Free as in beer, that is.
After Opera offered free licenses on their 10th anniversary, they have now decided to make their desktop version of their web suite completely free of charge. Opera's main income was from mobile devices all the time, but is this their way of trying to establish a larger user base?
The suite can be downloaded here:
http://opera.com/
(Split off from this post: http://4-ch.net/net/kareha.pl/1110769901/73)
As for myself, I am currently running Opera; because it's free, and because the OS X port of Firefox is slow and buggy. Opera runs way faster, is way less bloated, and also surfs faster than Firefox.
I've been a Firefox user since the late Firebird era, and Opera never gave me the same feeling while using it, so I've been holding onto the good old bird because of it's unique feel. In OS X, Firefox doesn't feel the way it did anymore. That's why I will give Opera another try, it's a decent browser after all.
SAFARI IS NOT AN OPTION.
Pretty cool, always nice to have alternatives. It seems fast enough, etc. Just gotta figure out how to customize the toolbar placement more (;´д⊂)...
>>2
What's the prob with safari? I haven't used it for a little while, but previously always found it to be very nice. You are right about the osx firefox though, too clunky (⊃д⊂)...
>>2
tried shiira?
>>3
There are several things that I didn't like in Safari, and while it might be possible to customize the browser, I was not able to make it work the way I wanted it to do.
>>4
Not until now (posting from Shiira). This software has excellent OS X integration, but I'm missing mouse gestures and some other things. Shiira might become my browser of choice if I can alter it to my liking.
I have now installed Cocoa Gestures, and that left me with a pretty nice browser.
>>2: Have you tried Camino? It's a Gecko-based browser but without Firefox's bloat. http://www.caminobrowser.org/
I also find it odd that you can speak of wanting OS X integration, and yet fancy Opera. That program does some rather ugly un-OS X things... Just like Firefox.
>>7
I never said that I wanted OS X integration, did I? It's a nice plus, but I'd probably never use those features anyway. Neither Opera nor Firefox takes any special adventage of OS X, but Opera doesn't act as slow and buggy.
I'll give Camino a chance later.
So software that garishly clashes with the OS is okay with you?! Might wanna go back to Linux.
>>9
Are you only thinking of the visuals? In my opinion, performance is the most important task. It's not like I look at the browser itself either, the first thing for me to do with a browser is to remove all icons. A web browser is something you use to browse the web.
Also, this shareware OmniWeb browser thingie which was supposed to be awesome just sucked, and required paid registration. I don't get it. Why do people want to use something like that. The official website said that every time you use OmniWeb, you'll think "Wow, this rules!"
I bought a Mac to be able to use the Adobe applications at first, but later realized that OS X is utterly awesome. I enjoy working in OS X, isn't that what counts?
Opera has to start focusing on their horrid user interface. To be fair, I haven't used the windows version, but the mac version is awful.
The windows version is wonderful.
At least once I've stripped most of the eyecandy away. What's with this recent desire everyone has to skin their app? Is this Winamp's fault?
I agree that Opera's interface is horrid. The main window has a million buttons that perform actions that are not very clear, and change into other buttons, and generally aren't actually very useful.
The preferences, if I recall correctly, are also a complete mess.
Which is why you customize it.
If you're willing to download extensions to make Firefox usable, why aren't you willing to alter Opera's interface to make it usable?
In any case, 8.0 fixed up a lot of the interface issues.
I don't download extensions to make Firefox usable - it's near perfect out of the box. I download extensions if I want some more esotertic features, and most of the time I don't even bother with that (apart from Flashblock, which really should be part of the base distro).
I've long since gone past the point where I feel I have the time to nurse each program into usability by obsessive tweaking. I want programs that work fine out of the box. Firefox does, which is why hold it in such high respect.
Perfect? Yikes.
I could vent quite a bit of hate about that. FF is positively hostile to dialup users.
I'm not usually on dialup, but even when I am, I've not noticed any problems with the base Firefox setup.
Because you've never compared Opera and Firefox on a dialup. It's like the people who use IE: they're happy with what they have, not knowing what they're missing.
I've been on this cursed modem connection for years. It's no accident I'm in love with Opera.
If they made Opera a tiny bit better in Linux, I would actually buy the damn thing; to hell will GNU philosophy and Firefox.
That was probably a smart move on Opera's part, and they should've done it sooner.
To be honest, there's no amount of wonderful features that justify paying 40 dollars for a browser. It seems like a lot of people have jumped the IE ship since firefox came around and "BUT THIS ONE IS FREE." almost always wins out. I probably would've used firefox if someone hadn't turned me on to Opera before the whole FF craze started and I was still on IE.
My only real complaint about Opera is that it didn't work with a few websites I go to regularly, and the two main ones I whined about work perfectly now.
Firefox has nothing to do with GNU, though.
Opera's menu bar is not a toolbar like in Firefox. So there is a lot of wasted space to the right of the menu bar. I always use it with the window maximized, so it would be nice to put the adress bar to the right of the menu bar or something.
> it would be nice to put the adress bar to the right of the menu bar or something.
fucking win.
i just did this and saved a whole 3/8 inch of screen space on my 21-inch monitor
Heh, the reason I started using Opera years ago, is that when I was on dial-up for a while, I tried out Opera, and it was obviously faster than IE.
Not sure about FF on dial-up though.
FF is a bit worse on dialup that IE. My favorite example is that it saves a webpage off the network, not of the already-downloaded copy.
So, if I go offline, I can't save. Also, if I'm online, I might save something that has changed.
Is there any way to turn this off? It's retarded behaviour.
opera 9.0 technology preview 1 looks like it might be worth looking into...
http://snapshot.opera.com/windows/w90p1.html
What I'd really like to see on that list are:
I've been throwing bug reports about these things since 8.0, but none have been fixed. !#%^
> Added support for XSLT 1.0 and the XSLTProcessor constructor.
ABOUT FUCKING TIME
> ABOUT FUCKING TIME
More like, "Whoa, you mean people use this?"
>>29
apparently it's broken (doesn't display anything at all on any of the sites that use xslt that i've gone to)
Opera can sometimes glitch out with 4-ch... Specifically, the Opera 9 preview has problems with the "expanding text box" Javascript here (it doesn't let you type in the comment box). This may only be an issue with the Mac version, but I haven't looked into it much.
Anyway, if you have this problem, I've written a little User Javascript that solves the problem...
// ==UserScript==
// @include http://4-ch.net/*
// ==/UserScript==window.opera.defineMagicFunction('size_field', function(f,l) { });Drop that into a .js file and save it someplace handy. Then go here http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/userjs/using/#writingscripts if you don't know how to tell Opera about your .js files. Voila! 4-ch goodness in Opera. ^_^
opera mini is now freely available... i'm using it now and it seems a lot nicer than the browser that came with my phone...
>>34
oh, and the place to download it is http://mini.opera.com/, in case anyone was wondering...
I'll stick to browsers that are free as in freedom, thanks.
There isn't a single thing wrong with Free as in Beer.
>>36
perhaps you can name a few modern browsers that are free as in freedom? i can't think of any... and no, MPL/GPL/LGPL is not free as in freedom.
>>38 what's wrong with dual licensing?! jerk.
But "freedom" means forcing others to follow your philosophy!
Indeed, there's nothing at all wrong with "free as in beer." Much of the software I use is free in both senses.
>>38
w3m is BSD-licensed. Perhaps you don't consider it modern, but I use it to post to 4-ch every day. It does suck that Mozilla is (at best) LGPL'd, but I'd still prefer that to something completely proprietary.
It's reasoning like this that turned me off from linux.
People often put up with sub-par software because it fits in with their dogma.
It has nothing to do with dogma at all; I often improve programs or modify them to suit my needs better. Can't do that with no source. For me, non-free software is simply impractical.
> I often improve programs or modify them to suit my needs better.
Yeah, right.
Way to go, >>44! You totally won the thread right there.
>>44
Just because the vast majority of people don't do that doesn't mean that somebody in a programming board wouldn't do such a thing. I'm not >>43, but I tend to try to troubleshoot programs that I have issues with as well, unless it's hueg liek mozilla.
I find your reasoning troublesome as well. Ignore dogma completely (even other people's!) when choosing an operating environment; just use one that you like and has software you can stand using. That's why I use Linux, more or less; I can stand GTK2 applications and I like Window Maker more than I like the OS X shell and explorer.exe. (Having these run on top of a system which is admittedly badly crufty but with which I'm familiar is a minor plus.)
Now, people's dogmas may lead to a lack of usable software, but that's something else. Pretty much all camps have their annoying 12 year old "advocates".
> in a programming board
This is internet culture, not programming.
Yeah, but all the non-bold text in that post was absolutely correct.
>>48 uses the "Amber" style.
> Ignore dogma completely (even other people's!) when choosing an operating environment; just use one that you like and has software you can stand using.
This is a sentiment I agree to. However, a lot of people don't think like this. I was probably a little too harsh on >>43, but in my experience the majority of people who trumpet the wonders of OSS have never even read an INSTALL file, let alone the rest of the source. For them it's just another soundbite to add to a decision they already made.
When was the last time you hacked on a browser? For 99.99% of vocal OSS advocates, that would be never. So the benefit is entirely within their head, yet at the same time they use software that has been done better elsewhere.
It goes like this: if you have the skill to be making non-trivial changes to foreign source trees, and the spare time to be doing it, why aren't you out earning a living or writing your own software with that skill? Random hacking on various half-baked software is a drag, takes a long time, contributes little to the collective wealth, and I find it hard to believe anyone would do it willingly.
Who says useful changes have to be non-trivial? ... I am writing my own software with that skill, but I can't write an entire OS, shell, compiler, web browser, etc. all by myself. So I use free software and when I can make it work better for me I do.
> Who says useful changes have to be non-trivial?
Usually because the low-hanging fruit has already been taken.
> but I can't write an entire OS, shell, compiler, web browser, etc. all by myself.
You'd be better off requesting the features from people already familiar with the code. All that wasted time in code exporation would be better spent on refining your own software.
Okay, 52, I'm glad you've presented your own unique viewpoint. I'll bet that means a lot to you.
This is a discussion board.
Since you state your views as fact, there's little to discuss. Why not write like someone whose mind can be changed? Posting without a tripcode would be a start.
On the offchance you're not just posting to impress people ("wow, look how much this dmpk5k guy knows!"), I'll try to explain: Most of the low-hanging fruit often hasn't been taken. The "wasted time" exploring the code is in fact quite educational as to how certain types of programs can be organized and implemented, and it is the first step in enabling projects to procure more maintainers, which is essential since most individuals cannot design large software systems by themselves.
> Posting without a tripcode would be a start.
This recent attitude brought in from 4chan bothers me. If you want to debate the merits, go here: http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1110953600/
> On the offchance you're not just posting to impress people
http://www.google.com/search?q=dmpk2k+inurl:4-ch.net&filter=0
> it is the first step in enabling projects to procure more maintainers
For one or two projects. Not many (or often as it were). If a person does this for many projects, they're contributing little.
You surely are familiar with the concept of wikis. Random people come in, fix spelling mistakes and so on, and go away. Enough people do this that it helps a lot. And a few people find lots to fix, so they stick around, working to make the wiki better. So it is with software, but substitute "bugs" for "spelling mistakes", etc.
[My view on posting with a name is entirely my own; I have never used 4chan or any imageboard for that matter. Your posts seem to have an "I'm always right" mentality that irritates me and would not work anonymously, but perhaps I'm imagining it. Still that seems a good argument for scrapping the pseudonym, but this is off topic.]
Spelling mistakes are trivial, while fixing bugs and adding features requires some familiarity with the code. A better comparison would be researching before editing a wikipedia topic.
I'm not doubting that OSS works. Considering that my websites run on OSS software, I sometimes contribute to an OSS project, and I earn a living with OSS, I'm aware of its benefits.
What I'm griping about are people who insist on using OSS, even if there are better alternatives available (and many of these people can't even code). I've been using linux for close to a decade, and eventually that attitude got old, because these people usually come with the belief that OSS is always best, with the resulting consequences. The zealots, if you will. This may not be you, so I apologize.
> My view on posting with a name is entirely my own
I have no problem with your choice in posting anonymously. I hope it'll apply the other way around too.
What I'm explaining is that using a computer, for me, often means adapting programs to work in a manner I find more useful. I do not do this every day, or with every program I ever use, but I do it often enough that unmodifiable programs are of much less use to me. In other words, even if closed-source programs have more features, perform their jobs faster, or whatever, they are still not as "good"... for my purposes, that is.
I also find that many bugs are trivial to fix. In the case of a segfault, I get a core dump that usually leads me right to the problem. Many bugs are as simple as typos: "==" instead of "!=", for instance. It does take some time to familiarize myself with the code -- certainly, it's more involved than fixing a spelling mistake. But when a bug is preventing me from getting my work done, spending a half hour to an hour to fix it sure beats, um, sending a letter to the author asking to please fix it and give me a new version. Or rewriting the program from scratch.
I readily admit that I am not in the majority when it comes to my willingness and ability to get into code and fix it, although consider the fact that I have many friends and each of them has a programmer as a friend, and I may be more responsive to my friends' needs than some random software developer out there, and then you can see how a lot of people stand to benefit from a free software movement (even if its most hyped license is stupidly restrictive).
> In other words, even if closed-source programs have more features, perform their jobs faster, or whatever, they are still not as "good"... for my purposes, that is.
Even if you aren't modifying the OSS version? You can only modify a small fraction of the software on your system due to time.
Everyone uses programs to get work done, but it seems to me that often the closed version, even with the unfixable bugs, is far more useful than the OSS one. If someone wants to improve an OSS program, that's fine, but since I don't, I'll use the best tool available. Even if I wanted to, some of the OSS versions have a long way to go.
Having source is nice, but I don't think it should the defining factor, unless you're a corporation attempting to mitigate risk. The programs exist to do something after all.
I feel like you're not really listening.
Yes, use the "best" program in terms of speed, features, and user interface, if...
For you, clearly, all these bullet points ring true. For me, in general, none do, so for a program to be "good" for me -- which is a subjective thing -- the software's source must be available, letting me read and modify it.
> some of the OSS versions have a long way to go
This is absolutely true for many applications dealing with music production, video production, and graphic design. My theory is that it has to do with personality types: the userbases for these applications tend to consist largely of Sensing people, while hacking code and collaborating over the internet appeal strongly to iNtuitive personalities.
I'm listening, but I don't understand.
If you have an unequalled piece of closed software, why use an open one? The argument seems to be that you'd like the source so you can alter the program or peruse its source, but you can't do that for most OSS programs you use. There just isn't enough time.
So how is it any different from using a closed program? You'll never see the source anyway, and in the meantime you use a lesser program. Why? Just because it's OSS?
> but you can't do that for most OSS programs
There lies your mistake. I can, and often do.
oh, and you might want to add:
// @include http://*.4-ch.net/*
// @include http://wakaba.c3.cx/*>>62
Fail for not understanding what freedom means. Enjoy your AIDS^W DRM, forcing itself onto a computer you paid for in a few years' time.
test