Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Jun 2008 11:07 UTC
Internet & Networking Linux.com has a review of Opera 9.5, which also includes various benchmarks for Opera, Firefox, Safari, and IE on both Windows and Linux. Linuxcom concludes: "Opera 9.5 is full to the brim with features and improvements and highly customizable. By rolling in apps such as the mail client and IRC chat application, and integrating them into a user's browsing experience, Opera 9.5 is a worthy challenger to Firefox 3. It surely has enough power and features to make it my favorite browser. If only it were free software and open source!"
Thread beginning with comment 320112
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

Adware while annoying is entirely different to malware or spyware. It was up front with the mechanism used and what was sent where and when.

Of course at the time I remember the great big pile of FUD spread about them then too by F/OSS supporters and it's just ridiculous to see it still going.

Because it had ads who knows what else is going on there?

Program Evangelising by Chicken Littlism. Ridiculous.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Adware while annoying is entirely different to malware or spyware. It was up front with the mechanism used and what was sent where and when. Of course at the time I remember the great big pile of FUD spread about them then too by F/OSS supporters and it's just ridiculous to see it still going. Because it had ads who knows what else is going on there? Program Evangelising by Chicken Littlism. Ridiculous.


Sigh. It is very, very simple.

On the one hand, you have several browsers which are clearly written in the interests of their authors, and which pointedly are not prepared to let you see how they work and what functions they contain. Some of these browsers still, to this day, actively spy on you and actively try to lock you in to a particular platform by including non-standard bits, and others apparently don't do that now ... but have been known to do something similar (that is in their interest, not yours) in the past.

On the other hand, you have one browser that performs better (or at least as good as) any of the others, and its internal workings are entirely open to anyone's scrutiny.

Common sense alone would indicate that you opt for the one which is unequivocably being honest with you.

If you are gullible and trusting enough that you are prepared to opt for one of the others that keep their functioning closed from you, that is of course your perogative ... but your choice of doing that in no way invalidates the choice of others who are not so trusting of profit-seeking corporate interests.

Trust is a two-way street. If a corporate body software vendor is not prepared to disclose every function of their product to independent audit by end-users representatives, then why exactly should end-users trust them? What is in this one-way-only deal for the end user?

Reply Parent Score: 2