Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Feb 2013 13:21 UTC
Opera Software De kogel is door de kerk: as we already talked about earlier, Opera is going to switch to the WebKit engine, leaving its own Presto rendering engine behind. We didn't yet know if they would the switch only on mobile or on the desktop as well, and they cleared that up too: both mobile and desktop Opera Browsers will switch to the WebKit rendering engine.
Order by: Score:
Sad, but understandable
by aargh on Wed 13th Feb 2013 13:32 UTC
aargh
Member since:
2009-10-12

Sad, but understandable. Well explained, Thom. I added a +1 for the article.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Sad, but understandable
by bassbeast on Wed 13th Feb 2013 21:35 UTC in reply to "Sad, but understandable"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

No it is NOT "understandable" it is monopolistic practices that need to be busted. we ALL know what this is about, Cupertino using undue influence on the market, from trying to control the price of books to deciding what video format an "open" web is supposed to run on (which won't be open much longer if Apple has their way, H.264 is controlled by one of the worst patent trolls out there and ask Mozilla how friendly they are to FOSS) its all about Apple being the 800 pound gorilla and making the world bend to them thanks to their locked down platform.

does anybody here HONESTLY think Opera would be abandoning presto if it would run on iPhone? I was against MSFT when they used IE to try to gain more control, I am against Apple using iPhone/iPad to gain more control. No matter which OS or device you use the web should be about openness and choices NOT about a single corp dictating everything, and especially not a single corp that is sue happy and a control freak dictating control. we should ALL be royally po'd at this, we are losing choices left and right and its all due to Cupertino and how much influence they are having on the markets.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sad, but understandable
by PresentIt on Wed 13th Feb 2013 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Sad, but understandable"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

does anybody here HONESTLY think Opera would be abandoning presto if it would run on iPhone?

Of course they would. If it was just about iOS they could use Webkit there and Presto everywhere else. But this is a switch across the board.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Sad, but understandable
by bassbeast on Thu 14th Feb 2013 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sad, but understandable"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Riiight, because they have an unlimited budget and resources and can afford to keep multiple branches going.

sigh, the iFanboys can waste mod points all the want but it won't make straw into gold and we have seen time and time again the undue influence Cupertino has on the web and it needs to be stopped NOW, before we end up with "This site works best on iPad" like we had with IE. Everybody forget the original HTML V5 specs called for open video, either Theora or WebM? Wanna guess why its H.264 now? Because Apple said quite clearly we will ONLY allow H.264 and called their fellow monopoly lovers MSFT and got them on board, thus killing any chance of an open format for patent troll MPEG-LA instead.

No the reason Opera is doing this is they simply have no choice, they have limited resources and keeping two development teams is more than their limited budget can afford and since Apple tries its damnedest to shut down competition and won't allow anything but webkit well that is what we ALL get, like it or not. Its time for an EU or DoJ investigation.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Sad, but understandable
by galvanash on Thu 14th Feb 2013 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sad, but understandable"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

since Apple tries its damnedest to shut down competition and won't allow anything but webkit well that is what we ALL get


Again... Read my other post in this thread. Apple does NOT allow webkit based browsers in the App Store. They don't allow any application with built-in browser engines. Period.

The only browser on iOS that uses webkit directly is Safari.

Edited 2013-02-14 20:41 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Sad, but understandable
by Inode on Thu 14th Feb 2013 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sad, but understandable"
Inode Member since:
2006-02-10

What about chrome in AppStore?

Edit: sorry your answer follows (didn't notice) therefore the question can be ignored.

Edited 2013-02-14 20:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Sad, but understandable
by bassbeast on Fri 15th Feb 2013 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sad, but understandable"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

so you just proved my point in why they need to be investigated. do you think if MSFT made IE 11 the ONLY browser that would run on win 9 that there wouldn't be an investigation? So why does Apple get a pass when they are influencing the markets no differently than MSFT would in the same sitch?

Again if anybody doesn't think Apple has undue influence all they have to do is look at HTML V5, before Apple said "we will ONLY allow H.264" the standard clearly called for an open codec as the baseline so that ALL could watch videos without tollbooths. Apple comes along and says "You'll do what we say or it won't work on iPhone/ipad" and there goes Theora and open codecs for a patent troll which both Apple and MSFT have a stake in.

seriously what more proof do you need? if it were MSFT doing the exact same thing wouldn't everyone be calling foul?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Sad, but understandable
by galvanash on Fri 15th Feb 2013 07:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sad, but understandable"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

so you just proved my point in why they need to be investigated.


I wasn't responding to that - I was responding to your theory that dropping Presto and using WebKit was motivated by a desire or need to run on iOS. That is patently false. Opera is dropping Presto because they want to, for various reasons they have explained themselves:

http://my.opera.com/ODIN/blog/300-million-users-and-move-to-webkit

There is no sinister machinations going on - they just don't feel like it is worth the effort to develop and maintain a separate engine anymore.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Sad, but understandable
by PresentIt on Sat 16th Feb 2013 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sad, but understandable"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

What do you mean by multiple branches? All they would need to do is to port their cross-platform GUI toolkit to the iPhone... Oops, they already did! So they could easily have used the built-in engine if they wanted to.

Webkit on iOS is also very different from just getting the standard Webkit. The former is made to make it easy to embed into applications, while the latter requires you to build everything else yourself.

So again: If it was just about iOS they could use Webkit there and Presto everywhere else.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Sad, but understandable
by atsureki on Sat 16th Feb 2013 07:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sad, but understandable"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

sigh, the iFanboys can waste mod points all the want but it won't make straw into gold and we have seen time and time again the undue influence Cupertino has on the web and it needs to be stopped NOW, before we end up with "This site works best on iPad" like we had with IE. Everybody forget the original HTML V5 specs called for open video, either Theora or WebM? Wanna guess why its H.264 now? Because Apple said quite clearly we will ONLY allow H.264 and called their fellow monopoly lovers MSFT and got them on board, thus killing any chance of an open format for patent troll MPEG-LA instead.


> called their fellow monopoly lovers
> fellow monopoly
> fellow
> monopoly

Take a deep breath and listen to yourself.

This isn't Apple exerting force. This is Opera losing the speed advantage they had in the legacy IE/Firefox days, and instead being relegated to a fan favorite for their unique approach to UX. So they decide to save some time and money by falling in line behind the rendering engine that outran them, which they can do because it is open source (i.e., Apple does not control its destiny, except to the extent the will of the market allows).

Meanwhile, the iBooks price fixing scandal was trumped up if not outright invented. Hamstringing the Kindle app with their in-app purchase shenanigans was scummy, but allowing the publishers to set ebook prices, while certainly not as consumer-friendly as Amazon's policy of aggressive undercutting, is also far less monopoly-friendly. Amazon is the 800 lb gorilla when it comes to controlling the prices of books and pricing competitors out of the market.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Sad, but understandable
by galvanash on Thu 14th Feb 2013 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Sad, but understandable"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

does anybody here HONESTLY think Opera would be abandoning presto if it would run on iPhone?


I don't follow... It isn't about presto not running on iPhone. Their new webkit based browsers won't run on iPhone either...

Apple doesn't have a policy disallowing browser engines other than webkit - their policy is they do not allow any browser engines. You either use the native UIWebView class (i.e. Safari) or you don't use a browser engine at all and send everything to external servers for rendering (i.e. Opera Mini). In either case, your browser is NOT using webkit directly - using UIWebView is completely different from using webkit.

Chrome, for example, is a webkit based browser... But the iOS version does not include webkit at all - it just wraps around UIWebView. How is being webkit based an advantage for iOS deployment when you in fact cannot use it?

Personally, while I share a lot of the sentiment about Opera dropping Presto - it really only boils down to one thing: Opera would rather concentrate on making browsers than making browser engines. Presto, while it is overall an excellent engine, is not gaining traction - it never really has, and it offers no competitive advantage anymore. There is certainly an argument that its existence helps with maintaining web standards (which is why I am sad to see it go), but from a business point of view, why bother?

Reply Score: 4

Comment by smashIt
by smashIt on Wed 13th Feb 2013 13:56 UTC
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

with Tetzchner selling half of his stock it seems more like rats leaving the sinking ship

seriously:
do they really believe they can survife on a chrome-theme alone?

Reply Score: 9

RE: Comment by smashIt
by vasko_dinkov on Wed 13th Feb 2013 14:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by smashIt"
vasko_dinkov Member since:
2005-09-13

IMHO it's all been downhill for Opera since Tetzchner left.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by smashIt
by PresentIt on Wed 13th Feb 2013 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by smashIt"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Weird, people were saying the same thing when he was still in charge. And after all, it was under his leadership that the failed Unite monstrosity was made. And useless widgets. And all that garbage.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by smashIt
by PresentIt on Wed 13th Feb 2013 18:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by smashIt"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

What do you mean by Chrome-theme? Why wouldn't they be able to survive by using an engine which ensures close to 100% site compatibility, one of the main problems with Presto?

People don't care about the engine. They care about the user experience. Features, etc.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by smashIt
by Kroc on Thu 14th Feb 2013 07:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by smashIt"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

In 2003, *every* website worked with IE6.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by smashIt
by KLU9 on Thu 14th Feb 2013 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by smashIt"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

In 2003, *every* website worked with IE6.

Unfortunately, *Windows* didn't work with IE6. I kept getting 4 or 5 BSODs a day until I switched from IE to Opera.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by smashIt
by smashIt on Thu 14th Feb 2013 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by smashIt"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

and if you would have bothered to read the BSOD you would have noticed that the culprit was not windows but some 3rd-party driver (most likely graphics)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by smashIt
by KLU9 on Mon 18th Feb 2013 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by smashIt"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

1. Thanks for the helpful observation.
2. Is that why the BSODs stopped when I changed browsers?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by smashIt
by smashIt on Mon 18th Feb 2013 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by smashIt"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

2. Is that why the BSODs stopped when I changed browsers?


maybe one browser used hardware-acceleration, and the other didn't

just because because both display the same thing doesn't mean the use the same methods

but we will never know what was the problem with your pc because you ignored what the BSOD was telling you...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by smashIt
by twitterfire on Thu 14th Feb 2013 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by smashIt"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

People don't care about the engine. They care about the user experience. Features, etc.


Some people do care about engine. That's why they are using Chrome instead of Firefox, IE and Opera.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by smashIt
by PresentIt on Thu 14th Feb 2013 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by smashIt"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

No, people don't care about the engine. Why would someone switch to Chrome because of the engine? Doesn't even make sense.

Reply Score: 2

Sinking upwards
by dnebdal on Wed 13th Feb 2013 14:45 UTC
dnebdal
Member since:
2008-08-27

They're making record profits, though - so if the ship is sinking, it's doing so in an unusual way.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Sinking upwards
by smashIt on Wed 13th Feb 2013 15:01 UTC in reply to "Sinking upwards"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

They're making record profits


they do?
according to their last report (1st - 3rd quarter) earnings per share dropped from 0.155$ in 2011 to 0,119$ in 2012 (with an as good as constant number of shares)

Edited 2013-02-13 15:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Sinking upwards
by Sodki on Wed 13th Feb 2013 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Sinking upwards"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

To be fair, share prices has almost nothing to do with the health of a business. Just look at Apple: record profits, but still the shares price came down. Basically it's all financial speculation.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Sinking upwards
by some1 on Wed 13th Feb 2013 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sinking upwards"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

This is not the share price, this is revenue divided by number of shares. That's a standard metric reported by public companies.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Sinking upwards
by Sodki on Wed 13th Feb 2013 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sinking upwards"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Sinking upwards
by smashIt on Wed 13th Feb 2013 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sinking upwards"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

To be fair, share prices has almost nothing to do with the health of a business.


earnings per share and the price of a share are two different things

---------edit--------
some1 was faster...

Edited 2013-02-13 15:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Sinking upwards
by PresentIt on Wed 13th Feb 2013 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Sinking upwards"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

EPS isn't actually relevant. All recent quarters have been record quarters, both revenue-wise and profit-wise. Opera made a ton more money in 2012 than in 2011. If there are more shares in the market, so what? That doesn't change the fact that both revenue and profit is higher than ever.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Sinking upwards
by stabbyjones on Wed 13th Feb 2013 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Sinking upwards"
stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

It's that 15 cents and 11 cents?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Sinking upwards
by smashIt on Wed 13th Feb 2013 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sinking upwards"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

yes, but both numbers should be rounded up (16 and 12 cent)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ssokolow
by ssokolow on Wed 13th Feb 2013 15:17 UTC
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, I'm concerned about whether three engines is enough variety to ensure that APIs and standards don't codify implementation details too readily when one of them has Trident's reputation for being something we only support because we're forced to.

On the other hand, I'm eager to have one less closed-source program sitting on my system just because I need to do compatibility testing.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Wed 13th Feb 2013 19:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually modern version of IE needs less shims than Chrome and Safari.

It seems the boot is on the other foot now.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow
by cdude on Wed 13th Feb 2013 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ssokolow"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Only in a parallel universe. Microsoft themself spoke out loud just recently that please, please web-designers, not forget the IE.

Firefox and WebKit. That's the landscape. Both working together well on all platforms (including Windows) and usually if it works in one it does in the other too.

Its IE being far behind like still not supporting for example WebGL, still not working on THE major platforms Android and iOS.

Edited 2013-02-13 21:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Thu 14th Feb 2013 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Only in a parallel universe. Microsoft themself spoke out loud just recently that please, please web-designers, not forget the IE.


Yeah well that what happened to the other companies with IE6 back in 2001 ... and that turned out soooo well didn't it?

We had no browser innovation for years. Everything was written for the one browser.

The same is happening with webkit but in the mobile space.

Firefox and WebKit. That's the landscape. Both working together well on all platforms (including Windows) and usually if it works in one it does in the other too.


I want a landscape where I can program against the spec and each browser behave the same, whatever the platform.

As other have said, there are hundreds of browsers that use some form of webkit. It is fragmented ... write once hack everywhere.

There are blog posts on pretty well respected web development sites that are saying that same as I do.

Its IE being far behind like still not supporting for example WebGL, still not working on THE major platforms Android and iOS.


Also WebGL is a crap spec.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/87696-webgl-is-fundamentally-f...

http://www.contextis.com/research/blog/webgl-more-webgl-security-fl...

BUT HEY LETS SUPPORT IT even though there are major security issues.

Also while IE10 isn't bleeding edge, it has all the important features that most web developers want to use today.

Lets not forget that jQuery team actually came out and said that there are less shims for modern IE than Chrome and Safari.

I really wish this drivel that is years out of date would not be repeated.

IE is released as a product for Windows, Microsoft really release IE for corporate customers, even their own evangelists say this.

I don't use IE as a browser, but IE9 and IE10 are as capable as Firefox and Chrome.

Edited 2013-02-14 00:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow
by Tony Swash on Thu 14th Feb 2013 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22


Yeah well that what happened to the other companies with IE6 back in 2001 ... and that turned out soooo well didn't it?

We had no browser innovation for years. Everything was written for the one browser.

The same is happening with webkit but in the mobile space.
other too.


I think the difference is in intent, which in turn is a function of business model. Right from the start Microsoft saw the web as a threat to it's business which was to ensure that everything that supported it's OS/Productivity monopoly flourished and everything that even remotely threatened it or even opened an alternative space did not flourish. Microsoft thought that a neutral browser that ran equally well on any platform undermined it's platform strategy. It's answer was a closed proprietary browser engine and the crushing of netscape by leveraging the Windows OS monopoly. Once netscape was finished and IE ruled Microsoft lost interest in browser development because they didn't want the web to be a rich and developing experience, they wanted it to be a tepid backwater compared to Windows apps.

Now compare that to Webkit, which is open and non-proprietary. Both the most important companies driving webkit development, Google and Apple, want an open standards based feature rich web, although both want that for different reasons. They don't want that because they are kind of heart, they want that because an open standards based feature rich web enhances and synegises with both their (different) core business models.

I think it is unlikely that webkit will go the way of IE.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow
by moondevil on Thu 14th Feb 2013 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Now compare that to Webkit, which is open and non-proprietary. Both the most important companies driving webkit development, Google and Apple, want an open standards based feature rich web, although both want that for different reasons. They don't want that because they are kind of heart, they want that because an open standards based feature rich web enhances and synegises with both their (different) core business models.

I think it is unlikely that webkit will go the way of IE.


I desire that everyone that states this does a contract with a Fortune 500 company to support Webkit across all major operating systems and mobile devices.

Then watch how Webkit being open solves their issues when CSS or JavaScript break across Webkit versions.

Finally have fun discussing compromise solutions on such issues with their project manager.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow
by cdude on Thu 14th Feb 2013 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21


Then watch how Webkit being open solves their issues when CSS or JavaScript break across Webkit versions.


You not develop against a certain version and vendor but the standard. If behavior/layout changes in WebKit then that happens cause the previous implementation had bugs that got fixed.

Yes, this is a very different approach then what Microsoft does with IE.

As web-developer I thank WebKit for continues fixing and improving the Web at an incredible speed. This is far better then having to deal with IE6 bugs for years to come cause the vendor decided not to fix.

Anyhow, everybody who likes the IE6 approach more can go on, make an own WebKit based browser and not fix. Luckly it seems all major vendors decided against that.

Edited 2013-02-14 15:03 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by ssokolow
by moondevil on Thu 14th Feb 2013 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

As web-developer I thank WebKit for continues fixing and improving the Web at an incredible speed. This is far better then having to deal with IE6 bugs for years to come cause the vendor decided not to fix.


How do you fix Webkit in specific browser versions?

Because the project manager really would like that all the iPad users have the same experience on his company new web site.

Or for that matter all Android users since version 2.2.

I can give more examples.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Thu 14th Feb 2013 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I think it is unlikely that webkit will go the way of IE.


You miss the point, everything will be built for Webkit first and everything else second, just like it was for IE6 ... because developers aren't following the spec they are developing for Webkit only.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow
by cyrilleberger on Thu 14th Feb 2013 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

You miss the point, everything will be built for Webkit first and everything else second, just like it was for IE6 ...


And that is a problem ? IE6 was a problem for two reasons:

1) it was not developed anymore, meaning no progress
2) only available on a single platform

IE6 was all about locked-in, locking users on windows, and locking users on microsoft technologies. All of that is not possible with Webkit. Since it is LGPL, it cannot become proprietary, and, if Apple cannot prevent others to use Webkit on different platform, also Apple cannot stop progress, if Apple decides to stop development of Webkit, no problem, Google and Opera will carry on the work, and it will give them a competitive advantage over Apple. This is the major difference between IE6 and Webkit, one was blocking progress, the other one cannot.

because developers aren't following the spec they are developing for Webkit only.


Shame on developers for developing website that works in real life instead of developing website that would work in a theoretical world...

That said, there is still the need for a good specification to make sure that rendering does not get broken across version of webkit. And that is an area where Opera is a very welcomed addition to the webkit world, they have always been the best at respecting the specification.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Thu 14th Feb 2013 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

And that is a problem ? IE6 was a problem for two reasons:

1) it was not developed anymore, meaning no progress
2) only available on a single platform

IE6 was all about locked-in, locking users on windows, and locking users on microsoft technologies. All of that is not possible with Webkit. Since it is LGPL, it cannot become proprietary, and, if Apple cannot prevent others to use Webkit on different platform, also Apple cannot stop progress, if Apple decides to stop development of Webkit, no problem, Google and Opera will carry on the work, and it will give them a competitive advantage over Apple. This is the major difference between IE6 and Webkit, one was blocking progress, the other one cannot.


You are still missing the point. It is a mono-culture of Webkit and there are loads of incompatible forks.

Incompatible forks means lots of fragmentation. Fragmentation is a nightmare for developers.

Also if your browser isn't webkit based on mobile, well your browser won't work with a huge number of mobile sites.

Shame on developers for developing website that works in real life instead of developing website that would work in a theoretical world...

That said, there is still the need for a good specification to make sure that rendering does not get broken across version of webkit. And that is an area where Opera is a very welcomed addition to the webkit world, they have always been the best at respecting the specification.


The standard is moot if everyone treats webkit as the de-facto standard. The Standard becomes webkit ... the same complaints are made about Microsoft Office not supporting ODF.

Edited 2013-02-14 09:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow
by PresentIt on Thu 14th Feb 2013 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Also WebGL is a crap spec.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/87696-webgl-is-fundamentally-f...

http://www.contextis.com/research/blog/webgl-more-webgl-security-fl...

BUT HEY LETS SUPPORT IT even though there are major security issues.

So because something has a flaw, it is crap.

What amazing logic!

I love how the Microsoft fans are attacking WebGL despite Microsoft's alternative being even worse in the security department.

Wow, a single vulnerability in WebGL! If that means it's crap, then all browsers, ever, are crap.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Thu 14th Feb 2013 08:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Did you even read the links? There are serious security concerns because it lets the browser basically have full control of the hardware.

Security is important. This isn't minor flaws, it is pretty damn serious.

There are plenty of sites that don't work in Firefox but work in Chrome.

Edited 2013-02-14 08:27 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow
by Soulbender on Thu 14th Feb 2013 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Security is important. This isn't minor flaws, it is pretty damn serious.


But that still doesn't explain why Microsoft has not implemented it ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Thu 14th Feb 2013 08:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

very funny ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow
by cdude on Thu 14th Feb 2013 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Fact is Firefox, Chrome are both way more secure then IE. Fact is Firefox, Chrome, both implement WebGL, IE doesn't. So?

And come on, Microsoft crying about WebGL security while doing ActiveX and Silverlight can't be taken serious.

For native, direct access to hardware. Compiled Javascript, eg V8 and WebCoreScript, native code, all do. Its not magic but pretty standard.

Edited 2013-02-14 15:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Thu 14th Feb 2013 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Fact is Firefox, Chrome are both way more secure then IE. Fact is Firefox, Chrome, both implement WebGL, IE doesn't. So?


Conjecture. I wonder why we have our browsers patched by every company with security vunerabilities. Nothing is secure and WebGL is insecure by design as the article states, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ IT!

And come on, Microsoft crying about WebGL security while doing ActiveX and Silverlight can't be taken serious.


ActiveX is off these days by default unless it is a trusted plugin, much like flash. I suspect silverlight is the same. This isn't 2004 anymore.

Find arguments that aren't over 8 years old please.

The biggest security thread to browsers has been the Java Plugin for years now.

For native, direct access to hardware. Compiled Javascript, eg V8 and WebCoreScript, native code, all do. Its not magic but pretty standard.


From the penetration testing company, which I dunno actually make money doing this stuff.

It would be unreasonable to expect full conformance to the complete specification of a new standard: there are always likely to be edge cases. But, as we have stressed before, some areas of WebGL need to be carefully implemented to prevent security issues arising and unfortunately in this case, because security-related conformance tests are not clearly identified, it is not possible to determine if an implementation is secure. This has been a contributory factor in security issues being missed by developers of the current browser implementations of WebGL, which has in turn created serious security flaws. Browser developers should start banning non-conformant configurations as they are identified until the security issues that have been highlighted are resolved.

Context therefore recommends that users and system administrators disable WebGL.


Sorry I am going to take a penetration testing companies' word over yours.

Edited 2013-02-14 17:36 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by ssokolow
by Nelson on Thu 14th Feb 2013 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Silverlight adds an additional layer of indirection to the graphics card API calls.

WebGL is little more than a way to marshal OpenGL calls from the browser to the graphics card through JavaScript.

Silverlight can be disabled, uninstalled, black listed, etc

Silverlight includes protection against 3D driver DOS and even black lists graphics card known to exhibit this problem, putting pressure on graphics card developers.

Does WebGL do anything of the sort? No.

Let's face it, WebGL is a proprietary API brainchild of the Kronos Group who are not a standard setting organization and WebGL is not ubiquitous both in install base or in use on websites, so it is not afforded its standard status through those means either.

This is akin to Microsoft introducing WebDX and claiming it to be a 3D web standard by their own fiat.

And yet, since its not Microsoft, people like you will rush to find a justification, ANY justification for this steaming pile of shit.

It is beyond me how some people can be as egotistic to claim that Microsoft should implement a standard to their web browser, which ships by default on Windows, and thus has an installed base of hundreds of millions of peple, especially when its not a standard at all, and hasn't been properly vetted for security.

People can draw false equivalencies all day about Silverlight and WebGL, but the FACT is that Microsoft has NEVER pushed Silverlight INTO the browser. Its always been a plugin. Microsoft is NOT forcing or lobbying to have Silverlight become a standard of the web.

Stop the bullshit lies.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by woegjiub on Wed 13th Feb 2013 21:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

Three engines? Trident isn't worth testing, nobody uses IE except to download chrome or Firefox, unless they are forced to use it at work.


...I would love to be able to say.
I wish MS would make it multiplatform already, so I didn't need to virtualise just for their engine.

Edited 2013-02-13 21:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow
by Adurbe on Wed 13th Feb 2013 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ssokolow"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

I am currently testing a UK Very large client's customer-facing website.

Their usage stats looks something like below;

IE8 ~15% of all traffic to the site
IE9 ~20%
Firefox ~20%
Chrome ~30%

The rest is made up of other browsers or variations inc Opera and IE10. We simply can't justify the resource as a business to test theses browsers at this time.

I WISH I could stop testing IE8 (as does tend to throw up a number of issues on more advanced features) but the commercial reality is you cant ignore them.

I hope you actually look at the business requirements of your customers before deciding the the irrelevancy of a rendering engine

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
by moondevil on Thu 14th Feb 2013 06:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

No IE 7?

We just got a request for proposal the other day where we are required to have the web site made IE 7 compatible.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Thu 14th Feb 2013 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I hope you actually look at the business requirements of your customers before deciding the the irrelevancy of a rendering engine


QFT

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Thu 14th Feb 2013 08:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Tell that to 40% of our users.

Reply Score: 2

Makes sense
by codewrangler on Wed 13th Feb 2013 15:43 UTC
codewrangler
Member since:
2010-01-28

At one point, Opera's rendering engine was quite good, in comparison. They even made a browser with it for BeOS.

However, it was getting a little long in the tooth. With all the support that WebKit has gotten (Apple, Google, etc.) and the fact that it's Open Sourced, it really makes sense for them to stay relevant.

Now, they can concentrate on making a better browser experience and when it makes sense, add to the rendering engine. In the meantime, they can take advantage of the updates being made by the Open Source community.

Reply Score: 5

Opera doesn't want to be populair
by Fergy on Wed 13th Feb 2013 15:57 UTC
Fergy
Member since:
2006-04-10

Opera now joins the ranks of Maxthon, Avant, Comodo Dragon, Flock, K-Meleon etc. They use the Stephen Elop strategy of stopping development on the main thing that makes you special. Now they can focus on making Opera better by implementing new web technologies, improving web performance, reducing memory and cpu usage... Wait that is all in the engine!

Thanks Opera for kicking the web in the nuts. Now you can make it easier for web developers to shut out Gecko and Trident because webkit is the only rendering engine that matters. You truly are the nemesis of Mozilla.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Oh, At first I thought you were saying that the other browsers also abandoned their engines to focus on ui. But I understand you're saying that Opera will now just be like them, only doing ui.

Fair enough, however Opera has actually invented most of the modern web browser ui that I find useful (tabs, quick dial, etc). Its the engine that it usually fell short on. So I look forward to it being able to innovate without having to constantly fix their javascript support.

Reply Score: 3

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Oh, At first I thought you were saying that the other browsers also abandoned their engines to focus on ui. But I understand you're saying that Opera will now just be like them, only doing ui.

Fair enough, however Opera has actually invented most of the modern web browser ui that I find useful (tabs, quick dial, etc). Its the engine that it usually fell short on. So I look forward to it being able to innovate without having to constantly fix their javascript support.

Yeah sorry I could have been more clear. But I don't care about who was first. I care about who does it best. Opera is number 2 for me(Firefox is 1). Opera feels fast and reliable. The speed of Chrome with the nice Opera GUI would be an improvement on Chrome but a step backwards for Opera.

Edited 2013-02-13 18:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

telns Member since:
2009-06-18

I've been using Opera almost exclusively since somewhere around the 5.x or 6.x days.

Releases 10+ took a big nosedive in reliability. Even so, I'm pretty saddened by this news. I'll still stick with the Presto versions as long as I can.

Reply Score: 1

telns Member since:
2009-06-18

The are two things about Presto; one is that it tends to be standards compliant almost to a fault. If you make a site look good in Opera, you are almost guaranteed it is going to look fine in all the other browsers.

But even for everyday users rather than developers, when a company has developed a UI and engine side by side for years, a lot of the UI features come to depend on engine features. They work together.

Dragonfly is the most obvious example, but there will be tons of other things, affecting addons, and custom CSS filters, and the like. There is no chance that WebKit offers exactly the same hooks into that Presto does.

Most of the 'big' features they will adapt, I am sure, but all along the margins you can expect them to lop off the stuff that is really hard to do (cause for whatever reason, the object you need that is readily accessible in Presto is buried ten layers deep in WebKit) or not a big enough feature to be worth the effort--except it was the feature you used everyday.

In short, it is almost certain that some of the features that exist now won't exist in the initial WebKit releases, and may never come back.

Reply Score: 5

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

The are two things about Presto; one is that it tends to be standards compliant almost to a fault.

Yeah, except that's wrong. Opera has always gone out of its way to render sites, even when that mean adding proprietary stuff like document.all.

Reply Score: 1

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

If there is demand for a certain feature they can and will add it. They have now even more forces to do so since lesser work on the rendering-engine is needed. If there is no demand then indeed, that feature may gone.

If you had a look at WebKit code and development you wouldn't argue about 10 inches deep layers nobody can touch. That's not reality. This isn't IE :-)

Edited 2013-02-13 21:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

telns Member since:
2009-06-18

Umm... I have. I have done some custom [proof-of-concept] type projects using the Qt5WebKit codebase.

I like it just fine. But that doesn't mean that it will provide 100% of what Presto provides in a convenient way.

I would say exactly the same thing in reverse if someone were trying to take the Presto engine--which I am sure is also a good code base--and stick it into a long-term WebKit project.

Edited 2013-02-13 22:59 UTC

Reply Score: 3

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Qt5 QWebKit doesn't expose all the functionality and flexibility WebKit offers.

Opera also already started on that. They just pushed patches to improve HTML columns in WebKit. So, this extending where they see need isn't theory but it already is happening successfully.

Reply Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

I remember when people were talking about how version 8+ took a big nosedive in reliability. And before that, version 6+. And basically every major version.

Apparently Opera has been taking big nosedives from the very start, if one is to listen to people like you.

Why stick with Presto btw?

Reply Score: 3

telns Member since:
2009-06-18

FWIW, I never had trouble through the 9.x series.

Now there is all sorts of quirky stuff. It crashes occasionally, it looses the address bar (maximize/shrink/maximize/shrink, and 'presto!' it's back), it can't download reliably from FTP sites, though every other browser I've tried on the same network works fine, &c.

I still like it better than the others though. The strengths outweigh the quirks. As for why Presto, I followed up my own comment with some reasons.

For the reliability itself, I'm not sure if the crashes come from the engine or the UI side of things. I suspect the UI, actually. The latest crash fest was in 12.13, where after a few days it wouldn't even start if you had more than one add-on installed and the background update-checker was scheduled to run (you are fortunate if you didn't hit this one).

Edited 2013-02-13 23:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

People were reporting all sorts of quirky stuff, including crashes, back at Opera 9 as well. On the other hand, I've never lost the address bar with Opera 12, and I haven't seen anyone else lose it either.

Reply Score: 3

telns Member since:
2009-06-18

Do you use multiple monitors? I've always had a suspicion it is related to moving the window between screens.

Reply Score: 1

Phucked Member since:
2008-09-24

Fair enough, however Opera has actually invented most of the modern web browser ui that I find useful (tabs, quick dial, etc). Its the engine that it usually fell short on. So I look forward to it being able to innovate without having to constantly fix their javascript support.


The first web browser with Tabs was InternetWorks in 1994

Reply Score: 1

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Was that before or after Opera's support for MDI with a clickable bar to switch between child windows? While it wasn't a "tab bar" per se, it was the precursor to it.

Reply Score: 5

cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Was that before or after Opera's support for MDI with a clickable bar to switch between child windows? While it wasn't a "tab bar" per se, it was the precursor to it.

In 1994, at the same time, except that was Opera was only a private project at that time.

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Its the engine that it usually fell short on. So I look forward to it being able to innovate without having to constantly fix their javascript support.

http://blog.chromium.org/2010/03/does-your-browser-behave.html ...perhaps the js compliance of Opera engine was just "too good" in an idealistic way.

Their engine has generally some good points, large part of why Opera is light on resources for example (most noticeable on older machines; also, this surely allowed them to host Opera Mini more easily - but maybe Webkit & present server hardware are now good enough for that)

Edited 2013-02-18 20:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

If Presto is the main thing that makes Opera special, then Opera has been in big trouble. After all, the main job of a browser is to show web sites, and Presto had major compatibility problems.

You are wrong, of course. People don't care about the engine. They care about the user experience and features.

Kicking the web in the nuts? How so? It wasn't really making it easier or harder for web developers because web developers mostly ignored Presto. Opera moving to WebKIt won't mean sh*t for the web because Presto doesn't mean anything.

Reply Score: 5

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

If Presto is the main thing that makes Opera special, then Opera has been in big trouble. After all, the main job of a browser is to show web sites, and Presto had major compatibility problems.

You are wrong, of course. People don't care about the engine. They care about the user experience and features.

Kicking the web in the nuts? How so? It wasn't really making it easier or harder for web developers because web developers mostly ignored Presto. Opera moving to WebKIt won't mean sh*t for the web because Presto doesn't mean anything.

I don't know about how popular Opera was but I always felt Mozilla and Opera were the innovators of the web. So you can understand that when Opera announces they will be a follower from now on it feels like a kick in the nuts for me.

Reply Score: 4

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

How does this mean that Opera will be a follower? Who was following Opera? Not web developers, that's for sure!

Won't this make innovation even easier for Opera since they don't have to work on compatibility problems most of the time anymore?

Reply Score: 3

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

How does this mean that Opera will be a follower? Who was following Opera? Not web developers, that's for sure!

Won't this make innovation even easier for Opera since they don't have to work on compatibility problems most of the time anymore?

They certainly have taken the first step towards making it easier for web developers. Next step is removing another browser from the web to make it easier for web developers. How web developers must long for the days when they only had to develop for one browser.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I always felt Mozilla and Opera were the innovators of the web. So you can understand that when Opera announces they will be a follower from now on it feels like a kick in the nuts for me.

But they didn't announce to be a follower - Opera will surely contribute to Webkit in major ways. Maybe even leaving greater mark on the web than before.

Reply Score: 2

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

But they didn't announce to be a follower - Opera will surely contribute to Webkit in major ways. Maybe even leaving greater mark on the web than before.

They went with webkit because they wanted to spend less on the engine. They also fired a large portion of their engine people.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Which I feel doesn't strictly contradict what I said... oh well, we'll see.

Plus, the greatest mark of Opera on the web is Opera Mini - which isn't really about the rendering engine (running on servers, to the users it doesn't make much difference which one)

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Opera moving to WebKIt won't mean sh*t for the web because Presto doesn't mean anything.

To be fair, it captured notable chunk of mobile browsing (but of course via Mini, so not a real browser with all expected features)

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

stopping development on the main thing that makes you special.

The only major thing that makes Opera Software special is (IMHO) Opera Mini, how it allows many more people to connect and/or lower the costs of doing that. It's certainly the only really popular Opera product.

And they don't stop development of Mini; also, nice thing about it: swapping of the engine can be done virtually transparently for users.

Reply Score: 2

J-freebsd_98 Member since:
2006-01-01

"stopping development on the main thing that makes you special.

The only major thing that makes Opera Software special is (IMHO) Opera Mini, how it allows many more people to connect and/or lower the costs of doing that. It's certainly the only really popular Opera product.

And they don't stop development of Mini; also, nice thing about it: swapping of the engine can be done virtually transparently for users.
"
[I'm only including your comment in the reply to have a better written reply, not to disparage it...]
Counterpoint: not in all cases does special == popular. [My desktop browser in windows 98 > bsd v5 > bsd v6 > bsd v7 > bsdv8 > bsdv9 [presently] ... Opera, it consistenly loads quicker. lends to user customization, plays nice with tabs, does what one would expect... ]
I expect if/when I am forced to use a newer webkit version, if it isn't as stable/speedy, there would
be alternatives. But not looking forward to it.

Reply Score: 1

v RIP Opera
by ronaldst on Wed 13th Feb 2013 16:15 UTC
RE: RIP Opera
by PresentIt on Wed 13th Feb 2013 18:14 UTC in reply to "RIP Opera"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

The only reason to use Opera is an engine with major compatibility problems?

Wow.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: RIP Opera
by Kochise on Wed 13th Feb 2013 20:16 UTC in reply to "RE: RIP Opera"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Yup, their JavaScript bugs alot and freeze Opera on certain pages. I open IE, use the same URL, works like a charm, go figure. I stopped reporting problems to Opera since they don't give a fuck about reports or you have to insist very heavily, massively (like the mouse gesture in 11.5 I guess) for them to step back with their "new advanced feature mania".

Opera has become the Fedora of browser : breaking what used to work, new bad functionning features pushed to users without them demanding for, all about hype.

I paid 3 times Opera (through support plans) because I found it really good (8 - 10 era) but not anymore.

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: RIP Opera
by PresentIt on Wed 13th Feb 2013 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: RIP Opera"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Yup, their JavaScript bugs alot and freeze Opera on certain pages. I open IE, use the same URL, works like a charm, go figure.

The reason for this is obvious. If they are hit by a performance bug in IE they'll fix it right away. Not so for Opera.

So even if Opera has fewer performance bugs than other browsers you won't notice it because sites will work around those bugs in other browsers, while leaving the ones affecting Opera alone.

I stopped reporting problems to Opera since they don't give a fuck about reports or you have to insist very heavily, massively (like the mouse gesture in 11.5 I guess) for them to step back with their "new advanced feature mania".

LOL, that's clueless. Opera has always added new features.

Opera has become the Fedora of browser : breaking what used to work, new bad functionning features pushed to users without them demanding for, all about hype.

How do you know if something was demanded or not? Just because you don't want it doesn't mean no one did.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: RIP Opera
by Kochise on Thu 14th Feb 2013 08:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: RIP Opera"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

1- On the JavaScript problem, here 12.14, try this :

http://www.pagesjaunes.fr/
"Qui, quoi ?" = "Centre equestre"
"Où ?" = "Pau"
"Recherche à proximité de" = checked

Once on the result page, scroll down and hover the map.

2- Yup, Opera always added new features, in the beta first, then in the "stable" release. But it always have a drawback, you have to get it all, almost no way to disable this or that feature one by one.

3- If they push new features, it would be cool they are fully functional and don't requires a dozens updates to get them fixed. The "visual mouse gesture" fiasco introduced in 11.5 was a pure mess no one ever understood why they pushed it without warning :

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=839952

When I say I stopped reporting bugs, because it's always left open with no answer :

WebGL do not work : http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=1593342

Nothing changed, yet it's advertised as a major compatibility point. Nope !

Mails gets scrambled after Opera crash : http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=1438962

Never corrected, reseting the M2 client is still not possible without using tricks. And I don't speak about reimporting all the mails and mail accounts :

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=201905

Soooo, since Opera is always focusing on new features without maintainting their old features, I give up.

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: RIP Opera
by PresentIt on Thu 14th Feb 2013 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: RIP Opera"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Wow, so there's an apparent JS problem in a browser. So what? What does this have to do with anything?

WebGL isn't even finished, HWA was disabled by default, and now we know why. They decided to switch to WebKit instead.

Mails get scrambled after a crash? No they don't. They work fine after a crash.

But what you are doing now is just to desperately try to change the subject by linking to random stuff. Anyone can link to random bugs in any browser.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: RIP Opera
by Kochise on Thu 14th Feb 2013 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: RIP Opera"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Not just that random, like the mail crash, because they are experienced by various users for say... 8 years now ?

WebGL was hyper hyped by Opera as being the first browser to implement it, but it appears it doesn't work that well beside their internal demo ?

Javascript is buggy, you can forgive Opera but go thermonuclear on this if ever IE fails that bad ?

Come on, stop being an Opera fanboy, they tried to add features, that great, but the Opera browser became more and more tricky and buggy. Since 12 it even crash more and more.

Vote me down at please, it will not correct Opera's flaws anyway.

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: RIP Opera
by PresentIt on Sat 16th Feb 2013 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: RIP Opera"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

"The mail crash"? You are making this silly assumption about one single mail crash, and that's just weird. No one else seems to be having this problem, and I've used the mail client heavily on multiple computers.

Where did Opera hype WebGL, and how is that relevant to anything?

JavaScript is no buggier than other browsers, dear child.

Come on, stop trolling. You are just making up stuff as you go along.

Reply Score: 3

The IE is dead, long live Webkit.
by moondevil on Wed 13th Feb 2013 16:24 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

So we finally managed to move away from IE 6 to now have to fight with Webkit compatibility issues, great!

It is always an interesting experience having to explain to customers that although iPad, iPhone, Android, Chrome and Safari use Webkit, all of them use different versions, which require different hacks to make the pages consistent.

Reply Score: 5

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

WebKit isn't a phrozen blackbox like IE was. Its constantly driven forward and anybody can submit patches, create snapshots to turn into a product, branch and keep a specific version alive, do changes.

WebKit allows all that. IE never did and that we had to fight so long with IE6 was result of that. Microsoft never made SP releases, pushed updates, allowed others to fix. Nobody but Microsoft could do anything and Microsoft decided to not do anything on IE after IE6, after they won the first browser-war, for a long time.

That can't happen with WebKit. The license inherited from KDE's KHTML, LGPL, prevents that. Welcome to an open base constantly driven forward. A construction kit everybody can utilize and turn into a project as long as the result is opensouce too and so can be used by others.

Edited 2013-02-13 22:03 UTC

Reply Score: 3

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

How does it help?

Right now we have a code base with browser specific hacks for:

- Safari on Windows
- Safari on MacOS X
- Mobile Safari
- Chrome

All using different versions of Webkit.

How does Webkit being open fix the bugs between those browsers?

Reply Score: 3

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

You still hack browser specific hacks against a certain version and then wonder the break if a new version appears? Why not use one of the many js-frameworks available for that? Then it usually works cause vendors check against them but not against your little webkit-version hack homepage.

Reply Score: 1

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Because this destroys the premise of the unified web that many clamor for (or at least did, when it was IE doing the non-standard BS).

The reason for IE's dominance and subsequent subversion of the standards process isn't really because it wasn't developed in the open, but because it gained enough clout what web developers stopped bothering with anything else.

WebKit and IE are in the exact same situation. It is mildly amusing how many of the blind fanatics don't see it.

But it merely underscores a point a lot of people have been making: The web is fundamentally broken. Design by committee is broken.

This is what a decentralized authority on the direction of the web means to developers. Write multiple times, test everywhere, use a JS framework, and likely shoot yourself.

This is the bullshit that people wish we'd replace our native app platforms for? Ha.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Nailed IT!

Reply Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Because


You not answer my question.

This is what a decentralized authority on the direction of the web means to developers. Write multiple times, test everywhere


And it became now one lesser case to test and special case. Good point why Opera dropping Presto and going WebKit is good for us!


use a JS framework


And? You are using JS so why don't you use a JS framework? Why do you or your other mate keepon to add browser-engine and browser-version checks with different code-paths and then wonder it breaks?


This is the bullshit that people wish we'd replace our native app platforms for?


NOBODY but you in all of the threads here wrote something related to that. This isn't about any false claims native apps are dead nobody did. Its about Opera switching from Presto to WebKit.

So, what was your point and how its related?

Edited 2013-02-15 00:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I can't really recall any sites that only function properly in webkit browsers.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

There are quite a few on mobile, and I have seen plenty that don't work (lots of them are JS heavy mind you) on the desktop.

Edited 2013-02-14 09:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Example link?

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Can't think of anything obvious. Most of these sites are done by designers that abuse -webkit prefixes.

I usually never return to them and I am certainly not going to keep a list.

A lot of the sencha touch toolkit only worked in Chrome/Safari as of last year ... is the only example that sticks in my mind ... which I thought was pretty poor.

I am sure you might call bullshit, but considering the -webkit prefix abuse has been called out on quite well respected blogs such as quirksmode ... There is plenty of evidence the problem exists.

Edited 2013-02-14 16:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Any website using touch / animation usually uses WebKit extensions.

But its must more than that, there's a shitload of WebKit only extensions that are used by plenty of "iPhone Optimized" websites around the internet.

You need look no farther than Apple's own developer documentation to see how bad things are. Also, anyone who does this kinda thing for a living can attest to the absolute clusterfuck that this is.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I do this for a living, I mainly still work on the now not so cool "desktop website" for a major gaming company in UK. Though my title is front end I spent most of my time re-factoring and adding new features to a large C# codebase. For the most part I enjoy my job.

We are adding in some touch functionality, but we have bigger problems at the moment which are more to do with version control and fragmentation.

I am constantly frustrated though that people think that because something is open source that there immediately isn't a problem.

For those that are using a browser it is fine and I enjoy using the newest Firefox. For those developing it is a different story and tbh I think in a worse state (mainly due to it being transitional).

Reply Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21


-webkit prefixes

The w3c even suggests the use of browser prefixes for yet not stable and standardized API. Once the API is stable and standard prefixes are removed.


Touch


WebKit is the only browser engine supporting the 2 existing touch interfaces including Microsoft's very own one. Both touch interfaces (including Microsoft's) didn't made it through the w3c yet too. Good example from yours validating the need for the prefix case :-)


shitload of WebKit only extensions that are used by plenty of "iPhone Optimized" websites around the internet.


Most of them supported by e.g. Firefox. HTML5 is a living standard and it takes some time till de facto standards made it through the w3c committees, into the specs and till a new version of the specs is published (how many years took HTML5? right). Meanwhile browser-vendors like Firefox, Opera, Google, Apple, Blackberry, etc work well together to define what comes next, implement it (with prefixes), get it stable, push through w3c, remove prefixes.

See such prefixes as "future" namespace with private API that is subject to changes till it becomes official public API.

Exactly this concept is the reason why HTML development accelerated so much within last years compared to the many many years before.

Edited 2013-02-15 19:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Shows that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

-webkit-* has only been used which means styles are off in other browsers.

I don't understand why you choose to deliberately miss the point.

_proto_ is also abused.

Edited 2013-02-16 14:41 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Opera's user interface
by Dave_K on Wed 13th Feb 2013 16:34 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

To me it was always the customisable and flexible user interface that made Opera special, not the engine. When it was competing with Netscape and IE5 it was particularly fast and light on resources, but that's no longer the case these days.

Unfortunately, a lot of my favourite Opera UI features have been broken, with options I've used since the days of Opera 3 or 4 not working correctly. I've tried the latest version and it still has a number of annoying UI bugs that were reported years ago. To me recent versions of Opera don't even come close to matching the browser it used to be.

Maybe without the engine taking up resources they'll put some effort into the UI? After all, that's the one thing left to set them apart from the other perfectly decent WebKit browsers...

If dropping the proprietary engine means that they'll finally fix the annoying bugs, and maybe even improve neglected features like Opera's dated session management, then I won't miss Presto one bit. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen though.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Opera's user interface
by WorknMan on Wed 13th Feb 2013 17:32 UTC in reply to "Opera's user interface"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Unfortunately, a lot of my favourite Opera UI features have been broken, with options I've used since the days of Opera 3 or 4 not working correctly. I've tried the latest version and it still has a number of annoying UI bugs that were reported years ago. To me recent versions of Opera don't even come close to matching the browser it used to be.


Yeah, they broke text-to-speech in the Windows version sometime in the 9.x branch, and ignored posts on their forums about it. I sent a bug report and waited a couple of versions for it to get fixed, and then just gave up on it. I have never gone back. Fuck Opera ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Opera's user interface
by zima on Mon 18th Feb 2013 21:26 UTC in reply to "Opera's user interface"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

the engine. When it was competing with Netscape and IE5 it was particularly fast and light on resources, but that's no longer the case these days.

I feel that's still mostly the case, Opera is still lighter - particularly visible on older machines, try it on such one day (like, a decade old; or a 1st gen netbook).

It's probably one of the reasons why Opera has big usage share in CIS... (where PCs tend to be used longer)

Reply Score: 2

Opera was special
by PieterGen on Wed 13th Feb 2013 16:49 UTC
PieterGen
Member since:
2012-01-13

I too have a special place for Opera, which is still my favorite browser on my (Linux) PCs. Before I switched to GMail, I also used the strange but nice Opera Mail client, with it's views and so - I don't remember the details but I loved that they dared to be different.

IF they can put more effort in the UI and UX, then switching engines may even be a good thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Opera was special
by cdude on Wed 13th Feb 2013 22:05 UTC in reply to "Opera was special"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Agreed. Opera was always strong on the UI, not the engine. If they now become good at the engine too then Chrome, take care, competition is coming. May Opera's market share raise again!

Edited 2013-02-13 22:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

I hope they'll open source presto
by nej_simon on Wed 13th Feb 2013 17:30 UTC
nej_simon
Member since:
2011-02-11

Perhaps they can run presto as an open source project in paralell to this new webkit browser? Or at least give the source to the OSS community. Who knows, perhaps it'll take off! In any case it would suck if all the work invested in presto would be wasted.

Reply Score: 3

Too bad...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 13th Feb 2013 18:36 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

I like the idea of a more-compatible Opera, but not Opera being yet another Chrome (after all, isn't that what Firefox is trying to be... just with Gecko instead?). I would have much preferred an "Opera Classic" with Presto, even if it is not the primary recommended version, and a more official "Opera" based on Webkit. With the retiring of Presto goes yet another bit of history.

It's a bad state of web browsing these days. I don't care for Firefox since 3.0, don't like Chrome, and Opera has been on a slippery slide for a while now. I miss the days when each browser truly was unique... now, everything is mimicking Chrome and/or switching to its layout engine, or finding other ways to dumb down the interface so a gnat can use it.

Edited 2013-02-13 18:41 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Too bad...
by shmerl on Wed 13th Feb 2013 19:10 UTC in reply to "Too bad..."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

They can use embedded Gecko instead of WebKit: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Embedding/IPCLiteAPI

I guess their problem is that they are tired of maintaining their own engine (which is an enormous task).

Edited 2013-02-13 19:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Sad....
by grumpyoldman on Wed 13th Feb 2013 20:31 UTC
grumpyoldman
Member since:
2012-10-08

... all things move on I guess.

The sad part about it is 'if everything is the same under the hood', browsers will just compete for user's attention and with each other on UI features and such?

So why use Opera at all then, use the WebKit browsers already existing, if Opera introduces a killer feature, just wait a bit, and your favorite WebKit browser will have it soon (that is the way of it usually right?).

I don't see how Opera will be more valuable in any industry that is already controlled by 'established' WebKit browsers.

Maybe continued and maybe better innovation 'under the hood' would have been a better game changer?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sad....
by PresentIt on Wed 13th Feb 2013 21:28 UTC in reply to "Sad...."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

The sad part about it is 'if everything is the same under the hood', browsers will just compete for user's attention and with each other on UI features and such?

Yes, so? That means the part you actually notice will be different.

So why use Opera at all then, use the WebKit browsers already existing, if Opera introduces a killer feature, just wait a bit, and your favorite WebKit browser will have it soon (that is the way of it usually right?).

What prevents those Webkit browsers from doing the same when Opera is using Presto?

How does switching to Webkit make any difference when it comes to the UI?

I don't see how Opera will be more valuable in any industry that is already controlled by 'established' WebKit browsers.

How is it more valuable today? Because it has an engine with lots of compatibility problems?

Maybe continued and maybe better innovation 'under the hood' would have been a better game changer?

They tried that. But when they added some new standard, the other browser ignored it and added their own instead, forcing Opera to implement that instead.

Reply Score: 3

Opera browser and Linux distributions
by sforstall1983 on Thu 14th Feb 2013 01:30 UTC
sforstall1983
Member since:
2012-09-28

I wonder if more Linux distros will support Opera

Reply Score: 2

Not very encouraging
by J-freebsd_98 on Thu 14th Feb 2013 02:27 UTC
J-freebsd_98
Member since:
2006-01-01

I use opera partly because it recovers where others segfault, crash, freeze... Upon hearing this news today, beside posting in other threads, I tried each of the two webkit browsers I have installed and seldom use. Each started to load pages then segfaulted...

Reply Score: 1

Comment by J-freebsd_98
by J-freebsd_98 on Thu 14th Feb 2013 02:29 UTC
J-freebsd_98
Member since:
2006-01-01

I posted a comment. (added a comment.), to the effect that opera (at present) does not segfault as some browsers based on webkit usually do (today at least.)
Maybe added a comment/posted a comment are unequal, sorry. This one may appear...

Reply Score: 1

The three kingdoms
by shinkou on Thu 14th Feb 2013 03:32 UTC
shinkou
Member since:
2011-03-24

I'm having a bad feeling that someday we'll care less about THE standards and more about THE engine (i.e. WebKit). And by that time, Mozilla will probably be out of business, which will be very sad.

Reply Score: 2

Unsure about this.
by Sauron on Thu 14th Feb 2013 13:42 UTC
Sauron
Member since:
2005-08-02

It's worrying that Webkit is becoming the new IE6. We need more diversity, not going backwards to one single monopolistic eco-system. Also Google refuse to add their extensions to browsers that are not Chrome, (well, Lunascape anyway, can't say if it's the same for other browsers), by giving you a pop-up box saying you need to be running Chrome to add its extensions. What utter bull, it uses Firefox extensions fine when using the Gecko engine, f*ck you Google.
I expect there is more people than just me, that won't use anything that Google has touched including Webkit. I won't support companies that endlessly spy on people and use dubious tactics to get their browser installed on peoples systems.
Sorry, straying off topic a little here, but I really don't like the way things are going with Webkit and the web, and Opera doing this takes away a little more choice from the user.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Unsure about this.
by PresentIt on Thu 14th Feb 2013 19:19 UTC in reply to "Unsure about this."
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

We need more diversity, not going backwards to one single monopolistic eco-system.

And you are of course using Opera as your only browser?

Opera doing this takes away a little more choice from the user

Why? The user doesn't care about engines.

Reply Score: 2

Kinda laughing
by deathshadow on Thu 14th Feb 2013 14:32 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

At the paranoid BS about webkit and 'spying' -- as if what one browser (chrome) or certain companies (Google and Apple) do on that front have ANYTHING to do with the open source rendering engine itself. That's extra crap those companies have tacked on top of the engine, NOT THE ENGINE ITSELF! Hence why if you want chrome without spy, you use Chromium, not Chrome. (or for us Haiku nutters, Webpositive)

So far as Opera using it to render, so long as they don't screw with favicon quicklaunches, custom toolbar buttons, user.css, user.js, the content blocker, portrait mode tabs, flip navigation, the mail client, turbo, the actually useful cache browser, notes, the stellar downloads manager and the dozen other small in-built features I use every day -- then we're fine. After all, these are WHY I use it in the first place -- the built in functionality without hunting down several dozen poorly written and rarely maintained extensions that makes other browser UI feel like rinky toys.

In fact it will be GREAT to have a mature UI around webkit, since to be frank chrome/chromium/safari so far as their UI is concerned always feel like a trip back in time to IE 3 for me -- and that's NOT a compliment.

Reply Score: 5

Included goodness
by KLU9 on Thu 14th Feb 2013 19:48 UTC
KLU9
Member since:
2006-12-06

For me, though, Opera will always be that one program I downloaded right away whenever I inaugurated a new BeOS installation.

It came pre-installed in the free BeOS R5 Personal Edition, which is what introduced me to Opera (and also brought me to OSNews).

Reply Score: 4

Beos-Support
by comrad on Fri 15th Feb 2013 10:06 UTC
comrad
Member since:
2009-01-21

Oh, too sad the beos support is from 2001 ;)

Reply Score: 1

Maybe Opera will become relevent
by drpatt77 on Sun 17th Feb 2013 23:44 UTC
drpatt77
Member since:
2013-02-17

This is a very good move.

As a web designer, fixing sites for Opera can be a pain; sites that work everywhere else can display differently in Opera until I can hunt down the obscure CSS issues that will make it right. However, in my real estate business, Opera is completely useless. None of the web-based tools I need will run properly on Opera. Blaming Apple or making academic arguments about how great Opera's engine is won't cut it in the business world. My MLS just announced they are dropping support for Opera - and it never worked well anyway. It doesn't work with my company's CMS, and even my credit union chokes on it.

This has always bothered me because I love Opera Mail. Once they switch to WebKit I can do everything in Opera and can get rid of Thunderbird.

Reply Score: 1

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

To be brutally frank, if your MLS system doesn't work in Opera over something like CSS, the people coding it probably still have their heads wedged up 1997's arse using presentational markup, no separation of presentation from content, using the STYLE tag and attribute for no good reason, no semantics, tables for layout, endless pointless javascripted asshattery for christmas only knows what or doing CSS' job, or other outdated half-assed methodologies that have zero business on any website written after 1998.

Apart from a 100% min-height bug with a fairly well known workaround, there is no reason for HTML/CSS that works in FF/chrome to be a problem in Opera apart from ineptitude or ignorance on the part of the developer...

Which you could probably find out about really quick by doing a view source and a few cut/paste... if you cut/paste all the text from the page, and compare the size to the markup, if the code is more than 3x larger below 10k or 2x larger over 10k, the developer probably needs to go back and learn how HTML works. Is it a tranny document or filled to the brim with HTML 5's idiocy? (since HTML 5 seems carefully crafted for the folks who until a couple years ago sleazed out HTML 3.2 and slapped a tranny on it -- sure as shine-ola isn't for anyone who practices semantic markup; at best it's a sick buzzword akin to web 2.0... at worst, well...)

There's a lot of really crappy outdated code sleazed out by developers who then have the cojones to complain that their broken outdated idiotic practices and endless garbage javascript, HTML and CSS frameworks not working is the fault of the browsers.

Again, maybe if they pulled their heads out of 1997's arse they wouldn't be having these problems.

... and I'm saying this because I've never seen a multiple listing system that wasn't an absolute train wreck of garbage code built by inept fools who have no business writing HTML in the first place!

Reply Score: 2

Hegadem
Member since:
2013-02-18

Oh God...what's next: next version of Windows
to use the Linux Kernel???
Might as well. Seems to be the trend in this industry.

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

"the trend"?

Reply Score: 2