Opera: we will reinvent the Web

arthwollipot said:
It's been quite a while since I've used Opera. Has it improved at all in the last three years?
Click to expand...

Yes and no - Opera, the company, lost the plot when they decided to go down the path that led to the waste of time and space that is widgets, and because they wasted their limited resources on widgets they let the other browsers catch them-up.

When they concentrate on the browser I still think they come up with some of the best improvements to everyday browsing - such as "Speed Dial" - simply idea, very useful. But then they take literally years to add "must have features" such as in-line spell checker which has taken to version 10 to be added!
 
Darat said:
Yes and no - Opera, the company, lost the plot when they decided to go down the path that led to the waste of time and space that is widgets, and because they wasted their limited resources on widgets they let the other browsers catch them-up.

When they concentrate on the browser I still think they come up with some of the best improvements to everyday browsing - such as "Speed Dial" - simply idea, very useful. But then they take literally years to add "must have features" such as in-line spell checker which has taken to version 10 to be added!
Click to expand...

That's a pretty fair assessment. While I like Opera, these are my main gripes.

I'm a bit nervous about the idea to run services from the browser and the implications of easy attack vectors to build a botnet fast...
 
arthwollipot said:
It's been quite a while since I've used Opera. Has it improved at all in the last three years?
Click to expand...
I don't know... I always have a copy installed - but for the last three or four years, other than to test sites that I develop, I've hardly ever used it... cos its (been) crap... and once upon a twice I was an ardent Opera zealot
 
GreNME said:
Yeah, but controlling everything shouldn't be the purpose of a thin client. You can control pretty much everything on thick clients as well, so there should be a better reason than that.

Now, I've seen instances where thin client setups would work better than thick clients, and vice-versa. It really depends on the needs and the expectations.
Click to expand...
I personally think IT departments long for a return to the Big Iron days of computing, where there was ONE computer controlled by ONE department where every request had to pass through ONE controlling entity who decided just WHAT information you were entitled to.

Seriously, though, the justification for going thin at the last job was that IT wanted to control what people could access and put on their machines. Great idea, but fer cripe's sake, they should have at least TESTED a real-world implementation before gutting the perfectly working systems we had and dropping an abacus in its place.

Beanbag
 
Well, I installed it, crazy technophile that I am. I'm not seeing the benefit over, say that thing in MSN that lets you share folders. I don't see the point in embedding it in a browser. That said, opera manages to run it and still be pretty damn fast.
And having a central url is a handy idea, it means they can put you in a directory telling bods what services are offered by what sucker.

And I agree, opera have come up with some good ideas, but they take years to come up with them, and someone writes a firefox extension to do the same thing in a couple of days.

I'm assuming that 10.1 will do the actual reinvention though, because I'm seeing tacking-stuff-on atm.
 
Oh my... I don't even have words to describe how stupid I think this Opera Unite seems to be. I am so glad I got out of supporting home users years ago. :eye-poppi


Beanbag said:
I personally think IT departments long for a return to the Big Iron days of computing, where there was ONE computer controlled by ONE department where every request had to pass through ONE controlling entity who decided just WHAT information you were entitled to.

Seriously, though, the justification for going thin at the last job was that IT wanted to control what people could access and put on their machines. Great idea, but fer cripe's sake, they should have at least TESTED a real-world implementation before gutting the perfectly working systems we had and dropping an abacus in its place.

Beanbag
Click to expand...

Oh my. Yeah, someone in your IT department (or former IT department) was stupid, naive, or sold on some product or idea that they didn't fully understand, in my opinion. Thin computing is good for some things, but not all. When it comes to controlling user activity, though, it's no more simple than thick computing to lock everything down.

Sounds like you guys had some bad governance.
 
Wowbagger said:
Honestly, I could see how the server-in-a-browser idea could have merit. I'm willing to see where this goes, at least.
Click to expand...

While I can see some advantages for users who aren't technically savy enough to set up their own rigs, I also see some dangerous exploit vectors for that type of software.
 
Wudang said:
Maybe we can get a discount on a bulk order? http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/frustrations/388b/
Click to expand...

I've considered getting one before. Maybe we should see about a bulk order if this software takes hold. :eye-poppi

***graphic image warning***
Wudang said:
It sounds like standing in the prison shower and loudly announcing "Oh dear, I just got a nice lather on my butt then dropped the soap. I better pick it up".
Click to expand...

Edited by jmercer: 
Removed graphic description

I agree...

-----

Ducky said:
While I can see some advantages for users who aren't technically savy enough to set up their own rigs, I also see some dangerous exploit vectors for that type of software.
Click to expand...

True dat. The first thoughts that popped into my head were "I wonder how easy it would be to exploit that..." and then considered downloading it in a VM to test it. Then I thought better of it (since there are far more practiced and elegant people out there who are already working on it, I'm sure).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ducky said:
While I can see some advantages for users who aren't technically savy enough to set up their own rigs, I also see some dangerous exploit vectors for that type of software.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's also true for e-mail, and the general Internet, itself, you know.

I recognize that security is an issue. But, I also think it is an issue that can be addressed. At least in theory.
 
GreNME said:
Oh my... I don't even have words to describe how stupid I think this Opera Unite seems to be. I am so glad I got out of supporting home users years ago. :eye-poppi




Oh my. Yeah, someone in your IT department (or former IT department) was stupid, naive, or sold on some product or idea that they didn't fully understand, in my opinion. Thin computing is good for some things, but not all. When it comes to controlling user activity, though, it's no more simple than thick computing to lock everything down.

Sounds like you guys had some bad governance.
Click to expand...


That seems to be the way the IT department at the US Govenment agency I work for functions.
One guy there who is the #2 guy at my office's IT section is an old timer who still rants about how GUIs ruined computing.......
 
Last edited:
Wowbagger said:
Yeah, but that's also true for e-mail, and the general Internet, itself, you know.

I recognize that security is an issue. But, I also think it is an issue that can be addressed. At least in theory.
Click to expand...

Generally email doesn't run a server within the app you use, it connects to another machine. This is indeed an interesting idea, but services offered in this manner could provide a very easy way to build a botnet if security isn't addressed well. I hope they do address this. Generally the email program itself isn't the inherent means to build the botnet, you have to open the attachment, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom