wasn't intended to be an announcement of the actual Linux port, per se, but an update on the latest news on the progress of the said port. Previously, Linux users weren't even in the running for an alpha release, now there is a light at the end of the beta-tunnel, so to speak...

  • Why? (Score:1)

    by BiGGO ( 15018 )
    I thought Opera was meant for people who disliked Netscape for being a big bloated piece of (something),
    and IE for being a big bloated piece buggy Microsoft-style (something).

    Assuming Mozilla will be out in the same time Opera does,
    Why would I pay money to get the same speed and stability,
    but not all the features I would get in an open project?

    This doesn't make sence.


    ---
  • I agree wholeheartedly. My girlfriend loves Opera and uses it all the time, and while I admire its stability and some other nice bits in it, I can't stand having all the pages in one window... drives me mad. I tried using it but I just couldn't stand it.
  • Heh.

    Can't tell if that was an ironic comment, but I'm going to take it that way.

    Just because there are some sub-par free options, does that mean people won't pay for a quality option? (Not that Opera for Linux will be quality, we'll see.)

    Just because Linux is based on GPL software, will anyone who runs it pay for shareware/commercial programs? I'm not necessarily talking the philosophy of it all, which has been gone over multiple times on SlashDot. Just...would people pay? If Opera is good, will Linux users pay for it?
  • If you go someplace where the tapwater is full of nasty bugs that'll give you the squits, you'll pay for bottled water. Netscape 4 gives me the squits. I've seen Opera in action, and it's sweet; it's Evian; it's god's own holy water -- at least compared to Netscape and IE. Whether people will pay for Linux Opera will depend solely on whether Mozilla delivers on its promises, since they'll both probably be ready at about the same time.

    Web browsers are not a commodity. Slow, inflexible, bloated, non-standards-compliant browsers are a commodity. Under Linux, we can hope that Mozilla will change that, but if it fails, I'll be glad there's an Opera port, and willing to pay.
  • My credit card is poised; a while ago I felt similarly, but after putting up with untold shit from Netscape x.x, it's time to bite the bullet and pay the piper. Pardon the mixed metaphor.
    Don't forget, BTW, that we've got the boys and girls in Redmond to thank for free browsers; if it weren't for their determination to wipe Netscape off the face of the Earth, we'd all be happily downloading trial copies of navigator and not paying for it.
  • I paid for it, since I have to use NT at work, and I haven't regretted it yet. Very stable (I usually have it open for days at a time), it's easier to have multiple sites open at once, you don't have to mouse around (the keyboard controls are much better than anything else I've seen). Oh, and it's small and fast. Seems like a good deal to me.
  • Yes, but your taskbar can get a bit cluttered if you have 10 sites open! MDI has its uses...
  • They originally farmed the ports of the browser out to different companies; they chose TrollTech for the linux port, so it's not a real surprise that it'll use QT.
  • RTFM. Right-click, previous, like every other browser, or ctrl-left arrow.
  • But the point is that, yes, the majority of the potential user base will pay for software. There is certainly the High Church of Emacs, which won't use anything that isn't GPL, or can't be assimilated by the GPL, but these are a minority now, and will become a smaller minority as linux actually gets purchased for the desktop--into the hands of people who have proved they're willing to pay for software, and will already have paid for linux.

    I have no intention of preaching right now, but I would like to point out a couple areas where I think you missed the mark a little. First, even if you are willing to pay for a binary-only license, I think that with a bleeding edge system like Linux, you should insist on an upgrade clause which will give you some insurance against premature obsolescence (relative to software for Windows, Mac, or even OS/2). Second, as with you, price is largely irrelevant to people who insist on running free software. Having source protects you against problems like the one I just mentioned much more than an upgrade clause in a binary-only license ever could.
  • Well... I just have to add my coupla cents.

    When I first got Opera, I'll admit I wasn't terribly impressed with the MDI way of doing things (to understate just a bit :-)

    And it was exactly the same with a number of friends who I have since introduced Opera to.

    But. Having said that, I have to add that one gets used to it very quickly. I will often have 10 to 15 browser windows open at the same time. Just the idea of doing that in Netscape, or some other browser which opens a separate window per session makes me shudder. And again, it is the same with all of my friends who also now use Opera.

    I agree, the whole MDI thing is a bit of a kludge, but dammit, it just works!

    And using the hotkeys is a very good way of quickly switching between windows. In Linux (where I'm forced to use an inferior browser, a.k.a. Netscape), my Gnome-panel is always filled up with more Netscape icons than I can easily keep track of. And having to use the mouse all the time is beyond annoying. I'm a keyboard-centric worker. Both my hands stay rooted to the keyboard, and only wander to the mouse when needed. Unfortunately, under Netscape, that is far more often than I'd like.

    Finally, I like being able to just minimize my entire browser with a single click, rather than having to go around and minimize every open browser window, as I have to do in Netscape. I like my desktop to be uncluttered. Opera's MDI helps me achieve that goal.

    Opera and MDI: Ugly but it works!
    --
    - Sean
  • I'm a coder, I think I know how complex a web browser is. I tag them as "basic apps" because they are among the most common used. Think of a desktop manager, file manager, text editor, etc. Those are non-trivial applications, too. But I view them as "basic".
  • no to be too down on Opera, I mean they're already one hell of an underdog competing with Netscape and IE AND trying to get people to shell out their hard-earned clams for a web browser.

    the problem is, be they small in download and [relatively] quick in rendering -- their engine is woefully behind the pace. No CSS support, no HTML 4.0 support [3.2 is their current level] -- doh!

    BTW: here's a great article [wammo.com] that looks at the whole browser deal. The state of Mozilla, the Netscape v. IE wars, iCab and Opera [and there's some spiel on Neoplanet who're supporting the Mozilla rendering engine if you didn't already know].

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close