we should support opera

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 9563

Guest


Beastie said:
And the problem is ____? You can use anything you want for the mail (including a third-party application), and you can disable the built-in mail/chat system by adding Show E-mail Client=0 to operaprefs.ini if I'm not mistaken.
The problem is that I didn't know that. Promotions that mention a lot of miscellaneous features make me unconfortable. The (perhaps unfounded) fear of having unneeded code and/or not being able to configure what I want sometimes scares me off. I'm just an amateur so I have to be careful. :)

I ended up trying Seamonkey on that machine and so far it looks fine. It's a low memory box so I don't expect a lot of performance. At the moment it's just for the purpose of learning about FreeBSD.

On my current main computer I run Lunux with firefox 3.0.15 and have 40+ browser windows (I don't use tabs) open 24/7. Firefox is a hog, but it's not as bad as some people make it out to be. I still manage to have four other browsers open on other desktops as well as do useful work with OOo and gimp without having to close anything. That's an Intel P4-511 so I'm sure an up-to-date machine could easily supersede this performance level by many times.

However my new interest in FreeBSD has spurned a desire to up the performance on really old kit and possibly even compete with my DOS box for speed in some areas. Hence my interest in lower resource browsers, besides Dillo and Links which I both love. Perhaps I should try Opera. :)
 

aragon

Daemon

Reaction score: 283
Messages: 2,029

DutchDaemon said:
I switched from 32-bit to 64-bit recently, and the numbers appear to be virtually the same. I'm now at 156M.
Curious to know why mine was so much more memory heavy, I watched its memory usage after a fresh restart. It climbed from 70M to 160M just because of one addon. With the addon disabled now I am just over 100M.
 

alie

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 54
Messages: 575

DutchDaemon said:
I have FF on about 16 hours a day on my laptop. It never goes much higher than 180M (after 6 hours, it's a 145M RES now). And this is with NoScript, AdBlock, Flash, the works.

Mine with script and flash plugin. Maybe something wrong with js engine. but still i prefer Firefox than others :D

Btw what is the bussines model of Opera giving free browser to users ?
 

chalbersma

Member

Reaction score: 4
Messages: 92

alie said:
Mine with script and flash plugin. Maybe something wrong with js engine. but still i prefer Firefox than others :D

Btw what is the bussines model of Opera giving free browser to users ?

I believe they have agreements with alt vista and google so that every time somebody uses their search engine with Opera they get a extremely small chunk of change.

Here's the official version from the investor faq.
 
OP
darkshadow

darkshadow

Active Member

Reaction score: 10
Messages: 171

alie said:
Mine with script and flash plugin. Maybe something wrong with js engine. but still i prefer Firefox than others :D

Btw what is the bussines model of Opera giving free browser to users ?
they only sell opera for mobile , and they try to spread there browser for free for desktop user
 

Beastie

Daemon

Reaction score: 548
Messages: 2,275

So they can open the source. They would only lose a portion of their revenue from the mobile market and they would recover it elsewhere.
It wouldn't change much since all the agreements (e.g. with search engine) are with Opera Software PLC not with any potential forks (if that ever happened) and there's no reason for these companies to break the agreements.
 

chalbersma

Member

Reaction score: 4
Messages: 92

You know an open source version of Opera would be awesome. But even as a closed source application it still rocks my socks off. Until another browser can knock it off as the best browser out there you'll still see me use this code:
Code:
> fluxbox_generate-menu -b 'opera'

:)
 

jb_fvwm2

Daemon

Reaction score: 227
Messages: 1,868

Using opera since before BSD (2004).
Just the other week I put a toolbar at the
top which has the "author mode" "user mode" toggle
so pages which do not render one way almost always
are visible the other way.
Posting that so I can ask anyone using Opera how
to have the target of a link hover at mouseover or
equivalent. I remember it at the bottom of the browser
mostly but that is hidden by the wm tray if the
former exists still. If I click on a link and
it leads to a forum, I do not wish to log on unknowingly
if I don't have enough time to read all the new posts.
...
 

Beastie

Daemon

Reaction score: 548
Messages: 2,275

jb_fvwm2 said:
how to have the target of a link hover at mouseover or equivalent.
I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about, but I suspect you're looking for Tools > Appearance > Buttons > Status. Now drag a Status field wherever you want it. Did I get it right?


jb_fvwm2 said:
that is hidden by the wm tray if the former exists still
Are you using FVWM? If you made a FvwmButtons taskbar or something on your page/desktop you can use the Extended Window Manager Hints to ask applications to maximize according to specific coordinates.
Add EwmhBaseStruts 0 0 0 24 to your FVWM configuration file if the taskbar is at the bottom and is 24 pixels high.
 

jb_fvwm2

Daemon

Reaction score: 227
Messages: 1,868

Neither of those hints worked, but I discovered by
chance immediately, that the three icons at the
upper right, the center one, if clicked (a toggle) to show
a 2-somthing rather than a 1-something, the
bar at the bottom which shows the link target url
reappears. So that is solved. (!) Solidifies the
choice of opera as a first preference...
 

Beastie

Daemon

Reaction score: 548
Messages: 2,275

jb_fvwm2 said:
Neither of those hints worked, but I discovered by chance immediately, that the three icons at the upper right, the center one, if clicked (a toggle) to show a 2-somthing rather than a 1-something, the bar at the bottom which shows the link target url reappears.
But I still have no idea what you were even talking about...

And adding that line to your FVWM configuration should've worked. Maybe you have a problem there.
 

jb_fvwm2

Daemon

Reaction score: 227
Messages: 1,868

I am not using fvwm. If I hover the mouse over
the "mutli-quote this message" as I type, a
URL appears in the bottom of the browser at a
bar. The Icon at the upper right of the screen
shows a page behind another. If I click on the
icon at the upper right, the bar disappears
(somewhere), and the very small icon changes to one-page
....
So it is just about fixing the usability of
opera, here.
I have fvwm2-devel installed, but by chance am using
a smaller wm currently. For each of them, I am
using configuration files gleaned from the web.
Apologies if I do not have the time nor expertise
to redo them etc. before posting...
 

oliverh

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 557

Beastie said:
So they can open the source. They would only lose a portion of their revenue from the mobile market and they would recover it elsewhere.
It wouldn't change much since all the agreements (e.g. with search engine) are with Opera Software PLC not with any potential forks (if that ever happened) and there's no reason for these companies to break the agreements.

No they cannot, if they do so they have to cope with lots of software patented by third parties. And I think their revenue is just to small to go such an adventurous way.
 

Beastie

Daemon

Reaction score: 548
Messages: 2,275

oliverh said:
if they do so they have to cope with lots of software patented by third parties
What do you mean? What third party software? What patents?
 

Beastie

Daemon

Reaction score: 548
Messages: 2,275

Oh, THAT! Virtually all of them are FOSS covered by all kinds of liberal licenses or LGPL AFAIK. So? I don't see how this can prevent Opera Software from opening the source of the Opera browser.
 

oliverh

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 557

Beastie said:
What do you mean? What third party software? What patents?

Every company uses technologies from third parties for their products. If you want to use such technologies you have to pay for it and then you'll get a license. But it's impossible to open source such a product (at once), because they don't own parts of the code/technology. and they license parts of their own technologies to other parties. This is common practice.
 

oliverh

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 557

Beastie said:
Oh, THAT! Virtually all of them are FOSS covered by all kinds of liberal licenses or LGPL AFAIK. So? I don't see how this can prevent Opera Software from opening the source of the Opera browser.

Opera uses no FOSS, they're using the commercial license for QT to distribute it as static build for example. Furthermore they're developing their very own JS-engine, HTML-render-engine and so on. And sometimes they buy some technology as add-on. If they want e.g. to support mpeg4 in Opera they have to pay for it. Using mpeg4 in Linux/FreeBSD is in most countries illegal.
 

hedwards

Active Member

Reaction score: 23
Messages: 217

aragon said:
Curious to know why mine was so much more memory heavy, I watched its memory usage after a fresh restart. It climbed from 70M to 160M just because of one addon. With the addon disabled now I am just over 100M.
Most of those problems people have with stability in Firefox are more reasonably blamed on one add-on or another.

The other crashes seem to usually be caused by Firefox's handling of DNS and scripts coming in from the server. (Or that blasted flash that seems to have infected most of the web. I wash my hands, but I still have its filth on me)
 
OP
darkshadow

darkshadow

Active Member

Reaction score: 10
Messages: 171

sory

but I dont know why we are talking about source here , if you use freebsd then you are committed to bsd lances which provide the freedom to provide only binary without source and even build product completely over open source code without provide source for changes or even original one , this freedom if you want always open source go gnu it will make you happy all the ,it is there product and they have freedom to sell t as they want , for me I develop code under bsd linces and I dont mind if go close source n another product,,, :e
 

Beastie

Daemon

Reaction score: 548
Messages: 2,275

I have to install the Qt3 libraries myself for Opera to work. Qt3 is licensed as proprietary, GPL and LGPL. Which one is it for Opera? Would it be the same if it was FOSS? How can, say, KDE or VLC, manage to use Qt?

Opera's "core" as well as the Presto engine are both developed by Opera Software PLC and nothing on their website and elsewhere indicates otherwise. So there's no problem with that if it went FOSS. Is there?

And yes Opera uses many FOSS: OpenSSL Toolkit (Apache), Zlib (zlib License, compatible with GPL), FreeType (GPL and FreeType License), Bitstream Vera (Bitstream License, another liberal license), Hunspell (LGPL and Mozilla). The rest is software provided "as is", without fee, with the permission to use, copy, modify and distribute.
 

Beastie

Daemon

Reaction score: 548
Messages: 2,275

darkshadow said:
but I dont know why we are talking about source here , if you use freebsd then you are committed to bsd lances which provide the freedom to provide only binary without source and even build product completely over open source code without provide source for changes or even original one , this freedom if you want always open source go gnu it will make you happy all the ,it is there product and they have freedom to sell t as they want , for me I develop code under bsd linces and I dont mind if go close source n another product,,, :e
So what? FreeBSD is FOSS, and even if the BSD license gives anyone the right to take FreeBSD, modify it and redistribute it in a binary format only, the FreeBSD Project still *chooses* to distribute FreeBSD as FOSS.

Opera, as a project, may benefit from being FOSS. That's all I'm saying.
 

oliverh

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 557

Beastie said:
I have to install the Qt3 libraries myself for Opera to work. Qt3 is licensed as proprietary, GPL and LGPL. Which one is it for Opera? Would it be the same if it was FOSS? How can, say, KDE or VLC, manage to use Qt?

Opera's "core" as well as the Presto engine are both developed by Opera Software PLC and nothing on their website and elsewhere indicates otherwise. So there's no problem with that if it went FOSS. Is there?

And yes Opera uses many FOSS: OpenSSL Toolkit (Apache), Zlib (zlib License, compatible with GPL), FreeType (GPL and FreeType License), Bitstream Vera (Bitstream License, another liberal license), Hunspell (LGPL and Mozilla). The rest is software provided "as is", without fee, with the permission to use, copy, modify and distribute.

Oh dear. Is there? Yes it is. Do you know anything about the software/technology-world apart from FOSS? Don't take this personal, but it is a different world.

A small hint: NDA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement ; so you don't even know whether they're using anything additional. This too is common practice. Welcome to the world of money. Why do you think the FOSS community had to rewrite some missing parts of open sourced Java? Or why do you think there are missing parts in OpenSolaris compared to Solaris? Yes licenses, patents, NDAs, lots of fun in the realms of big business.


>And yes Opera uses many FOSS:

Sorry I forgot the peanuts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top