Linked by vodoomoth on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 09:03 UTC
Opera Software Opera 10.60 has been released July 1 for Mac OS X and is available for download. The features highlighted on the changelogs page are: layout engine (codename 'Presto'), HTML5 with support for offline web applications, WebM, which has been available in Opera (in a special build) on the very day of the announcement at the Google I/O conference, web workers for running scripts in the background without impeding the browsing experience, and geolocation. Version 10.60 is also available for Windows and Linux/BSD.
Order by: Score:
Hmmm
by kvarbanov on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 09:56 UTC
kvarbanov
Member since:
2008-06-16

Just installed the latest one for OpenSuse, and I already see some slowdowns in both the UI and loading pages, especially with Flash. Oh, they still don't have Flashblock available as addon ... just the CSS old hack ... BTW, it looks like all browsers are going to look the same pretty soon - Opera, Chrome, Firefox - tabs on top, autocompletion of the URLs in the omnibox, all in one button for options, combined button for stop/reload ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmmm
by lucke on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 11:59 UTC in reply to "Hmmm"
lucke Member since:
2007-01-07

Look for "Enable On Demand Plugin" in opera:config.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmmm
by chandler on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
chandler Member since:
2006-08-29

The "on demand plugin" setting doesn't actually work - see for instance http://www.youtube.com/apple . On other sites I can't click to enable applets at all. I've been trying it for a while now and when they finally work out the on demand plugin setting I'll probably switch to it full time.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmmm
by vodoomoth on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 13:09 UTC in reply to "Hmmm"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Just installed the latest one for OpenSuse, and I already see some slowdowns in both the UI and loading pages, especially with Flash. Oh, they still don't have Flashblock available as addon ... just the CSS old hack ... BTW, it looks like all browsers are going to look the same pretty soon - Opera, Chrome, Firefox - tabs on top, autocompletion of the URLs in the omnibox, all in one button for options, combined button for stop/reload ;)

I didn't know of that CSS hack but I don't fiddle with config files, CSS or user javascript. There's no need for a Flashblock addon (I don't know this addon, I guess it's supposed to block Flash) because there's an option to deactivate plugins in the Preferences and Flash is the only plugin I've ever needed. Should I need a plugin to play music scores but keep Flash out, I'll read the help doc. IIRC, there's an enhancement/user request for disabling plugins individually.

AdBlock or GreaseMonkey are not needed either, the features have been there for years. Even a Firebug equivalent is there. Moreover, I don't care whether a functionality is provided via an addon, plugin, extension, toolbar or integration. Are there people who do for anything other than IE?

I'd rather have FF save and load what Opera calls "sessions" than depend on an addon to bring a browser feature. If it's part of my daily browsing, it should be in the browser (looking at FF) and if it is not, but is related to the web, I like when it's there and I can use it should the not-so-rare need present itself (looking at Opera, for torrents, IRC, emails, etc.) but that's just me. Diversity is so great!

I link to releases because I use and support Opera and because many of the features that make my typical browsing experience (tabs, sessions, that omnibox thing, pswd manager, form filling, maybe even that combined stop/reload, mouseless browsing, viewing previous pages without losing text in the current page, popup blocking, duplicating a page with its whole history) come from them, not to blow wind on the "browser war 2.0" (dixit Kroc) fire. Figures speak for themselves as to the [lack of] popularity of Opera desktop so no illusions here. Crossfeeding (if it's an English word) is at work as features found elsewhere have been imported too, or renamed, which I hated.

For those who care to read it, the introduction of features is documented at http://www.opera.com/docs/history/index.dml and the list of pioneered features will surprise some. Examples? Popup blocking appeared in Opera 3.00 in december 1997. Raise your hand if you browse without pop-up windows blocking. Skins were in as early as 2001 and allow changing all icons and buttons or making round boxes square and vice-versa!

Rationalizing but I'm fond of Opera, that's all.

Just checked. Chrome on Mac doesn't have a stop button and Firefox 3.6.6 has separate buttons for stop and reload. Are you sure? I tried adding a stop button in Chrome and very quickly got tired of searching.

Yes, they'll look alike soon although I wouldn't be surprised if a skin that makes Opera look exactly like Chrome or FF existed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmmm
by WereCatf on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I didn't know of that CSS hack but I don't fiddle with config files, CSS or user javascript. There's no need for a Flashblock addon (I don't know this addon, I guess it's supposed to block Flash) because there's an option to deactivate plugins in the Preferences and Flash is the only plugin I've ever needed.

Disabling Flash plugin completely is not usually an option for most people as there are some sites and places where Flash is needed. Flash Block works by replacing Flash content on websites with a simple button that you click and only then the browser loads the Flash content and plays it. The benefits? Well, it reduces the amount of data downloaded and it also speeds up loading of websites while still requiring only one extra click if the Flash content is really needed, and the extra security it grants by not playing all Flash content by default. (Loads of malware and viruses spread via Flash ads)

The CSS hack hides Flash content or provides a similar button you can click to display the content, but since it's a CSS hack it works only after the content has already been downloaded. This results in slower browsing experience when compared to an actual plugin/addon as all the Flash content is still loaded and the Flash plugin initialized.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Hmmm
by lucke on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
lucke Member since:
2007-01-07

This new "load plugins on demand" works just like flashblock, as far as I can say. You click on a placeholder image and you have your flash content running.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmmm
by kvarbanov on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 13:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
kvarbanov Member since:
2008-06-16

That's exactly what I meant. Being used to that useful addon with FF and Chrome, I can't imagine working without it, especially on most of the sites, where everyone feels obliged to share Flash Ads for some new product, which is OK, but if I have an option not to see it or download any content at all. FF's plugin does better for a number of reasons, but that's not the point. I'm not being too critical on Opera, it's just I can't work or use their software efficiently. I don't dismiss their inventions like pop-ups, etc, etc. To me, it looks like versions after 10.10 are somewhat unstable at different setup/systems and maintaining a multi-OS env. doesn't permit a lot of time in debugging, hence I'll simply stay with FF (beta 4 soon) and Chrome, but I wanted to try Opera again - 9 and 10 releases were pretty good.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hmmm
by yoursecretninja on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
yoursecretninja Member since:
2006-01-02

Just checked. Chrome on Mac doesn't have a stop button and Firefox 3.6.6 has separate buttons for stop and reload.

Chrome on Mac does indeed have a stop button... it works similar to Safari. When a page is loading, the "go" button (which looks like a play button since the icon is a forward arrow) next to the address bar turns into a "stop button" (which looks like a close button since the icon is an x).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmmm
by vodoomoth on Sun 4th Jul 2010 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

My mistake.

Reply Score: 1

Randomly crashing
by hexplor on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 10:01 UTC
hexplor
Member since:
2005-07-30

I'm not using it on my Mac Os X either... It's randomly crashing on some pages. I like Opera cos it's robust and very advanced but that's not the point. I prefer solid and simple Chrome when i work. Yesterday Opera crashed even when it was running in the background with one tab opened... Come on guys. Maybe 10.10 was old, but was stable as hell.

Edited 2010-07-02 10:05 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 11:04 UTC
mtzmtulivu
Member since:
2006-11-14

anybody notice certain products from certain companies are reviewed from apologetic eye and other products from other companies are reviewed with a critical eye?

The critical eye on opera seem to be a little bit higher on those who review this browser here for some reason. I do not remember seeing any other article from the author so i cant say anything about his/her writing but the article is consistent with most articles written about this browser.

In blogs, some products are covered positively and most of the negative comments are on the comments section and other products get negative coverage and positive comments are found on the comment section.This seem to be a balance that seem to come up naturally or is cultivated to create "an environment where both sides are covered".

I wonder who set the trend here on opera

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 11:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Or, it could just be that products with problems get bad reviews, whereas products without problems get good reviews. But sure, your elaborate conspiracy-implying explanations makes a whole lot more sense.

Funny how you can see the simple and elegant cognitive dissonance theory - one of the best-understood theories in Psychology - at work almost every minute.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by greygandalf on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
greygandalf Member since:
2008-04-07

Well... I use Opera on Windows since version 9 every day at work for 8-9 hours under very heavy use, since I work with cloud applications. It is stable as a rock. It doesn't crash.
I use Opera on Mac and Linux too. It is not as stable perhaps, but still very good compared to other browsers.

So sometimes tone really can see a certain bias in the comments.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by vodoomoth on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 13:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

anybody notice certain products from certain companies are reviewed from apologetic eye and other products from other companies are reviewed with a critical eye?

Yes I did, and it's normal as we are human (read "non-objective and very subjective") beings. That's why I (a he, not a she) also posted the previous article about the release of Opera 10.54 ten days ago, following the call for submissions and editors Adam launched weeks ago, and following several comments where I defended Opera, where I praised the browser for being feature rich and a true pioneer (see my other comment minutes ago). And I am the most outspoken supporter of Opera on OSnews so I hope you're not saying I'm an IE fan (yuck, feel sick just writing it) who's disguising his true partisanship in this article. See http://www.osnews.com/thread?429413

No wonder you don't remember anything from me, this is my second article on OSnews. And if you are on Opera community, I'm "topdawg" over there.

Even better, as I have announced in another comment, I'm preparing a critique reviewing my 10 years of using Opera for 100% of my non-Youtube browsing and FF for the more and more sporadic cases when the site doesn't work with Opera.

Feel free to say things about my writing. It's a foreign language to me as I'm in France. And as I said elsewhere, I'm also here to learn.

If I could set trends, the marketshare of Opera desktop would higher than the meager 2% it is now, a mysterious virus would wipe IE6 and IE7 from all computers, Microsoft would bury IE deeper than the core of the planet and they would also spare resources on both WebPositive and ports of Java 1.6 to Haiku and AROS. Dreaming awake...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14



Even better, as I have announced in another comment, I'm preparing a critique reviewing my 10 years of using Opera for 100% of my non-Youtube browsing and FF for the more and more sporadic cases when the site doesn't work with Opera.

Feel free to say things about my writing. It's a foreign language to me as I'm in France. And as I said elsewhere, I'm also here to learn.


English isnt my first language too and i hope people recognize the fact that this is an international forum and not everybody use this language on a day to day basis and have proficiency comparable to native speakers.

Its like they say, you can get drunk once in a while and most people wont put second though into it but once you get a reputation as that person that get drunk,then the only thing you can do is to skip town because it doesnt really matter how long you stay sober, everybody will start talking as if you have been drinking the entire time you were sober.

You could be meaning well for writing a critical review of opera, but reviewers of this browser on this forum already have a reputation of being overly critical of this browser and your criticism will only play into that stereotype and it doesnt matter how much you will praise the browser(if you will), a slight criticism will stand out and people will complain about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by ebasconp on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Actually I think the majority of OSnews readers are (me included) not English native speakers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by bousozoku on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 06:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

Actually I think the majority of OSnews readers are (me included) not English native speakers.


Therefore, you'll probably be more careful in using English than the native speakers. ;-)

I see far too many instances of native speakers abusing words that are close in sound--not homonyms but just close in sound such as weary and wary. It's amusing because what they say turns out to be nonsense.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by kaiwai on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 00:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

anybody notice certain products from certain companies are reviewed from apologetic eye and other products from other companies are reviewed with a critical eye?

The critical eye on opera seem to be a little bit higher on those who review this browser here for some reason. I do not remember seeing any other article from the author so i cant say anything about his/her writing but the article is consistent with most articles written about this browser.

In blogs, some products are covered positively and most of the negative comments are on the comments section and other products get negative coverage and positive comments are found on the comment section.This seem to be a balance that seem to come up naturally or is cultivated to create "an environment where both sides are covered".

I wonder who set the trend here on opera


Whatever conspiracy theory some Opera advocates try to conjure up it don't stand up to scrutiny - people are going to compare their current browser with Opera. If Opera doesn't step up and either equal or better than the status quo for that user then it will be marked down.

What marks down Opera for me is the lack of out of process plugin support, Mac OS X still being the bastard red headed step child as so far as Opera still using Carbon, the high CPU utilisation with memory not being reclaimed after each tab is shut, and so on. I compare my experience with Opera to Safari and to really pull me away from Safari, Opera not only has to meet but beat Safari on Mac OS X.

I really do what to see an alternative to Safari on Mac OS X that actually addresses all the short comings of Safari; I want to see tab process isolation, low cpu utilisation, taking advantage of Core Animation and other hardware acceleration API's where possible, plugin process isolation, the browser running in a low privileged mode so that when there is a security issue it doesn't have me fearing the consequences given the sandboxed environment.

Yes I have given Opera 10.60 a go and the same issues that I had with all previous versions still exist - so I am not a blind anti-Opera zealot, just that when push comes to shove and all the cards are counted the Opera programmers really haven't taken Opera to the next level of functionality to which we are seeing when it comes to its competitors.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 02:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

Whatever conspiracy theory some Opera advocates try to conjure up it don't stand up to scrutiny - people are going to compare their current browser with Opera. If Opera doesn't step up and either equal or better than the status quo for that user then it will be marked down.



What marks down Opera for me is the lack of out of process plugin support, Mac OS X still being the bastard red headed step child as so far as Opera still using Carbon, the high CPU utilisation with memory not being reclaimed after each tab is shut, and so on. I compare my experience with Opera to Safari and to really pull me away from Safari, Opera not only has to meet but beat Safari on Mac OS X.

And here lies the problem, most reviewers of opera on this forum compares the browser against their personal preferences and not against what other browsers are doing and criticize it if it doesnt agree with those preferences. I mean look at this review, one would expect some sort of a comparison btw this browser and its competitors but the reviewer just pointed to a list of new features and went on to talk about how the browser doesnt agree with his personal preferences.

i dont know about opera on a mac, but it does handle flash plugin in a separate process in linux. In linux, the opera main process is called "opera" and flash plugin is handles by an external process called "operapluginwrapper".

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by kaiwai on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

And here lies the problem, most reviewers of opera on this forum compares the browser against their personal preferences and not against what other browsers are doing and criticize it if it doesnt agree with those preferences. I mean look at this review, one would expect some sort of a comparison btw this browser and its competitors but the reviewer just pointed to a list of new features and went on to talk about how the browser doesnt agree with his personal preferences.


For me when I review something it has nothing to do with personal preferences; my complaints aren't related to the icons or the menu layout because quite frankly they're things I can adjust to after a few weeks/months of use. The problem I have lays with the features Opera doesn't provide when compared to what Safari provides or the fact that a certain website doesn't load with Opera but works perfectly fine with Safari. Those are the comparisons that I believe should be done and not the, quite frankly, trivial sh-t based on ones subjective feels.

Unfortunately it is a whole lot easier to write an article whining about personal preferences than knuckling down and doing an in depth comparison between Opera vs. the rest. There is a discussing taking place very much like this on Arstechnica where long time readers are bemoaning the loss of the in depth technology based articles where a CPU architecture would be dissected and explained. These days it seems that websites are turned into news arrogation services with the occasional article that sounds like a combination of marketing and personal preference.

I dont know about opera on a mac, but it does handle flash plugin in a separate process in linux. In linux, the opera main process is called "opera" and flash plugin is handles by an external process called "operapluginwrapper".


The plugin on Opera for Mac does not launch as a separate process, so if you have a run away flash ad then you're pretty much SOL. Opera really needs to lift its game because right it reminds me of the browsers from 5 years ago - time has moved on. End users want more stability, faster fetching of pages, faster execution of javascript and they don't want the thing to hog the CPU and suck up battery life. The other browsers so far have gotten that - Opera developers seem to be stuck in 2005.

Edited 2010-07-03 03:03 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14


The problem I have lays with the features Opera doesn't provide when compared to what Safari provides or the fact that a certain website doesn't load with Opera but works perfectly fine with Safari. Those are the comparisons that I believe should be done and not the, quite frankly, trivial sh-t based on ones subjective feels.


And here lies the core of the complain, a review of this browser here seem to come from people who are irritated enough to bother to write about those irritations and not what the browser has to offer to users of web browsers. There

ok, so lets say opera decides to add all the features that are in safari most safari users want and the next review will come from somebody who complain because it doesnt have all the features they like in firefox and if opera add those too, the review will come from a person who is complaining because it doesnt have all the features they want from chrome. Adding those too and a review will come from somebody complaining about too much bloat even though in term of disk space usage, opera takes the least amount of memory with all the features it provides out of the box.

There is too much focus on the negativity in reviews of this browser here for some reason.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by kaiwai on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

There is too much focus on the negativity in reviews of this browser here for some reason.


Because it doesn't step up and provide a viable alternative; again, users want OOP, Tab process isolation, 64bitness with interoperability between 32bit and 64bit plugins, better security, lower memory usage, and hogs the CPU less. It has nothing to do with negativity by reviews on here, it has to do with Opera developers not stepping up to the crease and providing an alternative that meets those minimum expectations users have of their browser.

Again, I provided a laundry list of grievances and you seem to be ignoring in them by claiming that that I'm spewing negativity from an unnamed source. I'm not spewing unsubstantiated grievances - they do actually exist and they do need addressing. Until those issues are addressed people like me will continue to moan, groan and write 'negative' reviews because Opera fails to step up and provide what I want from a web browser. It has nothing to do with preferences it has to do with Opera failing to meet the minimum standard that end users expect these days in a web browser.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14


Because it doesn't step up and provide a viable alternative; again, users want OOP, Tab process isolation, 64bitness with interoperability between 32bit and 64bit plugins, better security, lower memory usage, and hogs the CPU less. It has nothing to do with negativity by reviews on here, it has to do with Opera developers not stepping up to the crease and providing an alternative that meets those minimum expectations users have of their browser


As far as i know, firefox just got some of these features and it manage to do pretty well without them. Safari has them and chrome just passed it in browser usage numbers.

Evidence does not support this claim.


Again, I provided a laundry list of grievances and you seem to be ignoring in them by claiming that that I'm spewing negativity from an unnamed source. I'm not spewing unsubstantiated grievances - they do actually exist and they do need addressing. Until those issues are addressed people like me will continue to moan, groan and write 'negative' reviews because Opera fails to step up and provide what I want from a web browser. It has nothing to do with preferences it has to do with Opera failing to meet the minimum standard that end users expect these days in a web browser.

you did provide a list of features and you said those are features in safari you/safari users want/expect opera to have and i think it should have them and they need to address them and then i went on to say if they did give you all the features you want, the next review will come from somebody else whose review will focus on what they want/expect the browser to have and not what the current release has to offer, something most people expect from a review.

A comparison against Safari on a mac is useless to someone like me who only uses linux and safari doesnt exist in linux. I can say this lack of native existence of safari on linux is a critical shortcoming and i am sure you will have something to say if all reviews of safari here came from linux users and they keep focus on this shortcoming on each and every review and either ignore or dont give sufficient air time to all other features the new release is offering.

It is one thing for a commenter to express his wishes and complains on comments and a commenter can express the same wish on each and every discussion of the browser and it is another thing for reviewers to do the same.It will be annoying if you start writing opera reviews and mention all these safari features you want on each and every review. It will not be an issue if you mention those lack of features in comments section on each and every review.

Edited 2010-07-03 14:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

10.6 Gripes
by Dave_K on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 11:58 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

drag and drop-related issues in the bookmarks panel


I can't confirm this one here. Drag and drop from the address bar to bookmark folders, either expanded or collapsed, works fine.

Absolutely NO reloading of any kind when using the back and forward buttons.


This seems dependent on the website. Some will flip backwards and forwards as fast as I can perform the mouse gesture, on others (including OS news) it insists on reloading content.

Personally I'm sticking with Opera 10.10 for now. 10.6 still has too many really annoying bugs for me to happily browse with it.

Some my favourite Opera features have remained broken and semi-functional since the 10.5 betas, and as I often open tabs in the background, their inconsistent ordering is very annoying. I've hit a lot of extremely rough edges when trying to customise 10.6 to meet my preferences. To me 10.10 still offers a much more polished and enjoyable browsing experience thanks to its near flawless (IMO) UI.

I'm hoping that now that they've unified the browser for different platforms, and fixed the show stopping bugs, they'll get around to solving the many little annoyances that build up into a real headache. I know some of the worst remaining bugs were reported 4 or 5 months ago, so it's about time for them to get some attention.

Reply Score: 2

RE: 10.6 Gripes
by vodoomoth on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 14:43 UTC in reply to "10.6 Gripes"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


I can't confirm this one here. Drag and drop from the address bar to bookmark folders, either expanded or collapsed, works fine.

Maybe it was still fine in 10.10 but in the 10.54 Mac version that I'm using, dragging a favicon from the address bar to a folder in the bookmarks panel will highlight the folder but releasing the mouse button will drop the bookmark at the same level as the folder (the folder and the dropped bookmark will be brothers so to speak). With the folder expanded, one has the possibility to use the horizontal line as a guide indicating where the bookmark will be dropped.


"Absolutely NO reloading of any kind when using the back and forward buttons.


This seems dependent on the website. Some will flip backwards and forwards as fast as I can perform the mouse gesture, on others (including OS news) it insists on reloading content.
"
Yes, that's what the help page (http://www.opera.com/support/kb/view/827/) says but set the history navigation mode option to 3 (fast mode), set your progress bar to pop up at the bottom of the page and simulate back and forward from and to a comment posting page on Osnews.com and you'll see the browser fetch URLs. Why does it have to fetch anything when 1 second before the page was active? I have no user javascript and the cache is enabled so what's going on?

I've just tried it with the wifi connection disabled and the previous page failed to load! That's the most stupid thing in my experience with Opera.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: 10.6 Gripes
by Stratoukos on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE: 10.6 Gripes"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

About the history thing, when Cache-Control is set to 'no-store' in the HTTP header sent by the server the browser shouldn't cache the page. This seems sensible, until you realize that php sets it this way every for every page that uses 'session_start()' (pretty much every page). Browsers could just ignore Cache-Control, but this would break more sites than it would fix.

I imagine that browsers cache the page and when the back button is pressed they check with the server. If the page has changed, the browser downloads it. Otherwise it displays the cached page. That's why, although you see a loading bar, the page is typically loaded much faster.

Dragging a favicon from the address bar inside a folder on the bookmarks panel works fine in 10.60 on OS X.

Reply Score: 2

Be careful on ubuntu/debian!
by msundman on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 13:19 UTC
msundman
Member since:
2005-07-06

At least on deb based distros, such as ubuntu and debian, opera does some pretty nasty things. It adds the opera software repository to the system (so that all future upgrades you do will also contact opera's servers to see if they have some packages (say, libc or openssh-server) they'd like to "upgrade" on your computer). Not only that, they also add their GPG key to the system, basically saying that you trust opera software with your whole system.

It's pretty annoying to have to remove all those shenanigans from the deb file before each upgrade. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Be careful on ubuntu/debian!
by WereCatf on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 13:29 UTC in reply to "Be careful on ubuntu/debian!"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

At least on deb based distros, such as ubuntu and debian, opera does some pretty nasty things. It adds the opera software repository to the system (so that all future upgrades you do will also contact opera's servers to see if they have some packages (say, libc or openssh-server) they'd like to "upgrade" on your computer).

It doesn't do it like that. The package manager just downloads a file list from the repository server and then checks the file list if there's the packages you need. It doesn't contact the server and ask for glibc et al. And you can check the repo yourself, there is nothing else than Opera-related packages, and as such none of the system packages are downloaded from there.

I think you have at some point misunderstood repositories and package managers. All the most commonly used package manager systems just download package list which consists of compressed text, names of packages and their versions. And repositories are just regular FTP/HTTP/HTTPS servers which you can browse with your web browser too if you so wish. The package manager never delivers a list of installed packages to the repository, it only downloads from there.

Reply Score: 3

msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

It doesn't contact the server and ask for glibc et al. And you can check the repo yourself, there is nothing else than Opera-related packages, and as such none of the system packages are downloaded from there.

You are misunderstanding the problem. The problem is that there is nothing stopping opera software from placing glibc or openssh-server packages on their repo and then those opera's unofficial versions would be installed on all opera users' computers.

And I do understand how repos work. I'm running one myself. Heck, I even provide fixed opera packages on my repo, even though it's against opera's license agreement. (If they decide to show me the finger I decide to show them back.)

Edited 2010-07-02 13:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You are misunderstanding the problem. The problem is that there is nothing stopping opera software from placing glibc or openssh-server packages on their repo and then those opera's unofficial versions would be installed on all opera users' computers.

Indeed, they could. But why would they? Tell me even one good reason why would they start to maintain such packages when it provides them with no benefit whatsoever, only extra work to do? It's simply not in their best interest to do the extra work, make sure their packages are free of security holes, are patched properly, work in all the intended distros and then even keep them up-to-date when the distros themselves already have processes and people set up to do that work.

Reply Score: 3

msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

"You are misunderstanding the problem. The problem is that there is nothing stopping opera software from placing glibc or openssh-server packages on their repo and then those opera's unofficial versions would be installed on all opera users' computers.


Indeed, they could. But why would they?
"
So if I run a booth that copies keys, and you come there to get a copy of your house key, should I keep a copy of your key, without telling you about it, and even installing my own fancy monitoring system that notifies me of when you change your locks? After all, it would make it easier for you to get a second copy of your house key, and it would enable me to provide you with updated keys when you change locks. And why would I want to use my secretly copied copy of your key for anything bad?

The point is that opera software should not go mucking around in the most important system settings without the user explicitly telling them to do it. (Similarly, I should never make a copy of your house key without you explicitly telling me to do it.)

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

So if I run a booth that copies keys, and you come there to get a copy of your house key, should I keep a copy of your key, without telling you about it, and even installing my own fancy monitoring system that notifies me of when you change your locks?

Err. How is that even remotely similar to a repository? They don't get your keys, they don't know what software you have installed, they don't monitor you. Do explain, I am all ears.

And why would I want to use my secretly copied copy of your key for anything bad?

Again, they don't have your key, you have their key. Quite different. And in your (rather stupid) example you'd have access to a single house, whereas Opera's repo is accessed by thousands. If something was screwy it'd be noticed whereas if you broke to a single house it'd be noticed by only a handful of people and they wouldn't know who it was.

Your analogy is terrible.

Reply Score: 2

msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

"So if I run a booth that copies keys, and you come there to get a copy of your house key, should I keep a copy of your key, without telling you about it, and even installing my own fancy monitoring system that notifies me of when you change your locks?


Err. How is that even remotely similar to a repository? They don't get your keys, they don't know what software you have installed, they don't monitor you. Do explain, I am all ears.
"
The fact that they don't know what software I have installed is irrelevant. They can make extremely educated guesses about it. They don't have to monitor me, since they have told my computer to monitor their repository where they (e.g. a disgruntled employee, or a cracker after a security breach) could place a bunch of popular packages that would reach well over 99% of their user base using those opera packages. (This kind of communication is quite similar to "phone home" viruses/malware.)

"And why would I want to use my secretly copied copy of your key for anything bad?


Again, they don't have your key, you have their key.
"
They do get the keys to my system, since they have told my system that I trust their repository completely and utterly for any and all possible packages, although I don't. (And they did so behind my back.)

And in your [...] example you'd have access to a single house, whereas Opera's repo is accessed by thousands. If something was screwy it'd be noticed whereas if you broke to a single house it'd be noticed by only a handful of people and they wouldn't know who it was.

No different from me making copies of all house keys I copy, not just yours. It'd certainly be noticed if I broke into hundreds of houses whose owners have made key copies at my booth.

Still, you're missing the point. The point is not that opera adds itself to apt and tells the system that I trust their repo with all my packages, but that it does so without my explicit permission. If you really can't see this difference and the gravity of their actions I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion.

(Mac users are of course used to this kind of shenanigans, but some of us are still trying to hold on to the illusion of still having some control over one's own computers.)

Reply Score: 3

joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30


Still you're missing the point. The point is not that opera adds itself to apt and tells the system that I trust their repo with all my packages, but that it does so without my explicit permission. If you really can't see this difference and the gravity of their actions I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion.)


But if Opera were to design their own glibc and serve it through the repo, wouldn't the package manager tell you there is a conflict and ask what you want to do when updating? I don't know apt that well, but this seems to be the case with yum and pacman. If the package system is overwriting packages with similar names and no user input, that is a design problem with apt, not Opera.

All of this is purely speculative, btw. If you don't want Opera messing with system files, stop running everything as root. The FreeBSD version of the 10.6 beta gave me the option to install in my ~/ directory.

Reply Score: 2

Good improvement
by SlackerJack on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 14:01 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

It actually supports GTK+ now as well, which is a good move by the Opera team.

I like the UI, it looks slick but the menus look like some X fall-back, not GTK+.

I'm glad the Opera team cleared their download mess up as well and now detects x86/x86_86 when you download Opera. The whole Qt3/x86 by default and Qt4, x86/x86_64 kept hidden was messy. The main thing is, it's an improvement for the Linux version anyway.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Spinfusor
by Spinfusor on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 15:38 UTC
Spinfusor
Member since:
2007-01-11

I hope this version is stable. Ever since 10.5X, Opera has crashed so frequently it's unusable.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Spinfusor
by Dave_K on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 16:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by Spinfusor"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

I hope this version is stable. Ever since 10.5X, Opera has crashed so frequently it's unusable.


I'm still getting quite a few unexplained crashes. It's a shame, as 10.10 is the most rock solid stable browser I've ever used.

Reply Score: 2

Posting via Opera 10.60
by Tuishimi on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 16:40 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Seems nice so far. I need to log into work and test it out on some of our "packaged" internal apps that never worked correctly with previous versions of Opera.

If it works there, it has a chance.

I love the smooth scrolling. Like butter.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Posting via Opera 10.60
by Tuishimi on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 19:16 UTC in reply to "Posting via Opera 10.60"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, Opera seems to be significantly slower than Chrome in some regards.

When I go to deviantart to view the deviation lists of my watched people... I can count in seconds how long it takes to load, whereas it is nearly instantaneous in Chrome. Not sure what the difference would be but I would have to guess it is ajax-related...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by FealDorf
by FealDorf on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 16:58 UTC
FealDorf
Member since:
2008-01-07

Opera has its own unique set of strong navigational features that make me come back to the browser: the mouse chords, the spatial-keyboard selection and the fast-forward+password button.

yes, it's biased. Why? A product announcement isn't a place for griping, IMO. I have my own complaints with Opera but some of them don't make sense to me:
#1 Why'd a user need to handle cache in the first place? The browser offers cookie and storage management which is good enough for most of us.
#2 I just moved the bookmark. It moved.
#3 "no reload" is a great thing. It lets me look at previous parts of the article very quickly than wait for it load. You want newer content? Press refresh, it retains the history
#4 I don't think browsers should have spell-checks in the first place. It should be done the way Cocoa does it, I don't have to gripe about american dictionaries being forced onto my british vocabulary. Yes, this is my opinion. So is #1 from the article's author.

I have my own gripes with opera -- it's still got the bugs with the Start Bar that I've complained about which pesters me the most. By what the author says, he doesn't use Opera much in the first place and he hasn't stopped to check if most of his complaints are true.

Reply Score: 1

Graphical glitches when scrolling
by Dave_K on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 19:56 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

Anyone else getting intermittent graphical glitches when scrolling pages?

Here's what OS news looked like a moment ago, before I switched tabs:

http://yfrog.com/17operaglitchj

Sites with flash content seem to cause the problem.

Reply Score: 2

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

That's a long standing problem with a great many softwares that are based on QT. Opera does it in linsux all the time until you disable the fancy visuals.

Go into Appearance, and turn off "Enable special effects", then go into preferences > advanced > browsing and turn off "Smooth Scrolling"

This latest version testing it across several different machines, I'm coming to the conclusion that visually and in terms of the UI behaving properly it's only really 'complete' on Win7, with everything else being screwy.

Thankfully, the only Desktop OS machines I actually use for anything other than testing are all running 7.

Reply Score: 2

Cute 'problems'
by deathshadow on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 20:12 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Most of which look like non-problems here, but then, I'm not on a "Fisher Price My First Computer".

drag and drop-related issues in the bookmarks panel (URL dragged from the address bar is not dropped in the highlighted folder), in textareas (no distinction between cut and copy) and the HTML email composer (totally absent).

Drag and drop for both works just fine here, but I'm on Seven so... Could be another of those things that the Mac sucks at coding to do - Like everything else when it comes to writing code for the Mac.

As to 'HTML e-mail', what? You're writing SPAM? ;)

Absolutely NO reloading of any kind when using the back and forward buttons.

You say that like it's a PROBLEM... Why the hell should it waste time reloading stuff that's already in the cache... isn't that what cache is FOR?!?

Reply Score: 2

Saved Searches
by Gooberslot on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 03:57 UTC
Gooberslot
Member since:
2006-08-02

There still doesn't seem to be a way to disable the saving of previous searches.

Reply Score: 1

FONTS RENDERRING PROBLEM ...
by vermaden on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 11:19 UTC
vermaden
Member since:
2006-11-18

Unfortunately the 'fonts rendering' issue havent been resolved (at least under FreeBSD/Linux), its pretty shame for the Opera team to struggle such long time with that, till they fix it I stay with 10.10 ...

Reply Score: 3

Css issue?
by J-freebsd_98 on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 17:38 UTC
J-freebsd_98
Member since:
2006-01-01

On some sites, this latest release seems to
---still---
allow some things on the page to overlay
other things (most noticable on newegg.) The
interim fix seems to be placing the
"author mode -- user mode" toggle button
at a toolbar on the top. ( Not a problem a
few versions ago, or, newegg.com recently
changed its site coding... )

Reply Score: 1

Not ready for HTML5 and flakey stability
by tyrione on Mon 5th Jul 2010 02:00 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

Hopefully, when they pass the elements portion of html5test.com and don't crash so frequently, I can test sites against it.

I get a 159 + 7 bonus score out of 300 off of html5test.com.

Chrome 5.0.375.99 beta gives me:

197 + 7 bonus points out of 300.

WebKit Nightly for OS X gives me 235 + 6 bonus out of 300.

Reply Score: 2