Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 19th Jan 2013 14:22 UTC
Opera Software This is actually pretty big news - both exciting and tragic at the same time. Opera has revealed Opera Ice, its next mobile browser, to PocketLint. This new browser represent a big shift in both user interface as well as rendering engine, since it has a new, unique interface, as well as a new rendering engine... New to Opera, that is, as it's a WebKit-browser.
Order by: Score:
...
by Hiev on Sat 19th Jan 2013 14:25 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

I for once, welcome to our new webkit overlords.

Edited 2013-01-19 14:25 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: ...
by vaette on Sat 19th Jan 2013 14:30 UTC in reply to "..."
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

I don't, the webkit monoculture on mobile is increasingly terrifying.

Reply Score: 15

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Sat 19th Jan 2013 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I has its advantages, this is the argument I used to convince to my superiors we needed to standarize the company browser to Chrome, that webkit is in every movil OS, macs, windows and Linux, and now, all I have to do is program to webkit, but, only to HTML5 not to webkit's special features, and, now with Opera running on top of webkit, we can switch from Chrome to Opera, cause I don't trust Google to be spying in our company.

Edited 2013-01-19 15:04 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by zima on Sat 26th Jan 2013 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

and, now with Opera running on top of webkit, we can switch from Chrome to Opera

This rumour isn't even about the desktop Opera, just about some new mobile browser (it's right there in the summary) ...I don't suppose you do development work on mobiles. ;p

Edited 2013-01-26 23:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Chris_G on Sat 19th Jan 2013 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Chris_G Member since:
2012-10-25

It doesn't bother me too much. If WebKit development ever stagnated, the browser makers would just fork it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by Kroc on Sat 19th Jan 2013 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

And then do what?

You can't change the default browser on iOS. Forking WebKit won't change what Apple choose to do. It won't change what Google do. Forking WebKit achieves almost nothing as far as user-freedom is concerned in real terms.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by PresentIt on Sat 19th Jan 2013 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

If WebKit stalls then Apple will be a competitive disadvantage compared to the superior forks, and there will be no financial incentive to continue supporting Apple's platform.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by Kroc on Sat 19th Jan 2013 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

That's assuming that Apple cares about web apps.
If anything, it appears to me that Apple are trying to obsolete the web with their app store.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by PresentIt on Sat 19th Jan 2013 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Apple may not care about web apps, but the rest of the world does.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: ...
by Kroc on Sat 19th Jan 2013 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I'm sure Apple are crying all the way to the bank.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by chekr on Sat 19th Jan 2013 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

Apps will never replace the web. It may displace usage for certain things but if you think it will replace the web, you've been drinking too much of the Apple Kool-Aid.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by Macrat on Sun 20th Jan 2013 02:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

That's assuming that Apple cares about web apps.


How quickly people forget.

When the iPhone first came out, there was no app store and Apple was pushing developers to make web apps for the platform.

Developers and the media raised a stink until Apple developed an SDK and built the app store.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: ...
by zima on Sun 20th Jan 2013 12:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

That's in the past; I think it's safe to assume Apple prefers now to push usage of their appstore over webapps.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

And then do what?

You can't change the default browser on iOS. Forking WebKit won't change what Apple choose to do. It won't change what Google do. Forking WebKit achieves almost nothing as far as user-freedom is concerned in real terms.

If Apple wants to stubbornly force all users of their operating system to use *their* web browsing engine, then your problem is Apple, their OS, and the phone you bought from them that enforces these rules. Use that phone to give Apple a call and tell them to fuck off, and then just go buy something else--preferably something that doesn't eliminate all competition before it even has the chance to exist. Problem solved.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't know what your real terms are that you're using to define "user-freedom", but I think I disagree.

Have you ever tried writing your own browser from scratch? I mean, even a simple text based, no javascript one?

Forking it won't immediately change an ios user's experience, but that's kind of a narrow view. Webkit itself started off as KHTML. I bet you would have written off the continued development of KHTML as well. Who ever thought that KHTML was ever going to be used by real people, ever?

Once source is free and open, it ends up being found in the most unlikely places imaginable. If its not Apple's gear, then maybe someone you've never heard of will rise up and perfect the brain-computer interface complete with a forked webkit based interface. You just never know. Having a free piece of valuable software like a rendering engine lowers the barrier to entry, encouraging competition.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by saso on Sat 19th Jan 2013 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

I don't, the webkit monoculture on mobile is increasingly terrifying.

This is only terrifying if you want to preserve W3C's power over the web, rather than a self-governing open web. What I mean by that is that it doesn't matter what the name of "standard" is (be it WebKit, or HTML5, or whatever), as long as it is open, developed in a cooperative fashion and has multiple players in it (which WebKit certainly has). We can see multi-dev agreements on web protocols and formats all over the place (between Mozilla, WebKit users, MS, etc.) without the need for a formal institution like the W3C. That's why I don't share your fear of monopolization of the web as happened in the 90s with IE.

Edited 2013-01-19 16:49 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by PresentIt on Sat 19th Jan 2013 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

There's nothing terrifying about the W3C. They are basically the only true guarantee that the web stays open.

You can't compare WebKit to HTML5. WebKit is a project run by someone who controls it and its directly. HTML5 is a standard agreed on by basically everyone.

You are extremely naive if you think companies are going to suddenly start supporting each other. And if they are going to agree on standards, they basically need an independent organization. And then you're back to the W3C.

You can kill of W3C but another W3C will still be needed.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Sat 19th Jan 2013 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You obviously haven't heard of the WHATWG then?

Companies do collaborate when it suits their needs i.e. why the WHATWG exists and other organisations that have several companies funding them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by PresentIt on Sun 20th Jan 2013 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

So was Microsoft cooperating with the rest when it was so dominant it could basically block other browsers?

Nope.

The WHATWG ended up going to the W3C. Funny, that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Sun 20th Jan 2013 11:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually browsers like IE6 was actually built on a draft standard that was later changed.

Standards that people actually use, IE8 was actually ahead of Firefox, pity the usability sucked.

Edited 2013-01-20 11:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: ...
by PresentIt on Sun 20th Jan 2013 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Actually, IE6 implemented a whole load of non-standard extensions.

IE8 was not ahead of Firefox, as far as I can recall.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by saso on Sat 19th Jan 2013 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

And I think you are extremely naive in that you think that only formal standards bodies can facilitate cooperation.
Btw, how's that HTML5 standard coming along? Do you think that after about a decade of bickering we deserve a finalization? HTML5's first public working draft was in freakin' 2008 and it won't be until the end of 2014 that it will be finalized - 9 fucking years! In a technology space where often no more than 6 months is the separator between releases of game changing products. I'm sorry, W3C used to be very important in the past, but I feel that the volume of red tape has really swelled recently to the point of making W3C really quite impotent.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by PresentIt on Sun 20th Jan 2013 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Not only formal standard bodies can facilitate cooperation, but it's the only thing that can ensure an open web.

What about HTML5? Parts of it are ready already. But as you may notice, doing things properly takes time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by Laurence on Sun 20th Jan 2013 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

What about HTML5? Parts of it are ready already. But as you may notice, doing things properly takes time.

I wouldn't call most of the stuff in HTML5 as a dynamic, interactive and multimedia rich language done well.

The problem with W3C isn't that they're perfecting the language - which takes time. It's purely politics.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: ...
by PresentIt on Sun 20th Jan 2013 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

The bottom line is that things need to be done right, and the W3C ensures that this happens.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Sun 20th Jan 2013 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The thing I find frustrating is that HTML 5 and other new web tech has all been lumped together. Which really muddy the waters.

While some of the newer tags are useful, for describing content, the main thing I want to use is CSS 3.0.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by Coxy on Sat 19th Jan 2013 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

I thought the point of the W3C was to spend 20 years drafting a standard for a technology while at the same time drafting the next 3 versions...

...and then producing something so complex and unreadable that vendors just decide to impliment there own interpretation

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by PresentIt on Sun 20th Jan 2013 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

That's weird because the vendors are involved in creating the specifications...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by WorknMan on Sun 20th Jan 2013 02:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

There's nothing terrifying about the W3C. They are basically the only true guarantee that the web stays open.


They are basically the only guarantee that it'll take 10+ years for standards to get ratified, and browser makers will keep putting custom shit into their browsers while the W3C keeps dragging its feet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by PresentIt on Sun 20th Jan 2013 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

10+ years? What are you talking about?

The fact is that doing it right takes more than a few months.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by WorknMan on Sun 20th Jan 2013 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

10+ years? What are you talking about?

The fact is that doing it right takes more than a few months.


According to Wikipedia, they started work on HTML5 in 2004. They hope to have a final draft by 2014. Not that I'm really impatient, but 10 years? Geez.

Edited 2013-01-20 20:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: ...
by PresentIt on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

They did not start work on HTML5 in 2004. They presented Web Forms in 2004, which was to become part of HTML5. And even after it was merged into HTML5, they kept adding stuff to the spec.

In other words, it has not taken 10 years to finish HTML5. Parts of it are already done, and other things were added later.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by shmerl on Sun 20th Jan 2013 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Mozilla is the only alternative now.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by dsmogor on Sun 20th Jan 2013 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

There's IE engine. Dolphin browser currently also features custom engine (that is faster than anything else anyway)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by swift11 on Sun 20th Jan 2013 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
swift11 Member since:
2012-08-23

Dolphin browser currently also features custom engine (that is faster than anything else anyway)

afaik Dolphin is based on WebKit.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by cb88 on Mon 21st Jan 2013 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

For what it is worth Netsurf is maturing. Has lots of rendering backends for different operating systems and is starting to grow javascript support. Its also more modular than any of the alternatives from what I can tell.

It used to be about on par with dillo but now there is alot more CSS support and from what I understand DOM support is being improved alot.

As far as dillo it is pretty stagnant... considering one person forked it and made a way better version in a few months im not impressed with the current main developers. DPlus (the fork) is nice on very old hardware and for speed. The biggest change for me being that it doesn't leave background processes like dillo if and when it crashes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by drstorm on Sun 20th Jan 2013 02:30 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

I don't think Hiev actually means it. It seems to be a Futurama movie reference. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Macrat on Sun 20th Jan 2013 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

I don't, the webkit monoculture on mobile is increasingly terrifying.


Does the Apache monoculture on servers terrify you as well?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by Soulbender on Sun 20th Jan 2013 06:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

There's no apache monoculture on servers. Apache is continuously losing ground to better and lighter alternatives like nginx.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: ...
by PresentIt on Sun 20th Jan 2013 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

What Apache monoculture?

Any monoculture is bad. Especially for security.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by woegjiub on Sun 20th Jan 2013 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

One of the worst things about it is that Firefox for android is actually excellent, yet somehow remains a niche player.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by Johann Chua on Sun 20th Jan 2013 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Firefox for Android won't install on my phone (Galaxy Ace). Not enough RAM, apparently. Things might change when even low-end Android phones have at least 512 MB of RAM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by woegjiub on Mon 21st Jan 2013 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

Yeah, it ran horribly on my desire, but on something like the galaxy nexus, it flies.
Try it out when you get a better device, the interface is amazing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by zima on Sat 26th Jan 2013 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Firefox for Android won't install on my phone (Galaxy Ace). Not enough RAM, apparently.

I see Mozilla continues on its old ways... (they had ~two mobile attempts in the past, terminating with ~"we'll wait for better hardware")

Reply Score: 2

Yea, could anyone have believed that 15 years ago?
by dsmogor on Mon 21st Jan 2013 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Hey, we're experiencing the OSS guys dream come true.
Could KHTML developers back then even dream of that?

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by bassbeast on Sat 19th Jan 2013 16:58 UTC in reply to "..."
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Uhhh...did he mean to say it takes a big shit? And what's a "roder"? me thinks Mr Holwerda shouldn't be posting past happy hour.

As for the news, close the doors and give the money back to the stockholders. What is the point if its nothing but a skin on webkit? And why isn't Opera growing some stones and suing Apple for what is obviously anti-competitive behavior? last I heard the EU didn't take too kindly for the "lock in the users, our way or the highway" attitude so you'd think they'd not cave just because its an iToy.

If all the companies keep rolling over and kissing the ring of Apple we might as well accept the future is gonna be nothing but locked down game consoles, where you can't do anything without corporate approval and the second corporate doesn't support it anymore into the trash it goes. Never before have we had such great tech so cheap but instead of this empowering us we're gonna end up with the worst of the 80s, where everything was locked down and proprietary and didn't play nice with anything else.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: ...
by PresentIt on Sat 19th Jan 2013 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

As for the news, close the doors and give the money back to the stockholders. What is the point if its nothing but a skin on webkit?

A skin is just a bunch of images. A completely new UI built from scratch is a huge undertaking. If they do make a new UI on top of WebKit it's going to take a massive amount of engineering resources.

And why isn't Opera growing some stones and suing Apple for what is obviously anti-competitive behavior? last I heard the EU didn't take too kindly for the "lock in the users, our way or the highway" attitude so you'd think they'd not cave just because its an iToy.

Why would Opera sue Apple? Antitrust cases are not decided through the courts. It's handled by the Competition Commissioner. And obviously there's no basis for reporting Apple

You are extremely ignorant if you think it's a matter of Opera admiring Apple too much to do anything. There's simply no basis for an antitrust case. Not yet at least.

If all the companies keep rolling over and kissing the ring of Apple

Who is doing that? Not Google. Not Opera. Not Mozilla. Who are you talking about?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Sat 19th Jan 2013 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

A skin is just a bunch of images. A completely new UI built from scratch is a huge undertaking. If they do make a new UI on top of WebKit it's going to take a massive amount of engineering resources.


Not necessarily, if the code isn't tightly coupled together they could just swap it out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by PresentIt on Sun 20th Jan 2013 01:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Recreating the whole Opera UI on top of Chromium requires a hell of a lot more than simply swapping something.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Sun 20th Jan 2013 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It depends how it was built.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by dsmogor on Sun 20th Jan 2013 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Agree. Apple policy is actually much worse than the one MS got sued for.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by bassbeast on Sun 20th Jan 2013 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Nice to see somebody else notices the exact same crap MSFT got busted for Apple is doing WORSE and getting away with it. I mean imagine if MSFT had locked Windows to the hardware so it was impossible to install any other OS and made it so the ONLY way to install programs without actually having to hack the OS was to go through a site where they kept God-like control and refused to have any competition to their own products?

And I apologize to those in the EU if I don't understand what procedures one performs to get something taken up by the EU commission, we don't have anything like that in the USA anymore so there really is no basis of comparison. The DoJ was defanged by Bush II after the MSFT case and pretty much just rubber stamps anything a corp wants to do so you can be as anti-competitive as you want here as long as your lobbyists cuts checks to the right people. Kinda sad when the only hope Americans have of not being screwed by a monopolist is the EU taking up the case, but that is the only hope we have left, everything here is for sale like some banana republic.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: ...
by PresentIt on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Apple is not doing worse than Microsoft because Apple is not a monopoly. Additional restrictions apply to monopolies, which affected Microsoft, but it does not affect Apple.

Reply Score: 2

Typo?
by jessesmith on Sat 19th Jan 2013 14:33 UTC
jessesmith
Member since:
2010-03-11

I think the term should be "big shift", not what is currently in the summary.

It will be interesting to see what Opera produces. I tend to like their browsers and design. I'm curious to see what comes out of this experiment.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Typo?
by kragil on Sat 19th Jan 2013 14:37 UTC in reply to "Typo?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Yeah, a correction is in roder.

Reply Score: 9

"website"
by wojtek on Sat 19th Jan 2013 15:11 UTC
wojtek
Member since:
2010-01-24

FYI - the same website mentioned that the Opera would be definitely bought by Facebook... not to mention that there is no official statement from Opera so far...

EDIT:
also:
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/45795/facebook-browser-opera-softwa...
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/48288/htc-opera-ul-facebook-phone

lulz...

Edited 2013-01-19 15:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: "website"
by KLU9 on Sat 19th Jan 2013 16:15 UTC in reply to ""website""
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

Good point.

I also note that among the many quotes in the article, not a single one is about Webkit. Nor is the video.

I've used Opera for over a decade; it rescued me from the constant BSOD hell I was experiencing on Windows 98 (!) when using IE.

The idea that this innovator will become just another shell on top of someone else's rendering engine saddens me... if it turns out to be true.

Edited 2013-01-19 16:16 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: "website"
by PresentIt on Sat 19th Jan 2013 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE: "website""
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

But what if they are moving all the resources currently being wasted on constantly chasing compatibility problems to making innovative features instead?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: "website"
by the_randymon on Sat 19th Jan 2013 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE: "website""
the_randymon Member since:
2005-07-06

I too was thinking, 'too bad.' But one of the biggest criticisms of Opera is that it doesn't always render EVERY page correctly. If they're using Webkit, it should effectively render every page on earth that Webkit does. Maybe that's an improvement in the opinion of Opera's developers.

Secondly, maybe the rendering engine part of a browser is commodified now. Opera's still my main browser and they're still innovating, so let's see what they can do.

Reply Score: 2

Solution to a non-existent problem
by Wondercool on Sat 19th Jan 2013 15:14 UTC
Wondercool
Member since:
2005-07-08

Don't understand this at all. The home made browser engine is fast and portable. Why put effort into a me-too browser when the rest of the competition has deeper pockets to diversify on webkit?

It does not make any sense, effort should have been put into compelling features, not yet-another-webkit browser.

Totally baffled...

Reply Score: 5

woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

Perhaps they felt that the rendering engine was too much effort, and that they could get the same results regardless of engine, especially with weblog being open for them to add to.

That being said, the above doubts as to the validity of this news seem justified; opera have always led the pack with compliance and new rendering features.

Reply Score: 2

steve_s Member since:
2006-01-16

Sadly "Opera leading the pack" with respect to compliance and new rendering features has ceased to be the case.

Opera were very late indeed to implement ECMAscript 5 (the new JavaScript standard), IIRC coming in behind Microsoft. Some modern CSS3 features such as 3d transforms, transitions, and animations which, whilst pioneered by WebKit, were all implemented on Firefox earlier.

It has seemed to me for quite some time that, with a few notable exceptions such as webforms support, Opera have been lagging behind the competition.

Reply Score: 3

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Cherry-picking a couple of standards and claiming based on that that Opera is lagging behind is disingenuous at best.

Reply Score: 2

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

They do not have a choice on iOS, they have to use WebKit or not have a browser at all. The same problem with Chrome or Firefox on iOS, they also have to use the Apple WebKit shit.

Reply Score: 6

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Don't understand this at all. The home made browser engine is fast and portable. Why put effort into a me-too browser when the rest of the competition has deeper pockets to diversify on webkit?

Exactly. The competition has deeper pockets, so why should Opera spend tons of cash making their own engine and constantly struggling with compatibility when they can just grab a free engine that someone else is kind enough to make for them?

What if they could put all those resources they are wasting on constantly dealing with compatibility and staying up to date with the engine, and instead put everyone on making UI and services?

Presto might be fast and portable, but everyone is moving to phones that have multi-core CPUs and run at 1GHz or more. And everything except Android and iOS are basically irrelevant at this point, so who cares about portable?

Reply Score: 1

Wondercool Member since:
2005-07-08

Why would you leave your 20 year investment in your own technology behind and switch to something that will provide no competitive angles to the competition?

It is *not* free to switch, you will have to relearn the technology and reprogram all that you have invented previously, like Opera Mail, Unite.

I still don't see it. Unless they are only switching the rendering engine? Still a lot of work, still a lot of reprogramming...

Reply Score: 3

MrWeeble Member since:
2007-04-18

Why would you leave your 20 year investment in your own technology behind and switch to something that will provide no competitive angles to the competition?


Perhaps they took some advice from Nokia?

Reply Score: 7

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Symbian was largely external to Nokia, too. And now, after retiring Symbian, Nokia seems to focus more on Series40 (their internal OS technology) than it was the case over the last half+ decade.

Reply Score: 2

someone Member since:
2006-01-12

This is actually not such a big switch from a technical perspective. Opera uses Qt as its toolkit, and Qt had already adopted WebKit as its standard rendering engine a long time ago. So essentially, they are just switching from a custom rendering engine to the standard rendering engine of the platform. In addition, Opera always has the option to integrate their Carakan Javascript engine, if they are unsatisfied with the performance of JavaScriptCore or wanted something to differentiate themselves from the rest of the WebKit crowd

Edited 2013-01-19 17:36 UTC

Reply Score: 0

someone Member since:
2006-01-12

So to clarify, at some point in the past, Opera's compatibility layer used Qt on Unix, but not at this time?

Edited 2013-01-19 18:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Also the comments...

UNIX received plenty of work, as much as any other platform but the hurdle was higher in that we stripped out Qt.

"if this means that qt will be staticly linked then it's very disappointing in todays world."
It means it is totally removed and no longer required at all. Hence UNIX required a bigger rewrite than the other platforms.

Removing Qt means we can support both Qt and Gtk styles natively!


PS. You edited your post while I was replying...

In general, when Qt was included, it was just used on *nix for platform integration purposes... (as the first link above states)

PPS. Also, in 2006, before the removal of Qt: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=156356
Opera for Linux hardly uses Qt at all. It is only used for things like system dialog boxes. The rest of the user interface is written with an internal GUI toolkit called "Quick".


Edited 2013-01-19 18:21 UTC

Reply Score: 3

someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Sorry about that, I saw these comments on the Opera blog before seeing your reply

Reply Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Why would you leave your 20 year investment in your own technology behind and switch to something that will provide no competitive angles to the competition?


Because your 20 year investment is bogging you down and leaving you well behind the competition?

Because switching to the technology the competition is making for you for free suddenly gives you loads of spare resources that can be used for actual innovations instead of constantly trying to catch up?

Using the same engine as another browser doesn't mean you have no competitive angle. That depends entirely on what you build on top of the engine.

It is *not* free to switch, you will have to relearn the technology and reprogram all that you have invented previously, like Opera Mail, Unite.

Unite is being dropped.

And while it's not free to switch, the resources used to build something on WebKit would otherwise be wasting their time constantly fixing compatibility problems. And once the port has been done you suddenly have tons of spare resources that used to be dedicated to building a separate engine. This makes sense if you think ahead a few years.

I still don't see it. Unless they are only switching the rendering engine? Still a lot of work, still a lot of reprogramming...

Sure, it's just a rumor based on basically nothing. But it would not be a stupid thing to do. The reprogramming would be done by people who would otherwise be working on the current engine.

Reply Score: 1

Wondercool Member since:
2005-07-08

Well, I hope it will pan out well for Opera. Surely it must be painful to dump your own technology and switch to the competitors tech? I would be gutted if I was working for Opera.

I actually don't think Opera has a technology problem that needs solving with Webkit, more a marketing problem.

At least the latest 12.12 desktop browser seems mighty fine and it has proper extensiosn (finally after so many years)

Another problem with webkit might be that you have to keep different code bases for desktop and mobiles which might to extra costs and compatability issues.

I guess we will know in a year if it is a good move.

Reply Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Opera does have a technology problem. It's called clueless web developers coding for specific browsers instead of open standards.

If you read official blogs you'll see that tons of resources are wasted on fixing compatibility problems. What if all those people working on that were working on cool new features and technologies instead?

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

everything except Android and iOS are basically irrelevant at this point, so who cares about portable?

That's probably not really true yet. Things might appear so if you're in one of the most visible, affluent markets.

However, since we're on the topic of Opera, and when talking not about sales but what people actually use...

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vendor-ww-monthly-201003-201301 - still plenty of browsing from Nokia devices, none of them "Android and iOS", Opera capable of running on most of them ( http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201003-201301 & http://www.opera.com/smw/2011/11/ - mostly S40 "feature phones")

Reply Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Mobile vendors? This is about browsing the web on your phone. Did you look at the stats lately (flawed as they are)?

Opera Mini can run on all those Java devices. But for full browsers there's basically just two targets.

Reply Score: 2

ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Don't understand this at all. The home made browser engine is fast and portable. Why put effort into a me-too browser when the rest of the competition has deeper pockets to diversify on webkit?

It does not make any sense, effort should have been put into compelling features, not yet-another-webkit browser.

Totally baffled...


It encourages people to unknowingly code for quirks of HOW WebKit implements a standard.

I believe there were some IE6-era Javascript things that would never have worked in V8 because, while they worked in IE6, they weren't part of the standard and were incompatible with V8's approach to JITing.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The older IEs use something called JScript, which isn't JavaScript.

Reply Score: 2

If this is true
by th3rmite on Sat 19th Jan 2013 15:53 UTC
th3rmite
Member since:
2006-01-08

It is a sad sad day.

Reply Score: 2

IE6 was good.
by przemo_li on Sat 19th Jan 2013 15:53 UTC
przemo_li
Member since:
2010-06-01

Its demise as MS moved its focus (and programmers!!) to other areas, was really tragic.

WebKit is FLOSS so it WILL NEVER REPEAT IE6 story.

Unless whole humanity stagger to extinction overnight ;) But then nobody will mind fate of WebKit ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: IE6 was good.
by lucas_maximus on Sat 19th Jan 2013 19:10 UTC in reply to "IE6 was good."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

If all the browsers are webkit, we will end up having a mono-culture like IE6 and we will have another lull in innovation yet again.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: IE6 was good.
by moondevil on Sun 20th Jan 2013 08:38 UTC in reply to "RE: IE6 was good."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Not only that, it is already a pain that each browser has a different Webkit version.

This leads to browser specific hacks everywhere.

But so is the world of the so called "web development", code once, hack everywhere.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: IE6 was good.
by lucas_maximus on Sun 20th Jan 2013 11:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: IE6 was good."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Luckily i don't develop for mobile, but I don't envy those who do.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: IE6 was good.
by moondevil on Sun 20th Jan 2013 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: IE6 was good."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

On my case it depends on the project.

Reply Score: 2

erm... typo?
by kneufeld on Sat 19th Jan 2013 16:54 UTC
kneufeld
Member since:
2010-12-31

Big shit or big shift?

Reply Score: 4

RE: erm... typo?
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 19th Jan 2013 19:46 UTC in reply to "erm... typo?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Shit sounds better. And definitely more funny. And it hasn't been changed, so...

Edited 2013-01-19 19:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: erm... typo?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 19th Jan 2013 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE: erm... typo?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sorry, I wasn't home (I was being awesome elsewhere). Fixed it, and sorry!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: erm... typo?
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 20th Jan 2013 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: erm... typo?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Hey, no need to be sorry about a laugh. ;)

Reply Score: 2

The article summary is misleading
by someone on Sat 19th Jan 2013 17:45 UTC
someone
Member since:
2006-01-12

Thom, I think you need to emphasize in the summary that there is so far no rumour about a similar move for the Desktop browser. A lot of your readers are assuming that Opera will drop the development of Presto, and this is not even suggested by the original article

Reply Score: 8

F***ING AWESOME!
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 19th Jan 2013 18:55 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

I can't wait to see how awesome a browser that takes a big shit can be. Watch out from above, Chrome, Firefox a IE... this one's loaded, it's so good it's gonna be dropping mass quantities of shit all over the playing field!

Reply Score: 3

a big what in user's eyes'?
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 19th Jan 2013 19:42 UTC
modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

Uhh...was that editorial slip of the tongue?

Reply Score: 3

Legality of WebKit-only on iOS?
by pgquiles on Sun 20th Jan 2013 02:12 UTC
pgquiles
Member since:
2006-07-16

How can it be legal that Apple only allows WebKit and no Nitro on iOS?

Microsoft got a stiff fine from European authorities for far less :-?

Reply Score: 3

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Apple is not a conviced monopolist. Microsoft got a fine by being far worse than Apple is. Educate yourself, young man.

Reply Score: 4

pgquiles Member since:
2006-07-16

Apart from being incredibly rude, your comment denotes a huge lack of law and real-world knowledge: you do not need to be a convicted monopolist to be doing something illegal.

Problem is this would be a long and very expensive trial and nobody wants to be in bad terms with Apple for the future.

Reply Score: 1

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Apple isn't doing anything illegal. They have not been shown to break the law. They don't have the market share to justify such claims.

Who gives a crap if they are "in bad terms with Apple" or not? Apple is not God.

Reply Score: 2

pgquiles Member since:
2006-07-16

Who gives a crap if they are "in bad terms with Apple" or not? Apple is not God.

They are god in regards to approving or rejecting your app in their stores. So yes, they ARE god.

In addition to that, companies think in the future: will I need a license from Apple to manufacture magsafe connectors? cases for their phones? will they delay (almost impossible to prove) approving your app?

Reply Score: 1

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

If Apple was to start rejecting an app because of something like this, the competition authorities would definitely open their eyes.

Reply Score: 2

pgquiles Member since:
2006-07-16

How would you prove the reason Apple has rejected/delayed your app is you brought them to trial for some other reason? It's nearly impossible.

Reply Score: 1

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

You don't have to. Apple needs to prove to the competition authorities that they rejected it for the right reasons.

Reply Score: 2

Webkids all over the place
by shinkou on Sun 20th Jan 2013 04:04 UTC
shinkou
Member since:
2011-03-24

I hate how Apple bullies third party developers.

Reply Score: 1

Not up to par?
by orfanum on Sun 20th Jan 2013 08:37 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

"(B)ut Boilesen claims it's simply not up to par with browsers like Chrome and Safari."

Well, I guess this depends on what you are after but for me, Opera is already far better than Chrome on Android and Safari on iOS, at least in terms of speed, stability, utility, presentation of content, and especially UI.

Perhaps, being a lowly, merely interested hobbyist type and no real geek, I am not really aware of what I could achieve with my mobile browser given a move to webkit but on the whole, I only find extensibility useful in the desktop/laptop space. Am I missing something very obvious?

The way Opera operates, as it were, allowing me to navigate content with limited screen real estate but at the same time making it easy to see how one should navigate via the current UI, is what makes it attractive. I don't really care about he move to a new rendering engine but I am more than slightly perturbed about all this talk of gestures replacing present UI elements.

Reply Score: 2

Wh Webkit?
by ebasconp on Sun 20th Jan 2013 13:26 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

Why Opera is developing a new browser using another HTML engine instead of its own one that is fairly competitive and good?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wh Webkit?
by PresentIt on Sun 20th Jan 2013 17:51 UTC in reply to "Wh Webkit?"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Why is everyone assuming that this video is real?

Reply Score: 2

Good for Opera..
by Brunis on Mon 21st Jan 2013 12:06 UTC
Brunis
Member since:
2005-11-01

And good for me as a web developer, that means one less browser to ignore and one more automatically supported. Love it!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good for Opera..
by PresentIt on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 19:20 UTC in reply to "Good for Opera.."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Incompetent people like you are the reason the web sucks.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by greygandalf
by greygandalf on Mon 21st Jan 2013 12:11 UTC
greygandalf
Member since:
2008-04-07

Opera is Ppresto and its user interface... dropping Presto will make it shallow, even if forced to.
Standards should be there to allow variety... while here at the wnd we are having just a zillion of WebKit variations....

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by greygandalf
by PresentIt on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 19:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by greygandalf"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

How would dropping Presto make it shallow? You wouldn't even notice. What you will notice is the user interface.

Reply Score: 2

Used to be my favourite bit of software...
by Dave_K on Mon 21st Jan 2013 14:31 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

...not just my favourite web browser, but my favourite piece of software ever, for any platform.

I loved using Opera because it was feature rich and extremely flexible, with great tools for managing multiple pages and sources of information. Even with various extensions and add-ons no other browsers are quite in its class. Thinking back, I'm sure some of my first posts here at OS News were a fanboy defence of Opera's UI.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, it went off the rails a good few years ago. From my perspective Opera Software couldn't have done a much better job of ruining the browser if they'd sat down with me, made a list of the things I liked most about it, then systematically worked to break every single one.

I had still been trying new versions when they were released, hoping that eventually the bugs would be fixed and broken features restored. I guess now I know why that hasn't happened.

Reply Score: 3

tails92 Member since:
2007-10-07

Seconded. I started using Opera when they made it free and for a lot of time it was the browser I used. It was much more lightweight and responsive than Firefox back in the day, and while it had some broken features, the most broken of which I remember being the cookie management, the positive side of the Opera browser made you ignore those shortcomings. I liked it over Firefox so much that even if I was a NetBSD user, I would install the Linux emulation environment mainly to use Opera.
Then, Opera 10 came and it was never quite like what it used to be. It began to use a lot of memory, it began to crash frequently and if left in use for some time with a lot of tabs open it would even start to leak memory. Crashes due to broken JavaScript code are *not* acceptable.
I switched to Firefox for the time being, which at least, is better than the last Opera versions.
But I don't like the memory hog that Firefox is, and I really want to switch to something much more lightweight, say, NetSurf.

The fact that the Android version, and not just the iOS one, is using WebKit is the nail in the coffin for everything unique Opera Software had to offer. At this point, if they do not intend to develop the Opera engine further, at least they could open source it, WebKit is open source as well anyway.

Edited 2013-01-21 15:46 UTC

Reply Score: 1

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

I remember reading the exact same comment you are writing now, only it was about Opera 6, then Opera 7, and then Opera 8...

Every version brings someone who insists that "Opera has lost its way." Pretty hilarious.

How can Presto be the only unique thing Opera offers, by the way? You can't even tell which layout engine the browser is using. It's something the user never thinks about.

It's just silly to claim that Presto is the only unique thing Opera offers. Ignoring the UI is just ignorant and lame.

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

To be fair, Opera did seem to have (in my experience) such issues in the timeframe he describes - from 9.5 (IIRC - the first release after the "old style" 9.27) to ~10.5, when browser makers were scrambling to caught up with the performance of Chrome js engine ...so maybe other priorities took a back seat.

Didn't really stop me from using Opera, though. And more recent versions are working fine.

Edited 2013-01-26 23:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

There will always be some guy somewhere who hates whatever is the latest version of whatever application you are looking at. I remember reading comments on Opera back in 2001 or so, and people were talking about how Opera had "lost its way" even back then. Opera was soo buggy, and it was much better before 2000, and so on. It's pretty funny to read the exact same comments year after year, when someone else has figured out that they don't like something so they become drama queens about it.

Reply Score: 3

Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

There will always be some guy somewhere who hates whatever is the latest version of whatever application you are looking at.


I never stated that it was anything other than a personal opinion. People use software in different ways, so are effected differently by significant changes to that software.

In my experience, people like you who complain about complaints are just as likely to kick up a fuss when it's your favourite features that are broken.

A solution to this would be for developers not to make radical changes to the UI without allowing customisation, not to break useful existing features, and to fix newly introduced bugs quickly and efficiently. In my opinion Opera Software have failed pretty miserably at that.

Reply Score: 2

Long time Opera user
by abdavidson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 23:38 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

Been using Opera since 2000 and while I'd be rather sad to see them move from their own engine (and really if they do this, can anyone NOT see them going all in with Webkit?) the reason I use Opera is absolutely nothing to do with the engine.

It's all about the UI for me. The things they did first, or the things they did right. I still can't find an implementation of their speed dial idea or its analogues that is as good, or mouse gestures (barring their horrid moment where they recalibrated it back in the 10 releases was it? Ugh), or the whole-of-page zooming and fit-to-width that were rather ridiculed by many ("Why would you resize the images as well as the text?" being a particular catchcry of Mozilla users of the era) and yet are now the standard way all browsers work (or attempt to).

I periodically try other browsers, living with them for at least a day even if it feels horrid (which is less usual these days as browsers are becoming more alike) but usually more like a few days. However each time I am glad to get back to the Opera interface.

If they decide to build a new Desktop Opera using Webkit rather than Presto I'll give it a go and as long as the user experience remains better (to me) than the others I'll continue to use it.

Forgetting that though, if they actually do come through with this Ice on iOS I'll definitely give that a go because it looks to me as if Opera have gone and done what they do best (and imo better than all other browser designers... though Apple's pinch-swipe-and-tap to change Tabs on OSX Safari is damn sweet): innovative UI design. Definitely look forward to playing with that.

Reply Score: 2

Nice brains
by wonea on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 22:26 UTC
wonea
Member since:
2005-10-28

Shame I've used Opera on and off for years, it's a shame they lost one of their unique qualities. Think I'll pass them on now, sticking with Firefox.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice brains
by zima on Sat 26th Jan 2013 23:10 UTC in reply to "Nice brains"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

This rumour isn't even about the desktop version, nor all mobile ones...

Reply Score: 2

Presto or bust
by poundsmack on Thu 24th Jan 2013 21:21 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

I love Presto as a rendering engine. So unless they hit a dead end with the technology, I'm really put off that Presto may be phased out in favor of WebKit. I don't really even like WebKit... I've been on Opera user since version 6, and I would consider going to someone else if Presto was not at the core. Seems silly to say, but I like Opera because of its differences to the others.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Presto or bust
by zima on Sat 26th Jan 2013 23:08 UTC in reply to "Presto or bust"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Going to other browser makes no sense - it will be even more alien to you than "Webkit Opera" (which at this point is just a rumour, anyway; and only on some mobile devices)

Reply Score: 2