Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Feb 2008 15:26 UTC, submitted by Robert Kratky
Opera Software Opera Software's CEO Jon S. von Tetzchner explains why they will not release the Opera browser as open source, arguing that open standards are more important than open source. Von Tetzchner also talks about the company's antitrust complaint to the European Commission in which it accuses Microsoft of abusing its dominant position by tying Internet Explorer to Windows.
Thread beginning with comment 301855
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
hrmmm
by eggs on Thu 21st Feb 2008 16:46 UTC
eggs
Member since:
2006-01-23

"open standards are more important than open source"

I can agree with that.

Reply Score: 14

RE: hrmmm
by WorknMan on Thu 21st Feb 2008 17:40 in reply to "hrmmm"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Me too. As long as you're using open standards, not really much of a chance for vendor lock-in.

As for Opera, it's really Firefox that's eating its lunch and not IE.

Edited 2008-02-21 17:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

v RE[2]: hrmmm
by Moulinneuf on Thu 21st Feb 2008 19:01 in reply to "RE: hrmmm"
RE[2]: hrmmm
by Moulinneuf on Thu 21st Feb 2008 19:07 in reply to "RE: hrmmm"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

One more thing Opera is paid to give there desktop browser for Free :

http://gigaom.com/2005/09/21/google-made-opera-browser-free/

Reply Parent Score: 2

Links to File extension showing opposite ...
by Moulinneuf on Fri 22nd Feb 2008 06:19 in reply to "RE: hrmmm"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Another addition :

If Open Standard where truely followed then no one would dare choose a similarly named extension file , just for the sake that this file could go on any OS and be useable and made recognized as is. Open Standard is meaningless if a derivative can be made that shadow , ressemble or break standard compliance with the original standard :


http://filext.com/

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EA

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EB

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EC

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5ED

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EE

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EF

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EG

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EH

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EI

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EJ

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EK

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EL

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EM

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EN

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EO

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EP

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EQ

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5ER

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5ES

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5ET

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EU

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EV

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EW

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EX

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EY

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EZ

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5E%5B0-9%5D

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5E%5B%5EA-Z0-...

If a better format happen to emerge why not give it it's own name and make it the new standard everyone knows about. Standards are based on known quantity exept in Software where as Microsoft set most of the standard , but almost no one know's what those are made of , hence incompatibility at the standard level ...

Edited 2008-02-22 06:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: hrmmm
by TheBadger on Thu 21st Feb 2008 19:45 in reply to "hrmmm"
TheBadger Member since:
2005-11-14

"open standards are more important than open source"

I can agree with that.


I think we'll have to agree to disagree. ;-)

I can see the benefit of open standards - it would be a stagnant Web browser scene if the only thing providing Web browser capabilities was the Mozilla code base and you had to go through and figure out what it was actually doing, but at least you could do that if it were open source (which it is, of course). Indeed, the power of verification is there for all to explore.

I'd rather have open source, ahem, Free Software. The level of control is superior, the barriers to involvement are lower. Opera do themselves a disservice in several respects by insisting on remaining proprietary: the important GNU/Linux distros won't touch their stuff unless it's open enough (even Firefox only makes the grade rebranded in some cases); people who support Free Software don't care as much about some proprietary vendor's battles with Microsoft as they do about one of their own.

What still amazes me is that Opera is still around. It's not a tiny company, and it would appear that they've spread their focus in order to make up for the loss of revenue from selling the browser to end-users, even though there are some corporate licensees who haven't yet switched to something else. The resulting strategy doesn't seem particularly convincing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: hrmmm
by Redeeman on Thu 21st Feb 2008 21:12 in reply to "RE: hrmmm"
Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

well..

open standards ARE more important than the licensing of an individual piece of software.

Who cares what license the software someone uses is, as long as its always possible to replace it, and freely compete, which a free and open standard ensures. I dont give a rats ass if your browser is opensource, as long as i can view the pages with my free browser..

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: hrmmm
by aesiamun on Thu 21st Feb 2008 22:06 in reply to "RE: hrmmm"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Please don't speak for me. Open standards, in my opinion, are much more important than Open Source.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: hrmmm
by da_Chicken on Fri 22nd Feb 2008 01:42 in reply to "hrmmm"
da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

"open standards are more important than open source"

I can agree with that.

Then you also agree that it's a valid choice.

But I think it's a bogus choice. If you use Konqueror or Firefox, you don't have to make that choice at all because they support both open standards and open source. That's why I prefer to use Konqueror and Firefox instead of Opera.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: hrmmm
by pixel8r on Fri 22nd Feb 2008 02:42 in reply to "RE: hrmmm"
pixel8r Member since:
2007-08-11

i second this!!

They make it sound like if they went open source they would somehow have to break open standards...?!

I think BOTH open standards AND open source are important, and most open source projects I know also support open standards. In most cases they support open standards better than their closed-source "equivalents".

So what is the point of saying open standards are more important? Its just an excuse for not opening up their code and I dont believe its a valid one.

If they made opera open source it would still meet the same open standards it does today. So the question should be asked again, "Why wont opera go open-source AND remain open-standards compliant?". Why?

Edited 2008-02-22 02:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: hrmmm
by renox on Fri 22nd Feb 2008 10:28 in reply to "RE: hrmmm"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

>>"open standards are more important than open source"
>I can agree with that.
>Then you also agree that it's a valid choice.
>But I think it's a bogus choice.

True, it's not a choice but what Opera's CEO was saying is that their browser is standard compliant which is more important than being opensource or not, and I agree with that.

As for FF vs Opera: I prefer Opera as it's more responsive.

Reply Parent Score: 3