Talk:Opera (web browser)/Archive 3

Wii[edit]

Nintendo has requested that a copy of Opera is to be included with Nintendo's Wii. It is currently under development.

I suggest that this information be researched and included in the Opera Mini section of this article. Comments?

Darkgarlic 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, though while I think it would be better lsited under the Wii article it has some relavence here.

Robert Maupin 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Opera for DS is not based on Opera Mini. It's a standalone browser. --Ritarri 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed Mobile Devices subsection to Opera For Devices section including better structioning and Main Opera Powered Devices List --seifip 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MDI Browser[edit]

Doesn't this qualify Opera as the first tabbed browser, from which all other tabbing innovations have sprung forth?

I've been using Opera consistently since early v3.0 (I may have used 2 as well, but I certainly don't remember it). It's always been light-years ahead of mainstream browserdom. 71.116.217.242 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe NetCaptor was first. --Zarachan ( Talk) 22:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, InternetWorks had tabs first. Ritarri 12:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come?[edit]

Why isn't there a criticism section for Opera like there is for IE and Firefox? It seems to me that this is implying that Opera is a perfect browser (which it isn't).--80.227.100.62 06:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the criticism section in Firefox article is very poorly written and would benefit from some triming. Criticism for its sake is not a neutral POV and that's something that Wikipedia discourage, if you have facts (beside things like [...] page doesn't load OK in Opera) please feel free to post them. -- AdrianTM 07:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had limited experience with the browser itself so I wouldn't know any of it's problems but I was just making an observation.--80.227.100.62 11:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in general against criticism sections, as we discusses in another page those sections draw low quality contributions, pet criticisms and original research. I think if there's anything to be commented it can be written in the main body of the article not as a separate "criticism" section. If you think that something is biased in the article please feel free to correct it. -- AdrianTM 13:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why indeed. The only problem I have with Opera is some issues it has with handling IMAP accounts, much like Ireneshusband. The funny thing, half the time the problem arises from poor certificates. Therefore, Opera, in being more secure, has prevented me from dealing with insecure clients. Hardly a complaint, now is it?

To summarize Opera vs. Firefox2 and IE7 - Opera is faster, uses less memory, and is standards-compliant. The average user may not care about standards, but web designers certainly do. Ever heard of the html<body hack?Applesanity 10:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, all problems experienced with Opera are somebody else's fault ("server-side" etc.). While I do not disagree that many of the problems are indeed the fault of somebody else, this is not very convincing. I myself use Opera a lot and, for all its good points, it does have some significant deficiencies, for instance its handling of IMAP mail accounts seems to be pretty poor. Perhaps I have missed a simple workaround here, but this is still an issue that deserves a mention if the article is to tell us more than you will learn from opera.com. Ireneshusband 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Opera (OperaUSB)[edit]

I suggest we either add a new section to the main Opera page about various unofficial portable versions of Opera that are out there, or create a new page to list all the reliable portable versions.

These portable Opera versions are the best way to get around restrictions by IT departments.

Pre-built portable Opera 8.54

http://www.opera-usb.com/operausben.htm

Customize Opera yourself to be portable

http://www.chooseopera.com/CDProject/portable.html

Portable Opera 9

http://www.kejut.com/operaportable

- RadicalSatDude 10:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove any links added to unofficial builds/installations of Opera -- and, besides that, helping people to get around IT department restrictions really isn't the function of Wikipedia. - Motor (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about just mentioning they exist and not linking to anything, and citing Wikipedia's policy why they can't be linked? Atleast that would be a compromise. -- RadicalSatDude 03:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful to mention that there are projects that make Opera run on USB, that's an useful thing. As long as the link stick to the subject the are not spam at least in my view. -- AdrianTM 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources is a pretty good start for why I'll be removing any links to unofficial installation immediately. Apart from that, sheer commonsense is another -- Wikipedia is not a link farm. This is an article about Opera. It's not a directory of links to stuff that might be useful or contain spyware. The editors here have to be sure that what we are linking to is genuine and safe... and reliable. As far as portable apps existing... I don't actually consider "portable" apps to be all that notable, but this article is already in the (slightly annoying) portable apps category. - Motor (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see a Portable apps section after all :)--RadicalSatDude 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds PoV to not include portable apps just because you don't find it notable. There are even two wikipedia articles for portable Firefox. 1 at the main wikipedia article and 1 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_Portable It also becomes misleading to have 3 Opera portable apps and have users come upon an Opera wikipedia link with no mention or description of any 1 of the portable Opera available. Trailing 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Watch link[edit]

Can we add an external link to Opera Watch? Opera Watch is an independent blog dealing with news and news analysis relating to Opera. As far as I know it's quite prominent.--Konstable 04:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a link under the Unofficial Links section.--Ice Ardor

Security[edit]

There are several problems with the new security section:

It repeatedly makes the statement that browser X has N vulnerabilities. No one can know how many vulnerabilities as browser has. All we can know is how many publicly known vulnerabilities a particular security company reports.
No distiction is made between highly critical vulnerabilities and less critical vulnerabilities.
It makes the implication that browser X is more secure than browser Y if it has fewer reported security vulnerabilities.
Lastly, the information about the security of browsers other than Opera has no place in an article on Opera. The information about security vulnerabilities belongs in Comparison of web browsers, where it is. Perhaps the rest of the information belongs in the Browser wars article, where multiple browsers are discussed.

Criticism[edit]

IGN has recently criticized the DS browser. Frankyboy5 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open source[edit]

Why isn't Opera open source? 71.250.35.162 13:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the owners of the source code (Opera Software ASA) have not licensed it as under an open-source license. In the future, please ask general questions somewhere appropriate because talk pages are meant for discussing the content of the article, not as a general discussion forum. -- Schapel 15:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web browser[edit]

This article should be moved to "Opera (Web browser)".

The consensus is that the term web should generally not be capitalized unless it's the first word in a sentence, part of a title, or part of the name of a product. I've fixed the few instances where the word was improperly capitalized in the article. -- Schapel 15:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be moved. Jowan2005

Agreed. --seifip 15:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved[edit]

I have moved the page from Opera (web suite) to Opera (Internet suite) as well as all talk archives. This is because Internet suite is the proper name for such a program, because it handles more than just web tasks. In addition to ability to browse the World Wide Web, Opera also handles non-web related Internet tasks such as e-mail and newsgroups. - Mike | Patch 19:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you move an article, please make sure to fix the links to this article, there are now a number of double redirects that lead nowhere thanks to this move, and hundreds of redirects. --Conti|✉ 14:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the easy road there, and redirected Opera (web browser) directly to this page to fix the double redirect problem. Same with Opera (web suite). I also edited the userbox to link directly here. Everything should be in order now. - Mike 15:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OperaTor - Opera + Tor + Privoxy[edit]

http://letwist.net/operator

It's basicially a bundle preconfigured and loaded with Opera Browser (v. 9.01), The Onion Router (v. 0.1.1.23) and Privoxy. I think it would be a useful addition to the page.——RadicalSatDude 23:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting up the article[edit]

I have just split off History of the Opera Browser and Features of the Opera Browser and successfully brought the article down to a more reasonable size. Kc4 18:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either the features info were left in this article after the afore mentioned split, or someone(s) have been adding them back in. The wording are almost identical in the 2 articles. Or am I missing something? Do people want the features to come back here or not? Please discuss. tess 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that the info has been added after I split it off. Kc4 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism about rendering[edit]

How can it be a criticism of Opera that people code pages specifically for IE and Netscape? As a user of Opera for many years, as well as IE and Firefox, the truth is that opera renders better than any of the others. It's the only one that line-breaks URLs, for example, and it easily has the best-looking widget set. So I'm not sure that rendering is a real criticism that people have. Finally, it's been very rare to find a web page that Opera couldn't render correctly for a long time, so the cited criticism doesn't even sound plausible. Kronocide 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article not cite references for this criticism? I seem to see some... -- Schapel 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

I propose that the criticisms that are currently bunched up in a section be spread out throughout the article wherever they are relevant. Reasons being:

A criticism section is a troll magnet.
Information becomes polarised (pro and anti)
Information is difficult to follow - ie. Someone looking at information about the rendering engine would have to read in one place about it's good bits and then scroll to another section to see if there are any criticisms. The information should be presented as a single item.
The use of 'Criticisms' as the section heading is a bad thing as it is inherently POV (ie. All negative things go here...)

Some pages that can assist in understanding my reasons are this one and this one. We have already, successfully done this at Mozilla Firefox (even though some editors think it was done with the intent of hiding criticism) and it should not be difficult to do it here. Takers?-Localzuk^(talk) 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Criticisms[edit]

To those who are knowledgeable about Opera, please un-crap the criticism section!

Website rendering should fall under criticisms of people who fail to meet W3C web standards or the W3C web standards itself or every other standard/dark matter every browser supports. - http://my.opera.com/hallvors/blog/2006/11/17/being-compatible-with-the-dark-matter-of

How is browser upgrade a criticism? Is downloading another Opera setup going to eat up the rest of the remaining parts of the hard drive? Will it cause an OS to crash? What's next? Is the article going to criticize Opera for being MDI because it has the disadvantages of MDI applications?

Functionality? How about we start naming the section, criticisms of how Opera is not Firefox? There are many people who get annoyed at Firefox extensions.

Meanwhile bugs/features that come closer to being criticisms are omitted such as:

1. Sometimes Opera stable cannot print selection:

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=162346

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=163201

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=163334

2. Lack of easy way to find out about great documentations/features on Opera until users ask on the forum for what exactly they want or get lucky using search:

Osync - http://osync.sourceforge.net/

Opera "can do this too" list - http://files.myopera.com/Rijk/blog/extensions.html

Collection of links about Opera that SHOULD BE at the Opera main page - http://my.opera.com/operafan2006/links/

Obook - http://my.opera.com/Dmitry%20Antonyuk/blog/

Sticky Notes - http://digilander.libero.it/odnalro/coding/sticky_notes/

Resetting Opera profile - http://my.opera.com/neeraj_deshmukh/blog/show.dml/319153

Migrating Opera settings - http://my.opera.com/neeraj_deshmukh/blog/show.dml/6579

Yes, wikipedia will not be a link farm but that doesn't mean Opera shouldn't either. The home site IS a link farm already. The least it can do is make the documentations easier to locate. Opera not being functional? More like Opera's main site is hiding the browser's functionality!

3. Cache problems - http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=168038

                 - http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=165180

4. Occassional 99% Cpu Usage - http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=167591

5. Sometimes Opera can't recognize voice commands - Can't locate the forum link now. There used to be some topics of these in the near dead (j/k) voice forums

6. Online Knowledgebase being old despite one of the very reason to have an online knowledge base is to have them updated regularly - http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=167715

7. Favicon problem - http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=144884

8. Bookmark does not have a right click context menu - http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=165180

                                                    - http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=118501

9. "Bloated" look criticism - http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=165679

                            - http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=108783
                            - http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=165151

10. Personal criticism: A person downloading toolbars is in for a world of hurt once the Opera browser "transform". Having been used to changing FF and IE through skins, the radical change was tantamount to having my browser hijacked with toolbars and then some. This is especially troubling for casual users who don't know they should go to tools - > preference or that toolbars aren't similar to skins or just plain and simply want to try out something new without expecting Opera to mutate.

Trailing 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there, as I see it, is that 90% of your references are forums and blogs. Can you provide any third party reliable sources to back up the claims? (PS. I have moved this out of the section I created as it is not really relevant to the topic I am trying to discuss, it is a subject on its own).-Localzuk^(talk) 07:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I can't. That's my reason for posting: to make future editors know that the criticism section not only needs a major rewrite but also that a lot of what is there are not criticisms and there are more annoying criticisms that exist compared to what's actually there. That's why I thought both of our posts are relevant. I'm also arguing for a major edit with the criticism section only in my case, it's the information I have a problem with not with how the information was presented. Trailing 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some information in this article that is not verified by citing a reliable source? If so, you may edit that information so that it says the same thing that the source says, and nothing more. If not, I think removing verifiable information would be seen as a POV edit that would be reverted. That means your own personal opinions about what should or should not be criticized about Opera should not affect what criticisms appear in this article. -- Schapel 13:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who actually read some of the verifiable sources know that the sources themselves aren't criticizing Opera.

For ex. http://www.opera.com/press/faq/#tech14 is an Opera faq explaining why there are no extensions for Opera. Why would Opera criticize their own browser? It makes no sense. It's obvious how the editors try to spin the message of the sources around and thus the editors make the sources themselves unreliable by including their own PoV conclusions. Trailing 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may believe it's "obvious how the editors try to spin the message of the sources around," but that's not what happened. That sentence appeared first in a separate article about criticisms of Opera. I added the reference after the sentence was written by someone else. If you would like to find a better source for the criticism, go ahead. Or you may move the sentence out of the Criticism section and move it to where extensions are covered. I would actually suggest that all of the content of the Criticism section be moved to other sections in the article and the Criticisms section removed. This way each section can be more NPOV by describing both positive and negative aspects of their contents. This same change was made in the Firefox article, and people are complaining that the Firefox and Opera articles handle criticisms differently anyway. -- Schapel 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which still validates my point. Something is being spinned either through the editors letting an un-sourced criticism get away with PoV or by not carefully checking the source and letting the criticisms stay without making anyone aware of the problem with the source. There is no notable source because there are no notable criticisms that Opera has no extensions. What often happens is that someone criticizes Opera for not being able to do what Firefox's extensions can do because of Opera's lack of making these documentations easy to find in their site or lack of making their explanations/answers easy to locate (see first post on this section). That is the actual criticism. The often stated criticism that Opera does not have extensions comes from over simplified words of people who are not familiar with the browser or are missing few key functions in specific extensions that are currently unavailable in Opera. The former excuse does not qualify as well researched criticism with well researched source and the latter excuse deals with specific extensions in FF vs. Opera's features rather than the entire extension system itself like Adblock vs. Content Blocker, Sage vs. Opera RSS features, insert other third party extensions. Trailing 03:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]