# we should support opera



## darkshadow (Dec 12, 2009)

since the only browser from other cares to support us with binary executable (up to date one) realy we should spread it plus it standard compliant browser  which will not eat all you memory or crash most the time like ( firefox) ,, before couple of days google provide linux chrome and not even mention that it will support freebsd in near future they realy dont care about us we should fight back and spread opera if they dont care about us we will not care about them opera for ever


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 12, 2009)

That's a really good point. However I was just looking at installing a browser on a new system and I did not chose Opera. The reason is that all descriptions that I have seen says that it comes with a built-in mail reader.


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

I might consider using opera, only when opera in ports, start using QT4....
And even then I'll think alot..... because I like [red]OpenSource[/red]


----------



## aragon (Dec 12, 2009)

Yea, ask them for the source.


----------



## chalbersma (Dec 12, 2009)

OJ said:
			
		

> That's a really good point. However I was just looking at installing a browser on a new system and I did not chose Opera. The reason is that all descriptions that I have seen says that it comes with a built-in mail reader.



You know you don't have to set it up. I use the mail reader because it's hella useful and supports everything that sylpheed does and more.  But before I started using it I did indeed use sylpheed and opera meshed with it flawlessly.

I'm surprised that that anyone would not use a product because it comes with a feature that they don't like that is no hassle *not* to use.  That's like saying you don't like FreeBSD because they support the ZFS filesystem.  If you don't like ZFS not only do you not have to use it but you don't have to work to not use it.  Same goes for Opera Mail.


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

OJ said:
			
		

> That's a really good point. However I was just looking at installing a browser on a new system and I did not chose Opera. The reason is that all descriptions that I have seen says that it comes with a built-in mail reader.



Nobody force you to use Operas mail reader


----------



## crsd (Dec 12, 2009)

darkshadow said:
			
		

> since the only browser from other cares to support us with binary executable (up to date one) realy we should spread it *plus it standard compliant browser  which will not eat all you memory or crash most the time like ( firefox)* ,, before couple of days google provide linux chrome and not even mention that it will support freebsd in near future they realy dont care about us we should fight back and spread opera if they dont care about us we will not care about them opera for ever



Spreading FUD will not make your $FAVOURITE_BROWSER more popular. And what are those "other" browsers, which do not care to provide binary packages? "Other" browser are available as packages, as well as source code, which opera doesn't provide.


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 12, 2009)

sory but it harsh a little
it not my favorite  browser you talking about Firefox who will take gigs from your memory or stupid safari who will not install on freebsd  , or chrome that google will never provide binary for it on freebsd so you will run  over linux binary emulation  and have your loyalty back for linux if you dont want  it dont use it I think they dont mind, just think a little to return a favor back to those who care about us like opera nvidia and others even they product is close source but they dont need us we need them so we have to tell them if you support us we will support you , and I think I have freedom to say what ever I want and opera have a lot of user and don't need me case all most of mobile phone have opera browser ,,  im web developer and I use all browser for testing


----------



## crsd (Dec 12, 2009)

Heh, I just don't understand how bashing every other browser helps supporting Opera. And how exactly are you going to support it?


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

How can you trust Closed Source? I have no idea, what it does.
Ah and what is problem with making FF packages? they are available...


Anyway... looks like this is going to be flame-war


----------



## mickey (Dec 12, 2009)

I don't like binaries anyways.


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 12, 2009)

if you dont know the ideai from my post it is better not to comment , go developing with firefox maybe you will enhace its , im just talking about using something good free by that we will show others that  becuase that thing respect freebsd and it is user base(which it big) we use it and  we try it and if it good and suit our work will use it, we will not reject idea just becuase it close source or any thing else it is run natively on freebsd that all what we need no more emulation (humiliation) ,,,


----------



## Dru (Dec 12, 2009)

Browsing with Firefox, jammin music with mplayer, plus numerous other things running, mine must be broken, Im only using 412Mb of RAM.

This is also in the wrong section...well for the moment. And Im being completely useless.


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 12, 2009)

please tell me that you are c programer and you know what firefox and it is extintion does


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

He he he
I don't use Skype [No native anything], I don't use Opera [No QT4 binary], I don't use flash [No native anything], I don't use nvidia-drivers [I changed my graphics card with my fried. I had better nvidia card, he had much older/worse... ati card]

I'm happy

EDIT
Heck, I don't even use Google search anymore


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 12, 2009)

by the way chrome will take over firefox , and firefox will end up like netscape and then we will big google to give us the source or even binarie which running on freebsd , recored that for me and we will meet after 3 year and we will see who is right I bet on that http://coolwebdeveloper.com/2009/03/is-firefox-dying-a-slow-death/


----------



## mickey (Dec 12, 2009)

I use firefox on a PII computer, that has a total of 288 M RAM. So what?


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

darkshadow said:
			
		

> please tell me that you are c programer and you know what firefox and it is extintion does



Good point about extensions though


----------



## aragon (Dec 12, 2009)

chalbersma said:
			
		

> That's like saying you don't like FreeBSD because they support the ZFS filesystem.  If you don't like ZFS not only do you not have to use it but you don't have to work to not use it.  Same goes for Opera Mail.


Ah, but there are parts of FreeBSD that I don't like.  The difference is, with FreeBSD I can remove them from the build because I have the source.

I actually like Opera from the few times I've played with it, but given the opportunity I'll choose source over binaries every time.


----------



## Beastie (Dec 12, 2009)

OJ said:
			
		

> all descriptions that I have seen says that it comes with a built-in mail reader.


And the problem is ____? You can use anything you want for the mail (including a third-party application), and you can disable the built-in mail/chat system by adding *Show E-mail Client=0* to operaprefs.ini if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Beastie (Dec 12, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> I might consider using opera, only when opera in ports, start using QT4....


Would it work better with QT4 than it does with QT3? Would it leave a similar or smaller memory footprint? Would it be as fast or faster?



			
				killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> And even then I'll think alot..... because I like [red]OpenSource[/red]


An open source Opera would be really nice (it's actually the only closed source application I use), but the fact is that it has always satisfied *my* needs more than any other (non-text-mode) browser.


----------



## Beastie (Dec 12, 2009)

crsd said:
			
		

> Spreading FUD will not make your $FAVOURITE_BROWSER more popular. And what are those "other" browsers, which do not care to provide binary packages? "Other" browser are available as packages, as well as source code, which opera doesn't provide.


I will not compare Opera to anything else, but at least *some parts* of what he says are true. Opera officially scores 100% on Acid3 (I usually get 99%, but still), it loads relatively fast, leaves a medium memory footprint, and the last time it ever crashed here was probably around version 7.x.


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

Beastie said:
			
		

> Would it work better with QT4 than it does with QT3? Would it leave a similar or smaller memory footprint? Would it be as fast or faster?



I just don't want to install it... I Already have QT4, Shitload of different gtk, and god know how may other.... I'm minimalist... see my screenshots http://picasaweb.google.com/killasmurf86



			
				Beastie said:
			
		

> An open source Opera would be really nice (it's actually the only closed source application I use), but the fact is that it has always satisfied *my* needs more than any other (non-text-mode) browser.



I have need of open source....

Anyway... I just installed opera, just to see how much did it evolve since last time I used it.

Yes there are some Very cool features... and It used to be my favorite Browser for log time.

Indeed it load pages very fast.... You got me interested in it again. 

About memory footprint... Currently running Opena and Firefox35:
Firefox Size:199M, Res:155M
Opera Size:276M, RES:98M

Now I'll look how can I manage cookies and block adds.... if Opera can do that, and some more features that I use on Firefox

EDIT:
seams opera use at least 2-3x less CPU, that Firefox


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 12, 2009)

*try this*

please could you open 7 tabs on each of them with same site and test memory and cpu usage , and see how firefox will be slow  , im not aginst firefox or open source , I use to developer and test web application on firefox and opera ,, time play rule too , I even use swiftix which is optimized version of firefox


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

Ok, Opera beats the shit out of Firefox.. in this one....


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

There's 1 feature all GUI Browsers miss [well, maybe except Konqueror]
It's sorting ftp... [by date, name etc]....


----------



## aragon (Dec 12, 2009)

There's another thing all browsers miss by a long shot: proper form upload handling.


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

ortus.rtu.lv doesn't work well with Opera...
You can't verify it... page requires login....

when I login o=some features doesn't work..
So... Again it's proven.... firefox for me.

Previous time Opera didn't work on site I was learning C...


----------



## dennylin93 (Dec 12, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> ortus.rtu.lv doesn't work well with Opera...
> You can't verify it... page requires login....
> 
> when I login o=some features doesn't work..
> ...



There might not be anything wrong with Opera. Think about all the sites that only show properly when IE is used.


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

Ye, There "might not be anything wrong with IE"

Anyway, that site is "must be usable" for me...


----------



## Oxyd (Dec 12, 2009)

dennylin93 said:
			
		

> There might not be anything wrong with Opera. Think about all the sites that only show properly when IE is used.



True, but this is useless to know: The pages still don't work in Opera, no matter whose fault it is.

Actually, this is what makes me wanna switch to Firefox occasionally -- lots of these cool and super-modern pages, like Facebook, don't work well in Opera.  But whenever I start Firefox I go like "Ughhhh" and it's back to Opera for me.

I'm definitely looking forward to having working Google Chrome on FBSD -- it's my browser of choice on those systems that support it, Opera is the second for me.

_Edit:_ Riiight.  I clicked killasmurf's link to see his minimal desktop and all I get is:





> You are using a browser that is not fully supported. Some features may not work too well, but you are welcome to have a look around.



*sigh*


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

Oxyd said:
			
		

> True, but this is useless to know: The pages still don't work in Opera, no matter whose fault it is.
> 
> Actually, this is what makes me wanna switch to Firefox occasionally -- lots of these cool and super-modern pages, like Facebook, don't work well in Opera.  But whenever I start Firefox I go like "Ughhhh" and it's back to Opera for me.


I had same feeling when I was switching from Opera to Firefox many years ago.



			
				Oxyd said:
			
		

> I'm definitely looking forward to having working Google Chrome on FBSD


me to.... however there are some Firefox addons, i just can't live without.


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

For me ortus.rtu.lv shows list of browsers that are fully supported...
Opera among them....
Well it's not fully working.... I'll mail admins


----------



## Oxyd (Dec 12, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> me to.... however there are some Firefox addons, i just can't live without.



Like which ones?  I remember all these addons bloating Firefox even more, becoming a general PITA when you have too many of them loaded.



			
				killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> Hmmm? What's wrong with it?



Nothing now, I managed to view your gallery, but it still keeps me warning that Opera is not fully supported.

Google doesn't seem to like Opera in general -- a few days ago I got an invite for Google Wave (totally useless toy, if you ask me), but I _had_ to use Firefox, because it didn't work at all with Opera.

It looks like everyone is trying to push Opera away, and I hate to say it, but they are being quite successful.


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

hmmm. I did `$ mv .opera .opera.bak` now ortus.rtu.lv just works.


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

Oxyd said:
			
		

> Like which ones?  I remember all these addons bloating Firefox even more, becoming a general PITA when you have too many of them loaded.



adblock plus
NoScript
CookieSafe
Targeted Advertising Cookie Opt-Out
FireBug
FireCookie
Web Developer
And I start to like Vimperator



			
				Oxyd said:
			
		

> Nothing now, I managed to view your gallery, but it still keeps me warning that Opera is not fully supported.
> 
> Google doesn't seem to like Opera in general -- a few days ago I got an invite for Google Wave (totally useless toy, if you ask me), but I _had_ to use Firefox, because it didn't work at all with Opera.
> 
> It looks like everyone is trying to push Opera away, and I hate to say it, but they are being quite successful.



Well, we can hope that it may Force Opera to release source... and let community fix it  [small, but still a chance]


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 12, 2009)

I don't know under which circumstances 'Firefox will take gigs of memory', but I've never seen it, and I'm using it with quite a number of add-ons plus Flash10. It uses 140M (RES), it never crashes or freezes my system, and it starts up in just a handful of seconds (even the first time). FUD indeed.


----------



## alie (Dec 12, 2009)

Its very easy to make Firefox take 400MB+ on our machine, juts leave it for 1/2-1 day and keeps browsing with it


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 12, 2009)

it realy did that for me daily maybe case I use it for 8 hour without closing or restart t , it turn after one hour to freeze many time and taking mush of memory even some time I kill it from shell , this turn development to hell ,every thing not design I test it with opera it make my life easer thanks God that there something that I hope t will provide binary for freebsd case it make life easer for me and I hope it will make that for every one


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 12, 2009)

for firebug simmiler tools take a look on dragon fly http://www.opera.com/developer/

and there thing called user script ( similer to greasmonky ) even you can use the former script I never try that
for cookie I think you view edit and view cookies throw option provided by opera
I search for web developer and I find plugin for opera but it kind of old 
for other thing take a look at this it is kind of funny things http://widgets.opera.com/


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 12, 2009)

alie said:
			
		

> Its very easy to make Firefox take 400MB+ on our machine, juts leave it for 1/2-1 day and keeps browsing with it



I have FF on about 16 hours a day on my laptop. It never goes much higher than 180M (after 6 hours, it's a 145M RES now). And this is with NoScript, AdBlock, Flash, the works.


----------



## aragon (Dec 12, 2009)

DD, 32bit?  Mine's over 200 MB RES and I just logged into my PC now to read forums.freebsd.org. 

(64bit tho)


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 12, 2009)

darkshadow said:
			
		

> ... ,every thing not design I test it with opera it make my life easer *thanks God that there something that I hope t will provide binary for freebsd case it make life easer for me* and I hope it will make that for every one



I don't understand why are you so fancy about Opera Binary....
Have you ever used pkg_add?

Try this:
`# pkg_add -r firefox35`

Guess what will it do?


----------



## oliverh (Dec 12, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> He he he
> I don't use Skype [No native anything], I don't use Opera [No QT4 binary], I don't use flash [No native anything], I don't use nvidia-drivers [I changed my graphics card with my fried. I had better nvidia card, he had much older/worse... ati card]
> 
> I'm happy
> ...



Well, Richard Stallman doesn't even use a browser, he downloads the pages he want to read with wget


----------



## oliverh (Dec 12, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> I have FF on about 16 hours a day on my laptop. It never goes much higher than 180M (after 6 hours, it's a 145M RES now). And this is with NoScript, AdBlock, Flash, the works.



You're an administrator, other people do different work (authors, journalists etc.)  and after 8h I have about 500+Mb for Firefox, while blocking adverts etc. with Privoxy. That said, it sucks less at least at the moment. Opera has different problems, like a lousy JS engine in 10.x, incompatible with many pages.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 12, 2009)

aragon said:
			
		

> DD, 32bit?  Mine's over 200 MB RES and I just logged into my PC now to read forums.freebsd.org.
> 
> (64bit tho)



I switched from 32-bit to 64-bit recently, and the numbers appear to be virtually the same. I'm now at 156M.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 12, 2009)

oliverh said:
			
		

> You're an administrator, other people do different work (authors, journalists etc.)



Oh, come on, Oliver  My browsing behaviour cannot simply be defined by me being 'an administrator' (which is 10% of my work, and 1% of my FF use). I'm in R&D and innovation, I do research, I have hundreds of RSS feeds ranging from the NYT to Slashdot to ICHC, and everything in between ... and I read a lot of stuff in a day. Why my FF is magically well-behaved, I do not know. Perhaps that's the 'luck of the administrator'!


----------



## Oxyd (Dec 12, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Oh, come on, Oliver  My browsing behaviour cannot simply be defined by me being 'an administrator' (which is 10% of my work, and 1% of my FF use). I'm in R&D and innovation, I do research, I have hundreds of RSS feeds ranging from the NYT to Slashdot to ICHC, and everything in between ... and I read a lot of stuff in a day. Why my FF is magically well-behaved, I do not know. Perhaps that's the 'luck of the administrator'!



Firefox fears that if it misbehaves, you will come and edit it to submission.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 12, 2009)

Oh right, I _am_ using firefox-moderated. Forgot all about that...


----------



## Dru (Dec 12, 2009)

How are you gentlemen.

All your base are belong to us.

You are on the way to destruction.

You have no chance to survive make your time.


----------



## dennylin93 (Dec 12, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Oh right, I _am_ using firefox-moderated. Forgot all about that...



What's firefox-moderated?


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 13, 2009)

dennylin93 said:
			
		

> What's firefox-moderated?



It's just a joke...


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 13, 2009)

Beastie said:
			
		

> And the problem is ____? You can use anything you want for the mail (including a third-party application), and you can disable the built-in mail/chat system by adding *Show E-mail Client=0* to operaprefs.ini if I'm not mistaken.


The problem is that I didn't know that. Promotions that mention a lot of miscellaneous features make me unconfortable. The (perhaps unfounded) fear of having unneeded code and/or not being able to configure what I want sometimes scares me off. I'm just an amateur so I have to be careful. 

I ended up trying Seamonkey on that machine and so far it looks fine. It's a low memory box so I don't expect a lot of performance. At the moment it's just for the purpose of learning about FreeBSD.

On my current main computer I run Lunux with firefox 3.0.15 and have 40+ browser windows (I don't use tabs) open 24/7. Firefox is a hog, but it's not as bad as some people make it out to be. I still manage to have four other browsers open on other desktops as well as do useful work with OOo and gimp without having to close anything. That's an Intel P4-511 so I'm sure an up-to-date machine could easily supersede this performance level by many times.

However my new interest in FreeBSD has spurned a desire to up the performance on really old kit and possibly even compete with my DOS box for speed in some areas. Hence my interest in lower resource browsers, besides Dillo and Links which I both love. Perhaps I should try Opera.


----------



## aragon (Dec 13, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> I switched from 32-bit to 64-bit recently, and the numbers appear to be virtually the same. I'm now at 156M.


Curious to know why mine was so much more memory heavy, I watched its memory usage after a fresh restart.  It climbed from 70M to 160M just because of one addon.  With the addon disabled now I am just over 100M.


----------



## alie (Dec 13, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> I have FF on about 16 hours a day on my laptop. It never goes much higher than 180M (after 6 hours, it's a 145M RES now). And this is with NoScript, AdBlock, Flash, the works.



Mine with script and flash plugin. Maybe something wrong with js engine. but still i prefer Firefox than others 

Btw what is the bussines model of Opera giving free browser to users ?


----------



## chalbersma (Dec 13, 2009)

alie said:
			
		

> Mine with script and flash plugin. Maybe something wrong with js engine. but still i prefer Firefox than others
> 
> Btw what is the bussines model of Opera giving free browser to users ?



I believe they have agreements with alt vista and google so that every time somebody uses their search engine with Opera they get a extremely small chunk of change.

Here's the official version from the investor faq.


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 13, 2009)

alie said:
			
		

> Mine with script and flash plugin. Maybe something wrong with js engine. but still i prefer Firefox than others
> 
> Btw what is the bussines model of Opera giving free browser to users ?


they only sell opera for mobile , and they try to spread there browser for free for desktop user


----------



## Beastie (Dec 13, 2009)

So they can open the source. They would only lose a portion of their revenue from the mobile market and they would recover it elsewhere.
It wouldn't change much since all the agreements (e.g. with search engine) are with Opera Software PLC not with any potential forks (if that ever happened) and there's no reason for these companies to break the agreements.


----------



## chalbersma (Dec 13, 2009)

You know an open source version of Opera would be awesome.  But even as a closed source application it still rocks my socks off.  Until another browser can knock it off as the best browser out there you'll still see me use this code:

```
> fluxbox_generate-menu -b 'opera'
```


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Dec 13, 2009)

Using opera since before BSD (2004).
Just the other week I put a toolbar at the
top which has the "author mode" "user mode" toggle
so pages which do not render one way almost always
are visible the other way.
Posting that so I can ask anyone using Opera how
to have the target of a link hover at mouseover or
equivalent. I remember it at the bottom of the browser
mostly but that is hidden by the wm tray if the 
former exists still.  If I click on a link and
it leads to a forum, I do not wish to log on unknowingly
if I don't have enough time to read all the new posts.
...


----------



## Beastie (Dec 13, 2009)

jb_fvwm2 said:
			
		

> how to have the target of a link hover at mouseover or equivalent.


I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about, but I suspect you're looking for *Tools* > *Appearance* > *Buttons* > *Status*. Now drag a *Status field* wherever you want it. Did I get it right?




			
				jb_fvwm2 said:
			
		

> that is hidden by the wm tray if the former exists still


Are you using FVWM? If you made a *FvwmButtons* taskbar or something on your page/desktop you can use the *Extended Window Manager Hints* to ask applications to maximize according to specific coordinates.
Add *EwmhBaseStruts 0 0 0 24* to your FVWM configuration file if the taskbar is at the bottom and is 24 pixels high.


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Dec 14, 2009)

Neither of those hints worked, but I discovered by
chance immediately, that the three icons at the
upper right, the center one, if clicked (a toggle) to show
a 2-somthing rather than a 1-something, the 
bar at the bottom which shows the link target url
reappears.  So that is solved. (!) Solidifies the
choice of opera as a first preference...


----------



## Beastie (Dec 14, 2009)

jb_fvwm2 said:
			
		

> Neither of those hints worked, but I discovered by chance immediately, that the three icons at the upper right, the center one, if clicked (a toggle) to show a 2-somthing rather than a 1-something, the bar at the bottom which shows the link target url reappears.


But I still have no idea what you were even talking about...

And adding that line to your FVWM configuration should've worked. Maybe you have a problem there.


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Dec 14, 2009)

I am not using fvwm.  If I hover the mouse over
the "mutli-quote this message" as I type, a 
URL appears in the bottom of the browser at a
bar.  The Icon at the upper right of the screen
shows a page behind another.  If I click on the
icon at the upper right, the bar disappears 
(somewhere), and the very small icon changes to one-page
....
So it is just about fixing the usability of 
opera, here.  
I have fvwm2-devel installed, but by chance am using
a smaller wm currently.  For each of them, I am
using configuration files gleaned from the web.  
Apologies if I do not have the time nor expertise
to redo them etc. before posting...


----------



## oliverh (Dec 14, 2009)

Beastie said:
			
		

> So they can open the source. They would only lose a portion of their revenue from the mobile market and they would recover it elsewhere.
> It wouldn't change much since all the agreements (e.g. with search engine) are with Opera Software PLC not with any potential forks (if that ever happened) and there's no reason for these companies to break the agreements.



No they cannot, if they do so they have to cope with lots of software patented by third parties. And I think their revenue is just to small to go such an adventurous way.


----------



## Beastie (Dec 14, 2009)

oliverh said:
			
		

> if they do so they have to cope with lots of software patented by third parties


What do you mean? What third party software? What patents?


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 14, 2009)

Beastie said:
			
		

> What do you mean? What third party software? What patents?



look at opera about dialog


----------



## Beastie (Dec 14, 2009)

Oh, THAT! Virtually all of them are FOSS covered by all kinds of liberal licenses or LGPL AFAIK. So? I don't see how this can prevent Opera Software from opening the source of the Opera browser.


----------



## oliverh (Dec 14, 2009)

Beastie said:
			
		

> What do you mean? What third party software? What patents?



Every company uses technologies from third parties for their products. If you want to use such technologies you have to pay for it and then you'll get a license. But it's impossible to open source such a product (at once), because they don't own parts of the code/technology. and they license parts of their own technologies to other parties. This is common practice.


----------



## oliverh (Dec 14, 2009)

Beastie said:
			
		

> Oh, THAT! Virtually all of them are FOSS covered by all kinds of liberal licenses or LGPL AFAIK. So? I don't see how this can prevent Opera Software from opening the source of the Opera browser.



Opera uses no FOSS, they're using the commercial license for QT to distribute it as static build for example. Furthermore they're developing their very own JS-engine, HTML-render-engine and so on. And sometimes they buy some technology as add-on. If they want e.g. to support mpeg4 in Opera they have to pay for it. Using mpeg4 in Linux/FreeBSD is in most countries illegal.


----------



## hedwards (Dec 14, 2009)

aragon said:
			
		

> Curious to know why mine was so much more memory heavy, I watched its memory usage after a fresh restart.  It climbed from 70M to 160M just because of one addon.  With the addon disabled now I am just over 100M.


Most of those problems people have with stability in Firefox are more reasonably blamed on one add-on or another.

The other crashes seem to usually be caused by Firefox's handling of DNS and scripts coming in from the server. (Or that blasted flash that seems to have infected most of the web. I wash my hands, but I still have its filth on me)


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 14, 2009)

*sory*

but I dont know why we are talking about source here , if you use freebsd then you are committed to bsd lances which provide the freedom to provide only binary without source and even build product completely over open source code without provide source for changes or even original one , this freedom if you want always open source go gnu it will make you happy all the ,it is there product and they have freedom to sell t as they want , for me I  develop code under bsd linces  and I dont mind if go close source n another product,,, :e


----------



## Beastie (Dec 14, 2009)

I have to install the Qt3 libraries myself for Opera to work. Qt3 is licensed as proprietary, GPL and LGPL. Which one is it for Opera? Would it be the same if it was FOSS? How can, say, KDE or VLC, manage to use Qt?

Opera's "core" as well as the Presto engine are both developed by Opera Software PLC and nothing on their website and elsewhere indicates otherwise. So there's no problem with that if it went FOSS. Is there?

And yes Opera uses many FOSS: OpenSSL Toolkit (Apache), Zlib (zlib License, compatible with GPL), FreeType (GPL and FreeType License), Bitstream Vera (Bitstream License, another liberal license), Hunspell (LGPL and Mozilla). The rest is software provided "as is", without fee, with the permission to use, copy, modify and distribute.


----------



## Beastie (Dec 14, 2009)

darkshadow said:
			
		

> but I dont know why we are talking about source here , if you use freebsd then you are committed to bsd lances which provide the freedom to provide only binary without source and even build product completely over open source code without provide source for changes or even original one , this freedom if you want always open source go gnu it will make you happy all the ,it is there product and they have freedom to sell t as they want , for me I  develop code under bsd linces  and I dont mind if go close source n another product,,, :e


So what? FreeBSD is FOSS, and even if the BSD license gives anyone the right to take FreeBSD, modify it and redistribute it in a binary format only, the FreeBSD Project still *chooses* to distribute FreeBSD as FOSS.

Opera, as a project, may benefit from being FOSS. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## oliverh (Dec 14, 2009)

Beastie said:
			
		

> I have to install the Qt3 libraries myself for Opera to work. Qt3 is licensed as proprietary, GPL and LGPL. Which one is it for Opera? Would it be the same if it was FOSS? How can, say, KDE or VLC, manage to use Qt?
> 
> Opera's "core" as well as the Presto engine are both developed by Opera Software PLC and nothing on their website and elsewhere indicates otherwise. So there's no problem with that if it went FOSS. Is there?
> 
> And yes Opera uses many FOSS: OpenSSL Toolkit (Apache), Zlib (zlib License, compatible with GPL), FreeType (GPL and FreeType License), Bitstream Vera (Bitstream License, another liberal license), Hunspell (LGPL and Mozilla). The rest is software provided "as is", without fee, with the permission to use, copy, modify and distribute.



Oh dear. Is there? Yes it is. Do you know anything about the software/technology-world apart from FOSS? Don't take this personal, but it is a different world. 

A small hint: NDA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement ; so you don't even know whether they're using anything additional. This too is common practice. Welcome to the world of money. Why do you think the FOSS community had to rewrite some missing parts of open sourced Java? Or why do you think there are missing parts in OpenSolaris compared to Solaris? Yes licenses, patents, NDAs, lots of fun in the realms of big business.


>And yes Opera uses many FOSS:

Sorry I forgot the peanuts.


----------



## Purple_Q (Dec 14, 2009)

I don't see the need for the browser to be open source. I love supporting open source projects as much as the next guy, and believe deeply in the philosophy, but as excellent a browser as opera is, I can live with one or two programs not being such. Besides, what would anyone here who is not a specifically a developer want to do with the source code anyway, modify the browser?

You can definitely chalk me up on the list of people who love it, i've been using it for a long time. I never liked Firefox much. One, I loved Netscape and used it religiously back when it was in existence. I always felt that while everyone had some extreme affection for the extensions system, the browser always seemed a little slower and clunky in comparison to Netscape.
I'm not into a bunch of extras, add-ons, etc., just ad-blocking, which Opera's system always seemed to be more efficient for the such anyway.

Overall, it's clearly faster on my system too (launch time to surfing to site A, etc), but that's just my system.

It is, unless i'm mistaken, the only browser who's browsing engine, Presto, is truly 100% W3C compliant too is it not? Also a notable trait 

  --Q


----------



## Beastie (Dec 14, 2009)

oliverh said:
			
		

> A small hint: NDA


Of course I've never heard of NDAs. :OOO



			
				oliverh said:
			
		

> so you don't even know whether they're using anything additional


Exactly. So maybe it's all or mostly internally-owned code...



			
				oliverh said:
			
		

> Why do you think the FOSS community had to rewrite some missing parts of open sourced Java? Or why do you think there are missing parts in OpenSolaris compared to Solaris?


... or Unix System Laboratories (Bell Labs) versus the Regents of the University of California and the copyrighted AT&T code, if you want. And look where we are now.
Plus a browser is not really comparable to 386BSD or Solaris in terms of size and complexity. So the community would write the few missing bits and the sun will keep on shining.



			
				oliverh said:
			
		

> Sorry I forgot the peanuts


What would a _modern_ browser do without the compression, TLS, font rasterization and spellchecking peanuts. Peanuts, yeah sure!


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 15, 2009)

Purple_Q said:
			
		

> . . . It is, unless i'm mistaken, the only browser who's browsing engine, Presto, is truly 100% W3C compliant too is it not? Also a notable trait
> --Q


Isn't SeaMonkey also 100% W3C compliant?


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 15, 2009)

OJ said:
			
		

> Isn't SeaMonkey also 100% W3C compliant?



It should 
be fully compliant with all W3C standards,(but I dont think so) http://www.freebsdsoftware.org/www/seamonkey.html
but you should run to that same properlem case 





			
				seamonkey-project said:
			
		

> Under the hood, SeaMonkey uses much of the same Mozilla source code which powers such successful siblings as Firefox,


----------



## vermaden (Dec 15, 2009)

We definitely should support Opera ...

Its one of the best browsers (Firefox may be only considered because of extensions, without extensions, Opera is the best).

Built in email client is a PROBLEM?

Opera also has built in Torrent client, Opera Unity, Opera Dragonfly and Widgets, but gues what, all of these can be disabled, and the most funny part, even having all these enabled, its a lot faster then Firefox without any extensions ...

Firefox being very actively developed for more then 5 years, with available source still has memory leaks ... this is just non acceptable.

... and the 'QT problem' I personally avoid QT/QT3/QT4/KDE apps at any cost, opera is the only QT based application that I use, and I use statically compiled in QT, for simplicity.

What else ... I can have Opera running for more then two weeks straight with 80+ tabs open with enabled flash and be sure that it does not eat all available memory, be fast and stable at the same time, do the same with Firefox ...

*Kudos to Opera team.*

PS. I would like to see some extensions interface in Opera thru, Widgets was wrong decision IMHO.


----------



## oliverh (Dec 15, 2009)

Beastie said:
			
		

> Of course I've never heard of NDAs. :OOO
> 
> 
> Exactly. So maybe it's all or mostly internally-owned code...
> ...



Oh c'mon you really don't get it? Why don't you just hire for the FSF or Richard Stallman? The BSD community in common has no problem with commercial software etc. pp. That's real freedom and I like it. They earn money with licenses for their mobile browser and some of their technologies per se. If they open source anything, which is impossible for such a company, then they will earn no money anymore. Maybe Mysql comes to the mind and dual-licensing, but that's a database not a mere browser.

And the so-called peanuts are peanuts because they could be easily rewritten. They can use it, it's free an so it's okay.

Btw. you're right Opera isn't comparable with Sun, because they earn money with service and hardware too.

So stop the crusade, we aren't Linux zealots, aren't we? We like freedom and it's their choice. There are many companies that't don't do open source but they are supporting open source with money, servers, hardware, sponsoring etc. and that's okay too. 

P.S.

>and the copyrighted AT&T code, if you want

Different story, some _lines_ of code in BSD and vice versa a plethora of code without proper license from BSD in AT&T UNIX.



> The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continued to be freely redistributed.



http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 15, 2009)

*im not*



			
				oliverh said:
			
		

> we aren't Linux zealots,


 no for sure im not , I love freebsd becuase it flag for freedom .


----------



## Purple_Q (Dec 15, 2009)

I don't know a thing about Seamonkey. I've never liked the Mozilla projects in the first place, so other than giving Firefox a spin, i've never tried any of the other stuff. My only experience, as mentioned before, was a slow and kind of clunky one in comparison to Opera. 

As per seamonkey-project.org, it states that Seamonkey has the same codebase and rendering engine as everything else Mozilla; Gecko.
 --Q


----------



## Beastie (Dec 15, 2009)

Seamonkey is okay. It looks very much like Netscape and acts similarly. I rarely use it though, only for the very few websites that fail to work well on Opera (only 1 so far).




			
				darkshadow said:
			
		

> no for sure im not , I love freebsd becuase it flag for freedom .


This one was for me. And calling someone a ____-zealot is usually used as some sort of "insult" in the computing world. So in order to stop the (flame) war before the first shots are fired, I decided to ignore it as well as his falsification of parts of what I first said.


----------



## Purple_Q (Dec 15, 2009)

Yeah, some can definitely get touchy about OS name dropping. Still, one statement he makes that I believe in:


> "We like freedom and it's their choice. There are many companies that't don't do open source but they are supporting open source with money, servers, hardware, sponsoring etc. and that's okay too."



This is why, depending obviously on who the company is and what they're producing, I have no problems using some closed source softwares.

It's obviously difficult to avoid an outright flamewar when comparing something so broad as web browsers, because everyone has good data and strong bias to back up their favorite software. Still, my original 2 cents stands; I don't care that Opera is closed source, for me, it's a better written, more efficient browser than is "insert browser here". Well, except links, can't really beat that with a stick 
  --Q


----------



## SPlissken (Dec 15, 2009)

Well , personnaly i like to use Opera.
I use it since several years now (may be five or six) under WinXP, Linux, FreeBSD.
I only use Firefox for flash plugin because it works better and because of DownloadHelper plugin.
For all other web browsing i prefer Opera.


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 15, 2009)

have fun on linux linux-zealot http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.12.16.145311.35.html hehehe , I love you guys realy I feel that im with my family http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002.4.12.161335.310.html


----------



## sixtydoses (Dec 15, 2009)

Oxyd said:
			
		

> Actually, this is what makes me wanna switch to Firefox occasionally -- lots of these cool and super-modern pages, like Facebook, don't work well in Opera.  But whenever I start Firefox I go like "Ughhhh" and it's back to Opera for me.



Can't agree more.

I love Opera except for the tab scrolling when you have too many tabs opened. The 'show extender menu' doesn't work as nice as Firefox. But yea, Opera provides tab thumbnail view which Firefox doesn't.

Oh well, I like both.


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 18, 2009)

I've been using Opera {again} since start of this thread...

I must admint, that It has Evolved a lot since I last used it. I found that I can use it for almost everything I use Firefox....

Ad blocking is not as good as with adblock+, but It works.... I like, that I can disable, enable cookies/JS/java/plugins very fast... [F12 key]. And easily manage per website preferences....

Also It's very customizable... and customizing is much easier....

I have to admin.... I'm very impressed.
I've tweaked Opera almost similar to my firefox config [except for vimperator addon, but I'll look at modifying key bindings...]

Will be using Opera for while 

Thanks to darkshadow, for reminding me about Opera


----------



## vermaden (Dec 18, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> I like, that I can disable, enable cookies/JS/java/plugins very fast... [F12 key].


I usually have custom buttons on status bar which enable/disable menu bar and the same for plugins.



			
				killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> I've tweaked Opera almost similar to my firefox config [except for vimperator addon, but I'll look at modifying key bindings...]


About config, try *Opera 9.2 Compatible *setting and *enable single key bindings *below, I always use it that way and its a lot more keyboard friendly, several things to mention:

*[1] / [2]* ----------> previous tab / next tab
*[z] / [x]* ----------> go back / go forward
*[/] / [f3]* ---------> start text search (vi like) / next result
*[CTRL] + [T]* -------> new tab
*[CTRL] + [W]* -------> close tab
*[CTRL] + [Z]* -------> bring back last closed tab, same like [CTRL] + [SHIFT] + [T] in Firefox
*[CTRL] + [.]* -------> stop
*[SHIFT] + [ARROW]* --> select next link in that direction (UP/DOWN/LEFT/RIGHT)


Also check this one for more info:
http://opera.com/browser/tutorials/nomouse/


----------



## Beastie (Dec 18, 2009)

At the very top, right under the menu bar (File, Edit, etc.) I have Backward, Forward, New tab, Open, Save, Reload, a Status Field, a button that opens the Transmission Web Interface and a Enable JavaScript checkbox.


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 18, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> Thanks to darkshadow, for reminding me about Opera


you are welcom any time my friend


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 19, 2009)

After reading what others are saying and thinking about it, I decided to try Opera. I did try it the first week it came out, but that was some years ago - around the same time as Cello, IIRC. Thanks for the suggestion darkshadow.

Yes, open source is one of the most important aspects, but it isn't the only criterion. The behaviour and ethics of a company counts too.

Anyway, Opera looks good on my new FreeBSD box and after an hour of using it, I can only say that it is a fine browser. The speed is good, things seem pretty standard, and nothing really bothered me.

The only thing is the tabs. Why? It means all tabs are resized if the window is! The idea of all open pages sharing the same window doesn't make sense to me. I've got over 40 pages open in FF right now and they each have their own window which is sized to suit the content. I just move through them like tabs. Alt-tab shows a list and I can pick or cycle. So, can someone enlighten me? Why only tabs?


----------



## Beastie (Dec 19, 2009)

*File* > *New Window* (ctrl+n)?
Right click on a URL > *Open in New/Background Window*?

Cycle with ctrl+tab.

Also check *Tools* > *Preferences* > *Advanced* > *Tabs* and *Additional tab options...*.


----------



## hermit (Dec 19, 2009)

well...*[font="Comic Sans MS"]OPERA[/font]* ROCKS!
ah...and it's better than fireshit...
:e


----------



## mickey (Dec 19, 2009)

My foo is bigger than your bar ... :stud


----------



## fonz (Dec 19, 2009)

hermit said:
			
		

> well...*[font="Comic Sans MS"]OPERA[/font]* ROCKS!
> ah...and it's better than fireshit...
> :e


`# cd /usr/ports`
`# make search key=fireshit`
_(no output appears)_
`# cd -`

Hmm, there appears to be no such thing as fireshit in ports...

If you like Opera that's fine, so do I. But you'd probably do a much better job advocating Opera on its own merits than you would trashtalking a rival browser that isn't bad either. Just a thought...

Alphons


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 19, 2009)

*that a little harsh*



			
				OJ said:
			
		

> Anyway, Opera looks good on my new FreeBSD box and after an hour of using it, I can only say that it is a fine browser. The speed is good, things seem pretty standard, and nothing really bothered me.


 sory,but I have to say ,what you mean by fine speed  and pretty standard , just for general  knowledge one of the first browser that obey and implement w3c standard is opera and it pay a lot of market share for that ,case many people   think that they are over the standard  and "they have the most of os market share or browser share like (microsoft or (put other here))" try to add or tweak the standard or invent new one ,which lead most  web site "that want there site be viewable in these platform"  to follow these  tweaks which make these sites not pretty viewable in opera(since it follow the standard) , and for speed point ,I think opera has Excelent speed so please when you measure something dont less estimate it


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 19, 2009)

Unreadable sentence. Apply some punctuation and capitalisation in your posts, please.


----------



## fonz (Dec 19, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Unreadable sentence. Apply some punctuation and capitalisation in your posts, please.


True.

Nevertheless, he raises an interesting point. If you have a very dominant position, you can try to "bend" standards and use your market share to move web designers towards your "standard" rather than the real one.

We've seen this in the past when the Microsoft-Netscape war was at its high (I'm talking about the mid to late '90s when the Internet Explorer was at version 3, 4 or maybe 5 and Netscape was at version 3 or 4). Both browsers suported several unique tags (remember Microsoft's <MARQUEE> monstrosity?) that were not part of any standard and if you as a webmaster wanted to build a site that looked good in both browsers, you had to go through quite a bit of trouble.

And even today, when HTML/CSS is highly standardized, many  (less educated?) webdesigners seem to have a "it works with the latest MSIE so it's good" philosophy.

Odd thing is that although Opera is said to be one of the most standard-compliant browsers, several sites don't work (well) with it. I'd like to chalk that one up to poor webdesign (and/or application programming, as the case may be), but that means there are a lot of bad webdesigners out there.

Alphons


----------



## chalbersma (Dec 19, 2009)

hermit said:
			
		

> well...*[font="Comic Sans MS"]OPERA[/font]* ROCKS!
> ah...and it's better than fireshit...
> :e



Fireshit build instructions.

Burrito + Super Hot Sauce + Ext. JalapeÃ±os + 8 Hours = Fireshit


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 20, 2009)

Ok, any further points on the subject of 'supporting Opera'. If not, let's leave it here.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 20, 2009)

It's funny that when I mentioned "pretty standard" I was referring to look and feel. To me all the big browsers are pretty standard. They all look the same, use the same kind of layout and keystrokes out of the box. Perhaps I should have chosen a more telling word like "common" or "pedestrian". 

Regarding W3C I certainly agree that it is something to aim at and ignore the web authors who eschew it. W3C compliance is indeed a good reason to use Opera.

Edit: Sorry DD. Your post came in while I was writing.


----------



## chalbersma (Dec 20, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Ok, any further points on the subject of 'supporting Opera'. If not, let's leave it here.



My bad Dutch.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 20, 2009)

Not specifically you, or anyone. Just don't want a pointless browser war with matching lingo in here.

So if the 'case for Opera' is now complete, we'll just move on and use and support whatever we like.


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 20, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Not specifically you, or anyone. Just don't want a pointless browser war with matching lingo in here.
> 
> So if the 'case for Opera' is now complete, we'll just move on and use and support whatever we like.


did I do somthing wrong im just try to share somthing with other ?!


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 20, 2009)

Read his post. He said "or anyone".  Several of us got something out of the discussion.


----------



## Eponasoft (Dec 20, 2009)

fonz said:
			
		

> True.
> 
> Nevertheless, he raises an interesting point. If you have a very dominant position, you can try to "bend" standards and use your market share to move web designers towards your "standard" rather than the real one.
> 
> ...


This post is made of pure win.

The sad fact is that it's really the web designers that are destroying the very industry they're purported to be working in. Very few web designers today follow the W3C standards and craft sites that explicitly target one or two browsers. This was a very common trend back in the late 90s and we've seen a resurgence of it in the last couple of years. Those standards exist for a reason! But try this...take just about every website you visit on a regular basis and run it through the W3C validator (not a forum though, they are more often than not standards compliant). A large number of them will fail. For example:

http://www.facebook.com: 39 errors
http://www.tagged.com: 16 errors, 11 warnings
http://www.freebsd.org: 1 error
http://www.google.com: 42 errors, 2 warnings
http://www.yahoo.com: 139 errors, 30 warnings
http://www.myspace.com: 63 errors, 20 warnings
http://www.twitter.com: 64 errors
http://www.getfirefox.com: 1 error, 1 warning
http://www.mozilla.com: 0 errors, 2 warnings
http://www.youtube.com: 136 errors, 45 warnings
http://www.microsoft.com: 365 errors, 34 warnings
http://www.wikipedia.org: 3 errors, 2 warnings
http://www.amazon.com: 1262 errors, 87 warnings
http://www.ebay.com: 216 errors
http://www.rapidshare.com: 78 errors, 17 warnings
http://www.flickr.com: 37 errors, 9 warnings
http://www.craigslist.org: 1 error, 1 warning
http://www.aol.com: 987 errors, 501 warnings
http://www.linkedin.com: 28 errors, 13 warnings

Out of all the sites I tested, only linux.org and wordpress.com passed validation. And all of these sites are either among the most popular in the world, or the most relevant to us here on this forum. Pretty sad, isn't it?

This is exactly why browsers like Opera, which insist on following the standards, fail to work on many of these sites. And most of these sites are extremely well-funded and developed by top web designers. There is no excuse, but there is an explanation...LAZINESS.

I installed Opera on the FreeBSD 8.0 system that I have running inside of VirtualBox. I installed as a package; I usually do this as building from source tends to take too long (though I did spend 7 hours building Xorg from source by building each of its parts individually...the horror) so I didn't know it had no source code...and frankly, don't really care either. I'm not really a fan of the interface, but I wasn't a fan of Firefox's at first either...making the transition from IE to Firefox was rather annoying, but necessary. But I will say that Firefox has indeed become out of control as of late. Even my build here, which is the older 3.0.x line, takes up too many resources, takes a long time to start up, and then, quite often, won't shut down...KDE pops up a dialog telling me that it's unresponsive and wants to know if I should shut it down forcefully. And the only add-ons I have are FireFTP and Download Statusbar.


----------



## Purple_Q (Dec 20, 2009)

> This is exactly why browsers like Opera, which insist on following the standards, fail to work on many of these sites.



I might ask what is wrong with your setup. I've never come across a site that doesn't work just fine yet. In fact, in terms of errors or malrenderings (yeah I made that word up, I think), the only thing i've ever had go at all "wrong" would be ebay pages. They display fine, except I find that after the item description and etc, there is a fair bit of white space between that and the bottom section (the portion of the page where the counter usually sits, and where the ticker for the seller's other items is).

Accept my apologies if I misunderstood the context of the above quote, but the words "fail to work" are absolutely incorrect as far as I can tell. I've been using this browser a real long time, never come across anything that "doesn't work".
  --Q


----------



## Eponasoft (Dec 20, 2009)

When I say "fail to work", I mean "fail to work as the designer intended". Many sites, not just the ones above, do not display correctly in Opera. This is NOT Opera's fault. This is the fault of the designers of these sites. However, if all you use is Opera, then you may end up failing to see how the sites are actually designed to be seen. Sure they'll _work_, but the WWW is largely a visual medium, and things just don't look right in Opera some of the time because the web designers are...well, I'll come right out and say it...stupid.


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 20, 2009)

*svg*

sad truth opera start latly to handle this non standard issue (they still standard complimiant as it fully  handle most of w3c standard) ,, for performance just try svg on opera and other browser like firefox and see how it work " if svg was implement before maybe flash would never appear  example " http://www.codedread.com/solitaire.php
by the way svg is w3c standard unlike flash and it had open specification


----------



## darkshadow (Dec 21, 2009)

*another resone to support opera*

google try using chrome to track you and violete your privasy by sending unqiue key to identify you 
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php
Suggest + client id = trake all site that you visit


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 21, 2009)

darkshadow said:
			
		

> google try using chrome to track you and violete your privasy by sending unqiue key to identify you
> http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php
> Suggest + client id = trake all site that you visit



As far as I know, this have been removed in Chromium


----------



## mickey (Dec 21, 2009)

As far as I know, Chrome is currently only available for Win, Mac and Linux. So why bother?


----------



## jjthomas (Jan 1, 2010)

I just use what works.  Campaigns to support this and that tend to be out of my hearing range.  I think years of deafening spam have affected my hearing.


----------



## vivek (Jan 1, 2010)

What's wrong with lynx  better use telnet client and talk to protocol directly :e

Seriously, never had any issue with firefox. I've like 5 addons running. But than again I've 8GB RAM


----------



## Alt (Jan 1, 2010)

I dont like opera =) It have completely weird caching algorythm - its something between firefox's and ie6's algorithm so its not totally crap and not standard-compliant. Its between..


----------



## darkshadow (Jan 1, 2010)

Alt said:
			
		

> I dont like opera =) It have completely weird caching algorythm - its something between firefox's and ie6's algorithm so its not totally crap and not standard-compliant. Its between..


it just your opinion if you have any reference I will be happy ,  by the way what I will benefit from supporting opera im not a spamer if I would I will sell micorsoft software (.net application ) I would not even post in open source forum


----------



## Alt (Jan 1, 2010)

As a web developer i put opera near ie6. For example. It does not have really good css hacks. If you push ctrl-f5/ctrl-r in firefox, chrome, ie - they will reload ALL files for current html page, using If-Modified-Since HTTP 1.1 header. Even IE7+ do what i want when ask to reload page. Opera does what it wants this case (try to *predict* file modified or not). But sometimes it uses this option. Sometimes. As IE6.


----------



## darkshadow (Jan 1, 2010)

Alt said:
			
		

> As a web developer i put opera near ie6. For example. It does not have really good css hacks. If you push ctrl-f5/ctrl-r in firefox, chrome, ie - they will reload ALL files for current html page, using If-Modified-Since HTTP 1.1 header. Even IE7+ do what i want when ask to reload page. Opera does what it wants this case (try to *predict* file modified or not). But sometimes it uses this option. Sometimes. As IE6.



hacks !!!!!!!!! is not standard
and im web developer too and I never had this proplem except with ie6 and im sure that there is way to refresh page (without cache ) in opera but if you have not will configared web server you will have proplem with caching even with recent browser and maybe case opera is standard complement it obey the wrong configured web server and didnt try to fetch the new(image , or css)


----------



## Alt (Jan 1, 2010)

Web server answers ok with last-modified w/o any cache forcing. Actually these files is static and server answer is ok. She(opera) just look last-modified its far ago and thinks they will not change when i push f5. I dunno about your web developing, what i belive its my experience. Hacks? When opera show some thing not by w3c standard, there must be a way to fix it. Its hacks. Try to do html+css cross-brower block layout and you will learn about hacks..


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 15, 2010)

I was writing homepage for my project....
And I must admit, that opera can suck sometimes with it's stupid image cache.

I've edited imaged, save it, and then hit f5 in opera, nothing changes I hit Ctrl+R, nothing changes, I delete all cache, hit f5, and again, it's same old image I see in page

The only way I found to work was completely close opera and reopen my page.


----------



## vermaden (Jan 15, 2010)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> The only way I found to work was completely close opera and reopen my page.



Strange, CTRL+R always seem to work for me, you can also change preferences to check images/document changes every time (instead of per several hours/days), also for day to day browsing this saves a lot of time/bandwidth.


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 15, 2010)

heck... i didn't thought of that. thanks


----------



## fonz (Jan 15, 2010)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> And I must admit, that opera can suck sometimes with it's stupid image cache.


Preferences -> Advanced -> History
Also try right-click -> reload image.

Although I do get the impression that these only work properly when an actual *server* is involved (apparently Opera can query a server for last modification times, but cannot lookup a local file's last modified time(!)). When viewing local files, treat as "all else fails" (see below).


			
				killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> The only way I found to work was completely close opera and reopen my page.


Even if all else fails, opening the image and reloading it should *always* work.

Alphons (not trying to sell you on Opera, use whatever you want)


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Jan 16, 2010)

Let feed this troll!




> Now I'll look how can I manage cookies and block adds.... if Opera can do that, and some more features that I use on Firefox



Opera can do both. Without the need for silly QA-less extensions.



> seams opera use at least 2-3x less CPU, that Firefox



I've never measured it, but over the years I've used both Opera and Firefox on low-CPU systems, and found Opera performance to be *far* superior, even with the new "speed-improved" firefox 3.

Two examples:
I recently have been using a mix of Firefox and Opera on my OpenBSD system, I did this because I wanted to switch to firefox (Opera has issues on OpenBSD due to linux emulation), this is on my laptop with pretty aggressive CPU throttling enabled (Meaning my T8300 is running at 800Mhz almost all of the time).

Opera is noticeably faster, especially after I had to install a number of extensions for firefox (Mostly stuff that is included by default on Opera).

Second example is my workstation at work, which is a Celeron 1.7GHz Windows XP machine, Opera is much faster on this machine. I used firefox in the past because our intranet doesn't work with Opera. I finally managed to hack together a custom UserCSS to get it working with Opera. (Can firefox do this btw?)?

I never look at memory usage and all that nonsense, it's the user experience that counts, how much memory the app uses is of little interest of me.

I've been using both Opera and firefox for many years. I started out with firefox back when it was still called firebird, and with Opera back when you had the advertisement.

I would like to use a free software browser, but at the same time the free webbrowser applications (including firefox) simply do not work for me for a number of reasons ... Opera is a much better application on every single issue I can think of at this point ... Except of course that it isn't free software.
It's not so much that Opera is the best webbrowser out there, just the one that sucks the least ...



> Its one of the best browsers (Firefox may be only considered because of extensions, without extensions, Opera is the best).



It is a common misunderstanding that Opera does not support extensions, it does, you can use UserJS (Same as Greasemonkey), add custom menu items, buttons, etc.

Here's my current Opera setup btw, how many extensions do I need to get the same effect with firefox? Remember, every extensions is a piece of code without QA, which slows the application down, is something you need to search for (And possibly compare to other similar extensions), need to update, etc.
http://www.rwxrwxrwx.net/desktop.png


----------



## crsd (Jan 16, 2010)

So this thread finally turned to opera vs firefox only BS.


----------



## respite (Jan 17, 2010)

I really like opera. I was using it regularly for the past few years, but ive abandoned it for firefox full time. I now do a lot of mobile computing which requires the use of ssh tunnels. Opera does not support SOCKS.


----------



## vermaden (Jan 18, 2010)

Dunno if anyone mentioned this, but on this Opera wiki-like page, you will find all needed info about how to configure Opera your way:
http://operawiki.info/

For example buttons that do various things (hide menus/sidebars): http://operawiki.info/CustomButtons


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 18, 2010)

vermaden said:
			
		

> Dunno if anyone mentioned this, but on this Opera wiki-like page, you will find all needed info about how to configure Opera your way:
> http://operawiki.info/
> 
> For example buttons that do various things (hide menus/sidebars): http://operawiki.info/CustomButtons



There's also this [I find it much better]
ftp://76.11.58.186/VectronicsOperaButtons.htm

and this
http://www.aimwell.org/Help/Buttons/buttons.html


----------



## Penel (Jan 19, 2010)

I use Opera on my Blackberrys only to download large email attachments and files, > 4MB.

However, Firefox is my full time web browser on my  desktop/workstations as here in Canada, the CRA(Canadian Revenue Agency) and Government of Canada websites only support IE, Firefox, and Safari. 

I frequently need access to my Government service accounts so I am binded to Firefox.


----------



## morbit (Jan 23, 2010)

Oh, and talking about "pure-speed-chrome-style", you should really check 10.5 pre-alpha.

http://snapshot.opera.com/unix/labs-6177/

(untar, run ./opera)

Mind you, this is more of a technology preview than beta.
(e.g. font rendering is less than ideal)

(+ 10.5 will use whichever lib you have (QT, GTK or pure X) so there will be no dependency bloat. At the moment it defaults to GTK).

Side note- SRWare Iron is stripped version of Chrome (lack of user tracking), also there is ongoing effort to port Chromium to FreeBSD. I would personally try Uzbl, but it have too many dependencies for my liking (If I reckon correctly, something really wants DBUS).

*To be frank, dependencies are WebKit fault.


----------



## vermaden (Jan 23, 2010)

@morbit

At current state newest Opera snapshot does not even respect my ~/.fonts.conf font renderring settings, so no go here.

I am 100% happy with current stable Opera 10.


----------



## tobii (Jan 23, 2010)

I've been a Firefox user for some years now, the number of Addons I was using has been growing so has the CPU and Memory consumption.
Think it was when I saw Firefox using like 1.5 GB of Ram I tried out several other Browsers including Webkit based and also Opera but I dont like Closed Source.
Then I discovered Projects like surf (http://surf.suckless.org) and then finally uzbl (http://uzbl.org), quite liked the Idea that it puts me in Charge of what to do when I want to download something or how it handles bookmarks and whatnot.
Just check out those Projects if you havent and don't really need buttons, menus and so on.


----------



## morbit (Jan 23, 2010)

vermaden said:
			
		

> @morbit
> 
> At current state newest Opera snapshot does not even respect my ~/.fonts.conf font renderring settings, so no go here.
> 
> I am 100% happy with current stable Opera 10.



Sure, but look at Peacekeeper, V8, Sunspider (Dromaeo?) numbers pushed 
It's showcase for a new (Carakan) JS engine.


----------



## Beastie (Jan 23, 2010)

morbit said:
			
		

> 10.5 will use whichever lib you have (QT, GTK or pure X) so there will be no dependency bloat. At the moment it defaults to GTK


Yes, this is a very good news.




> This means that you can run Opera without any graphical toolkit installed if you want to (plain X11), but if you do have toolkits installed, Opera will try to load and use them to integrate into the environment. Currently we are focusing on getting support for Gnome/GTK+ and KDE4/Qt4 into 10.5. The work on KDE4 integration is not at a stage yet where we think it can be used, so this pre-alpha release only has support for GTK. As a work in progress, you will notice that not all UI elements conform to their GTK specifications yet.


(source)




> Opera is not built with GTK, not now and not in the future. It uses its own toolkit (Quick). In Peregrine on Linux, that toolkit draws using Qt (but doesn't use it for a lot of other things); In Evenes, it only uses X11 drawing primitives.
> 
> However, if it's available, Evenes will load GTK and paint widget elements with it. Of course that doesn't make it a GTK application, and it still has to live within the rules of our toolkit. This is similar to how for example Firefox, OpenOffice and the Qt GTK skin engine work. Similarly, on Mac and Windows, we use their native toolkits to paint quick's widget elements.
> 
> Also to highlight one other key point, we are also working on KDE integration but we don't yet have a public build nor screen shots that we are happy to share yet. However, the idea is that if you run under KDE, the KDE native look will load, if you run it under other environments and the GTK libraries are available they will load and if neither GTK or Qt/KDE libraries are available Opera will still run using only its own toolkit. Hence there is no dependency on either GTK or Qt/KDE.


(source, check screenshots)


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 23, 2010)

awesome


----------



## chalbersma (Jan 24, 2010)

vermaden said:
			
		

> @morbit
> 
> At current state newest Opera snapshot does not even respect my ~/.fonts.conf font renderring settings, so no go here.
> 
> I am 100% happy with current stable Opera 10.



Well it is a Pre-Alpha. So behavior like that is expected.


----------



## trev (Jan 24, 2010)

darkshadow said:
			
		

> by the way chrome will take over firefox , and firefox will end up like netscape and then we will big google to give us the source or even binarie which running on freebsd , recored that for me and we will meet after 3 year and we will see who is right I bet on that http://coolwebdeveloper.com/2009/03/is-firefox-dying-a-slow-death/



You're already wrong about the demise of Netscape... I moved from Mosaic to Netscape Communicator until it no longer loaded web pages, and then I moved to its successor using the same source code which was the Mozilla Suite, and now I'm using the SeaMonkey Suite which is the latest incarnation of the Netscape Communicator source code. 

So, Netscape Communicator (web/email/news/HTML composer/etc) still lives!


----------



## inurneck (Jan 24, 2010)

Sigh. Interesting thread.


----------



## dennylin93 (Jan 24, 2010)

I've been using Firefox ever since 1.0 came out, and I tried out Opera a while ago.

Opera definitely uses less resources than Firefox, so it's suitable for computers that aren't as powerful. The performance of Firefox has improved lately, but it still uses more resources than Opera. Using renice usually solves my problems though.

I don't really like the text in Opera. Chinese characters aren't rendered well. Not sure if this is because of my settings though.

Opera also requires QT at the moment which is a bit annoying since I don't have any KDE apps installed. Good to hear that this will be fixed in 10.5.

Another advantage Firefox has over Opera is the number of plugins that are available.


----------



## Beastie (Jan 24, 2010)

dennylin93 said:
			
		

> Opera also requires QT at the moment which is a bit annoying since I don't have any KDE apps installed. Good to hear that this will be fixed in 10.5.


It uses Qt3, and most KDE applications use Qt4, don't they?
The few graphical applications I use are mostly GTK+-based and opera is the only Qt3-based one. But it will be even better with 10.5. Hopefully I'll be able to make it work with GTK+.



			
				dennylin93 said:
			
		

> Another advantage Firefox has over Opera is the number of plugins that are available.


What kind of plugins? I've never needed to extend Opera. Everything I'd need as an extension in Firefox is already there in Opera.


----------



## inurneck (Jan 24, 2010)

Why as humans do we have to be so competitive by design? It's so foolish. Whats's wrong with the fact that maybe firefox works best for nick yet opera is best liked by mike? Your all gonna hit each other back and forth until the thread just goes away, and it will. No one is going to win here because there is no prize. In the end your all going to use what you want to use because you all have a thousand valid reasons why "x" is best for you.

 I use opera on My windows box, as well as FreeBSD and I use Safari on my MAC. The day safari is available on FreeBSD I might just can opera all together, or I might use both. I haven't had to extend opera, it came with everything I needed. A stable browser that didn't crash. I don't need to see any of the code, I am too busy looking at forums.freebsd.org or whatever. Someone else might want to SEE the code and respect that "x" let's you. 

Anyway, I began using it opera on windows boxes because I hated IE with a passion, and seen it could be installed on UNIX and was souped so I installed it. Firefox wasn't in the equation for me because from my personal experience it was buggy and crashed all the time. It reminded me of netscape navigator back in the day. It was like trying to run a JAVA app on windows NT. Some people mentioned a mailer program on opera, I must say this surprised me. Ive installed opera repeatedly on two laptops and three towers over the course now of a few years and I have never seen any mailer program. I am not sure what that's about.

 But at the end of the day we are all going to use what we want to use because from our own personal experiences it worked best for us, and we are all going to have valid good reasons for doing so. Our own reasons. Why make it competitive. Few things get under my skin more than a "fanboy" who happens to like "x", pushes it on everyone and has a hundred reasons (his own.) to bash everyone else's choice. The people I am talking about here are very general, love name brands, have to have the best of the best, are materialistic and what they don't realize is they are the people that feed and make conglomerate corporations want to view, analyze, and exploit everything you do, see, and touch, including your web browsing so they can sell. sell. sell. 

I like sony products because I have had nothing but good experiences. If I had to go buy a monitor right now i'd probably look there first. I'd offer my opinion on it given the first chance. But you wouldn't see me here talking about what a shitty company panasonic is. Come on, get your heads out of the sand. Much like I am trying to explain here about personal choices, the same goes for opinions. So please take what I say with a grain of salt. It's not directed at anyone here. I'm just trying to open your eyes. No product is better then another ESPECIALLY when your talking about computers. PC should stand for personal choice. It's simply what works best for you, and your experiences with it. I will say getting flash working right with opera on freebsd was a lot harder than it needed to be, but I am a patient man.


----------



## Beastie (Jan 24, 2010)

inurneck said:
			
		

> Your all gonna hit each other back and forth until the thread just goes away, and it will.


You're misinterpreting things here. Few of us are saying one browser is better than the other. "Religious" wars are pointless and most of us know it.


----------



## inurneck (Jan 24, 2010)

Beastie said:
			
		

> You're misinterpreting things here. Few of us are saying one browser is better than the other. "Religious" wars are pointless and most of us know it.



If your one of the people that know it's pointless (and I know you are.) than my post wasn't directed at you. I haven't misinterpreted anything and I am looking at six pages of posts that prove that. But like I said, i am not pointing at anyone, and not going to quote them out now. Just trying to get that few as you call them, to open their eyes.


----------



## Eponasoft (Jan 24, 2010)

My browser is better than your browser. End of story!


----------



## inurneck (Jan 24, 2010)

Eponasoft said:
			
		

> My browser is better than your browser. End of story!



Indeed.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jan 24, 2010)

End of story it is


----------

