Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Opera Embedding BitTorrent Client

Comments Filter:
  • torrent (Score:5, Funny)

    by supe (163410) * on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:27PM (#12994946) Journal
    So where's the torrent for Opera 8.02?
    • Re:torrent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kissing Crimson (197314) <.jonesy. .at. .crimsonshade.com.> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:31PM (#12994994) Homepage
      Actually, that's not a bad idea. One of the few Firefox 'features' that really annoys me is that each update requires a full download of the installer package. Opera could quietly download its updates through bittorrents (at severely choked rates!) and the present the update to the end user when complete.
      • Re:torrent (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ZephyrXero (750822) <zephyrxero AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:52PM (#12995235) Homepage Journal
        I dont' see why anyone would use a download service that's not bittorrent anymore. Users benefit from faster downloads and content providers have to pay for less bandwidth. It's a win win situation (unless you break it like Blizzard).
        • Re:torrent (Score:5, Insightful)

          by alnjmshntr (625401) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @01:06PM (#12995386)
          Are you serious? User's benefit from faster downloads in a P2P environment, but it's still nowhere near as fast as a direct download from a fat pipe (at least in my experience).

          Especially considering that bittorrent downloads normally take a while to get up to steam.
          • Re:torrent (Score:5, Informative)

            by rikkards (98006) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @01:11PM (#12995432) Journal
            I agree. Downloading the latest Service Pack or ATI drivers usually is around 500KB (as in bytes) through http. BitTorrent will take a while and usually maxes out around 150-200kb per second (I think it is bits whatever Bittornado uses)
            • Re:torrent (Score:3, Informative)

              by Progoth (98669)
              HA

              Back when aqua teens were still coming out I'd bittorrent the new episode the next morning at an average of >500KB/s (with it going over 1.1MB/s near the end)

              It all depends on the popularity of the torrent (and making sure you forward a port if you're behind a NAT)
            • Re:torrent (Score:5, Interesting)

              by LittLe3Lue (819978) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @02:33PM (#12996252)
              your claim is just stupid.

              consider this.
              the average torrent (i assume a movie or something) is being initially uploaded by one seed with, being generous, a max of 80 kBps. The person still manages to send all that information to everyone rather quickly (given a slower start to send 1-2 full copies out into the swarm).

              Microsoft Pipes have like, what, 1000000 times the bandwidth? So yes, you usually download as fast as your connection can handle. So yes, you WILL download faster than a popular torrent at the beginning of it distribution cycle.. if the person hosting originally had a small pipe.

              If Microsoft used torrents, their overall bandwidth would increase - they just dont need to.

              But let dream of the day that every single dedicated 'fat pipe', 'home user', and business used torrents instead of http / ftp / other p2p:
              we would see a HUGE increase in bandwidth across the internet.

              The reason you beleive torrents are slower has nothing to do with the protocol, but rather the people who use it.

              The only issue I have is that torrents die after some time, because people do not seed to 1:1, or people loose interest files that arent 'fresh'.

              If Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, and Opera embeded bittorrent, forced 1:1 seed ratios, and seeded every file in your download folder out to whoever needed it most.. well..

              wouldnt that be peachy? :)
              • Re:torrent (Score:4, Interesting)

                by rayde (738949) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @02:44PM (#12996354) Homepage
                i've posted about it before, and realize there are technical hurdles about it, but i'd love to see an apache mod that enabled apache to act as a tracker/seed for files. as long as the webserver is running, there is at least one seed and one tracker. the tracker could be smart enough to remove itself as a seed when enough seeds have entered the swarm, and reinsert it when seeds leave. (this would reduce the bandwidth problems inherent with seeding on the same machine as your tracker, but always keep at least one seed).

                problems i'd forsee arrive when the tracker needs to be responsible for seeding several files at once while still acting as a tracker... however, on the "fat pipes" we've been talking about, this should be less of an issue, and because of the nature of bittorrent, the tracker should only need to be a seed for a short amount of time, especially with a relatively popular file.

          • Re:torrent (Score:5, Informative)

            by n54 (807502) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @02:36PM (#12996283) Homepage Journal

            Sorry but are you serious? Don't get me wrong I do understand your sentiment but don't compare the situation with downloading torrents with only a few thousand seeds or less.

            To get a real feeling of how it would be I recommend trying out the Azureus [sourceforge.net] bittorrent client, keep it around and fire it up when a new Azureus version has been released, then look at the speed with which it dowloads (through a torrent) the new version and self-updating/installing itself. It's blazingly fast when one has five-digit numbers of seeders and at least on my network the limiting factor becomes my local pipe-size and nothing else. And this even when I'm behind a router with NAT which I haven't poked a hole through for Azureus! (OT: fixing the router is on my todo-list of course).

            Now imagine the same with Mozilla, Firefox, Open Office, and other similar large userbase F/OSS projects.

            Want to increase the speed even further? Use the same bandwidth that would otherwise be used for fixed server2client downloads for torrent seeding instead as needed.

            And I get ecstatic simply thinking about how it would be if at least the major F/OSS client software used something akin to Azureus' self-updating/installing (however that would not be good for server software which should not selfupdate in such a way).

            Slightly off topic Azureus is the sweetest Java program I've ever come across, it has not been entirely flawless but it is getting close now, proving that Java can be "done right". And unless you're using the Safepeer plugin the startup is fast and smooth.

            Back to the topic: once again Opera does something truly innovative, I recon the F/OSS community will see the beauty of the idea and be fast to do the same: a good idea is a good idea, no shame in using it. I hope to see this implemented in both Mozilla and Firefox since I use both, and I hope F/OSS also sees the ingenuity of the Azureus solution described above.

            Do we want to leave IE7 dead on the start-line? Then integrate and make good use of bittorrent!

          • Re:torrent (Score:5, Informative)

            by zootm (850416) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @03:16PM (#12996660)
            User's benefit from faster downloads in a P2P environment, but it's still nowhere near as fast as a direct download from a fat pipe (at least in my experience).
            There's an overhead because the protocol is more complicated (and the file is split into pieces), but it's really not very significant in the big picture. You'd be unlikely to notice a difference in rate between your fat pipe download and the same fat pipe seeding a torrent. The difference being that if the fat pipe was seeding a torrent, when the number of users downloading the file increased, the other downloaders can help each other download and take strain off of the server, making the download faster.

            Traditional downloads are likely to be marginally faster when the source has excess bandwidth to requirements, but anything less than that and you'll start seeing Bittorrent showing its advantages. And even below that, the hosting costs go down with Bittorrent downloads, so it's just more attractive in general.
          • Re:torrent (Score:3, Insightful)

            by STrinity (723872)
            User's benefit from faster downloads in a P2P environment, but it's still nowhere near as fast as a direct download from a fat pipe (at least in my experience).

            If you were to download the latest version of Firefox today, you'd be right. But if you've ever tried downloading the latest FF milestone on the day of release, you'd know P2P has a definite advantage.
        • Re:torrent (Score:3, Informative)

          by yodaj007 (775974)
          How did blizzard break it?
          • Re:torrent (Score:5, Informative)

            by imsabbel (611519) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @02:03PM (#12995965)
            They didnt really break it, but they sorta jumped into cold water....
            Back when WoW came out, there were large patches, with 100.000s of users, which led to things comming to a crawl. Overloaded trackers, non-connections, ect.
            Made a bad impression, but i was suprised that the last patches worked quickly without any problems, so i guess they ironed out the process.
          • Re:torrent (Score:3, Insightful)

            by TobyWong (168498)
            I can't get a good DL speed for the WoW patch therefore blizzard "broke" bittorrent.

            I smashed my foot on my coffee table by accident this morning therefore my coffee table "tripped me".

            Both are cases of displaced blame stemming from user incompetence.

            Try forwarding the ports/watching where you are walking next time.

            • Re:torrent (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Kaboom13 (235759)
              I play Wow, I also use bit torrent extensively. The WoW implementation of BT is broken beyond belief in several ways. First, it has lots of problems with routers and firewalls that normal BT has no problems with. Many people who routinely use BT can't get it to work correctly, Second, the client has no setting to limit the UL speed, like every decent BT client. This setting is important because otherwise the UL can completely throttle the download (this is a problem with every BT implementation). Set
        • Re:torrent (Score:3, Insightful)

          by trongey (21550)
          "...I dont' see why anyone would use a download service that's not bittorrent anymore..."

          Because if the file you want isn't today's hot movie or game then there's a good chance you won't find a seed. Then you get to download 85% from peers and sit around wishing you could get the rest of the file.
        • Re:torrent (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Just Some Guy (3352)
          I dont' see why anyone would use a download service that's not bittorrent anymore.

          ...sez the guy who apparently doesn't have to contend with NAT. Torrent+IPv6 should be nearly universally convenient, but you basically have to configure a list of per-host NAT rules if you want to use it on multiple clients sharing the same IPv4 address.

          See also: active vs. passive FTP. Any protocol that requires remote hosts to connect back to your client is going to make your network admins hate you.

        • Re:torrent (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bwalling (195998)
          I dont' see why anyone would use a download service that's not bittorrent anymore. Users benefit from faster downloads and content providers have to pay for less bandwidth. It's a win win situation (unless you break it like Blizzard).

          Err, it's hardly ever faster for me. When the last version of Fedora came out, I gave BT a try at it and gave up after 24 hours. I switched over to FTP from USF.edu and got 485K/s. Download was done rather quickly.

          Another thing that irks me with BT is that it stops perio
        • by Augusto (12068)
          > I dont' see why anyone would use a download service that's not bittorrent anymore

          Corporate firewalls
        • Re:torrent (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dragonman97 (185927)
          I respect BitTorrent, and think it's a pretty damn good system*. However, I strongly disagree with the model of P2P for official file distribution as "the only way to go." I cannot fathom why a paying customer should have to help defer the costs of a company w.r.t. bandwidth. Frankly, the Terms of Service of many ISPs may disallow the practice of file sharing, and in particular, for any commerical use. If a company is going to sell a product to customers that will require heavy downloads, then they must
      • Re:torrent (Score:5, Informative)

        by masklinn (823351) <{slashdot.org} {at} {masklinn.net}> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:58PM (#12995308)
        One of the few Firefox 'features' that really annoys me is that each update requires a full download of the installer package.
        Which, as it's been said times and times again, is fixed with a binary updater in the soon to come Firefox 1.1

        On a side note, it should be noted that Opera is no better in that field...
    • Yeah I want to know too, let me just download Opera 8.02 so I can use it's new bittor...er.
  • Prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by niteskunk (886685) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:29PM (#12994965)
    I predict a swarm of FireFox BT plug-ins within the next two weeks.
  • Fine, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Heliologue (883808)
    That's all good and fine, but do I really _want_ a bittorrent client embedded in my browser?
    • Hmmm ... I don't know! _Do_ you?
    • by Jerf (17166) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:40PM (#12995087) Journal
      Yes.

      Next question, please.
    • Re:Fine, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)
      Yes. If I click on a link to an HTTP-served file, my browser downloads it. If I click on a link to an FTP-served file, my browser downloads it. If I click on a link to a BitTorrent served file, my browser drops the .torrent somewhere and I need to ferret around for a third-party app to download it.

      Does this sound like a consistent UI to you?

  • Apache (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rei (128717) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:29PM (#12994968) Homepage
    Now we just need apache with an embedded torrent generation/serving (or at least just serving; it'd be simpler to configure, that's for sure) for bulk static content. :)
    • Re:Apache (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sfcat (872532) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:35PM (#12995038)
      Now we just need apache with an embedded torrent generation/serving (or at least just serving; it'd be simpler to configure, that's for sure) for bulk static content. :)

      Actually I had this same good idea a couple of years ago. It could effectly wipe out the slashdot effect. What if, each time server load went over a preset amount, it served a torrrent containing the HTML and image files instead of the HTML file itself. When the browser sees the torrent with special HTTP headers, it automagically unpacks the torrent after completing the download and displays the HTML locally. An apache plugin for this was started and never completed. The problem was getting the browser/torrent client to do the right thing once it got the HTML so the fact that you downloaded a torrent instead of the HTML directly was transparent to the user. Once torrent clients are embedded into the browser, competition will force the other browsers to include this feature. Then no more slashdot effect, yea!!!

      • Re:Apache (Score:5, Informative)

        by csnydermvpsoft (596111) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:43PM (#12995124) Homepage
        A lot of the time the Slashdot effect isn't due to bandwidth being exceeded, but rather due to the database server being overloaded on database-driven sites. These sites couldn't be served this way anyways, as they have dynamic content that could be different for different users.
        • Yes, but good admins will setup a page for when their database goes down. This page now now be more more complex than. "Sorry we are down".
        • Re:Apache (Score:3, Insightful)

          by JahToasted (517101)
          Well it would probably be better to combine it with the squid proxy cache or a similar system. What would happen is if a large number of people were accessing the same page, that page is cached as a static page so it takes the load off the database. This is how wikipedia does it.

          Squid takes the load off the database, torrent takes the load off the bandwidth. combine the two systems and you get websites that are pretty much immune to the slashdot effect.

      • by Rei (128717)
        Yeah, I thought of this a while back, too. It might as well always serve the torrent if the browser is compatible; there's comparatively little penalty for doing so. You could go about this in two ways: either require the browser to use an Accept-Encoding header field, or have the server determine what is supported by the browser identification. The former is preferable. The browser would request a single file, and if the server sees that "torrent" is an acceptable encoding, it sends it a torrent for al
      • Re:Apache (Score:3, Interesting)

        by notNeilCasey (521896)
        One thing I hacked together for a friend's site [channel102.net] serving out a lot of video was an automatic redirector to the Coral Cache (not as neat as a torrent plugin would be, but cool enough, I thought) which he could activate when his bandwidth was approaching his monthly limit.

        I just used mod_rewrite to parse the URL and append .nyud.net:8090 to the hostname and send a redirect to the client. If this were made into a plugin which would combine detecting some bandwidth threshold with the option to fall back on the
    • Nah, decentralized tracking works and it works well. We just need Azureus and the mainline client to work together on their implementations.
    • Re:Apache (Score:5, Informative)

      by kv9 (697238) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:45PM (#12995151) Homepage
      what we need is people implementing [sourceforge.net] the idea not people coming up with ideas. hint: Development on mod_torrent is currently suspended indefinitely due to lack of time.

      they [mailto] need help.

      • Re:Apache (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rei (128717) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @01:04PM (#12995368) Homepage
        I agree. I hardly claim any particular genius for this idea, I doubt that I was the first, and know that I accomplish little by just mentioning it. I like how Michael Abrash ("inventor" of Mode X, and Quake co-developer) put it [64.233.167.104] (also applicable to the discussion of software patents):

        Our world is changing, and I?m concerned. By way of explanation, three anecdotes.

        Anecdote the first: In one of his books, Frank Herbert, author of Dune, told me how he had once been approached by a friend who claimed he (the friend) had a killer idea for a SF story, and offered to tell it to Herbert. In return, Herbert had to agree that if he used the idea in a story, he'd split the money from the story with this fellow. Herbert's response was that ideas were a dime a dozen; he had more story ideas than he could ever write in a lifetime. The hard part was the writing, not the ideas.

        Anecdote the second: I've been programming micros for 15 years, and been writing about tyhem for more than a decade and, until about a year ago, I had never-not once!- had anyone offer to sell me a technical idea. In the last year, it?s happened multiple times, generally via unsolicited email along the lines of Herbert?s tale.

        This trend toward selling ideas is one symptom of an attitude that I?ve noticed more and more among programmers over the past few years-an attitude of which software patents are the most obvious manifestation-a desire to think something up without breaking a sweat, then let someone else?s hard work make you money. Its an attitude that says, ?I?m so smart that my ideas alone set me apart.? Sorry, it doesn't work that way in the real world. Ideas are a dime a dozen in programming, too; I have a lifetime?s worth of article and software ideas written neatly in a notebook, and I know several truly original thinkers who have far more yet. Folks, it?s not the ideas; it?s design, implementation, and especially hard work that make the difference.

        Virtually every idea I?ve encountered in 3-D graphics was invented decades ago. You think you have a clever graphics idea? Sutherland, Sproull, Schumacker, Catmull,
        Smith, Blinn, Glassner, Kajiya, Heckbert, or Teller probably thought of your idea
        years ago. (I?m serious-spend a few weeks reading through the literature on 3-D
        graphics, and you?ll be amazed at what?s already been invented and published.) If
        they thought it was important enough, they wrote a paper about it, or tried to commercialize it, but what they didn?t do was try to charge people for the idea itself.

        A closely related point is the astonishing lack of gratitude some programmers show for the hard work and sense of community that went into building the knowledge base with which they work. How about this? Anyone who thinks they have a unique idea that they want to?own?and milk for money can do so-but first they have to track down and appropriately compensate all the people who made possible the compilers, algorithms, programming courses, books, hardware, and so forth that put them in a position to have their brainstorm.

        Put that way, it sounds like a silly idea, but the idea behind software patents is precisely that eventually everyone will own parts of our communal knowledge base, and that programming will become in large part a process of properly identifylng and compensating each and every owner of the techniques you use. All I can say is that if we do go down that path, I guarantee that it will be a poorer profession for all of us - except the patent attorneys, I guess.

        Anecdote the third: A while back, I had the good fortune to have lunch down by Seattle?s waterfront with Neal Stephenson, the author of
        Snow Crash and The Diamond Age (one of the best SF books I've come across in a long time). As he talked about the nature of networked technology and what he hoped to see emerge, he
        • Re:Apache (Score:3, Interesting)

          by AKAImBatman (238306) *
          What? You're telling me that my ideas [blogspot.com] have no monetary value? The shock! The horror! ;-)

          Actually, I tend to agree with Abrash on this. The usual pattern is:

          1. CompSci invents concept.
          2. 10 Years later, everyone uses it.

          Situations like Google where the concept is taken directly to the market are very rare. As Honeywell (Multics) and Symbolics can tell you, being ahead of your time can really suck.

          That being said, it's not that ideas have no value. The problem is that their value is ethereal and cannot tr
  • Good feature (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dark Paladin (116525) * <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:30PM (#12994969) Homepage
    This is something I'd also like to see built into the next version of iTunes or iPodderX for getting Podcasts and the like (so as to reduce the bandwidth on shows I'm interested in listening to).

    Of course, to make sure that Opera doesn't get sued for having a P2P network built into their client that could be used for copyright infringements, they need to add a note into their EULA that says something akin to "Don't steal music, or movies, or - just don't steal, OK? If you do, don't blame us. Thanks." to that their intent in supplying the technology is clear.
    • Re:Good feature (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kihjin (866070)
      BitTorrent is no different than HTTP or FTP. It's Just a Protocol.

      You can't "steal" movies or music (or anything, for that matter) with BitTorrent, either, since that implies that downloading is theft. Theft leaves the original owner lacking in the item you 'stole'.

      Either way, this is an interesting move from Opera. Now it's only a matter of time before Microsoft will announce that they are embedding BitTorrent into Longhorn. Like all those other goodies they are planning ;)
  • I'm not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ReformedExCon (897248) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:30PM (#12994974)
    The real problem with this move is that even though they have a sort of "first mover" advantage, Opera is at the mercy of the Firefox/Mozilla developers with regards to this feature. Some enterprising Open Source developer will be able to incorporate BitTorrent into the Firefox browser without much trouble, and then Opera, the only significant for-pay browser left, will turn back into an also-ran.

    The key for Opera is to get into niches where they stand a chance, handheld computers and cellphones are one area they are very active in. Per-unit licensing for their browser on cellphones makes them a lot of money. I hope they do well into the future.
    • Re:I'm not impressed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hkmwbz (531650) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:55PM (#12995273) Journal
      BitTorrent is far from the only thing which sets Opera apart from Firefox. Speed, size, functionality, integration out of the box are some keywords. Of course, which one is better is a matter of taste, but some people prefer the way Opera works. No extension problems when upgrading, for one.

      Firefox with BT support would be a good thing. For Opera too. It would move BT further into the mainstream, and that would benefit anyone who wants to use it. Opera probably has something in mind, such as distributing Opera through BitTorrent. Why else implement it?

    • Re:I'm not impressed (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @01:14PM (#12995472) Homepage
      As much as I'd like to find my way to an OSS solution, I find myself going back to Opera every time. I don't have like one major thing to point, but it is many tiny things that make it feel considerably more polished and userfriendly. Firefox, meaning no disrespect, still feels like it was designed by engineers. It's solid, it works and that's basicly what people need.

      As far as Opera are concerned, they are doing very well in their niches, and as far as the desktop goes, I think they have a common cause with Firefox in making as many people as possible consider alternatives to IE. A person who thinks "I've been hearing so much good about features other browsers provide" is a far more likely customer than a "IE came with Windows. Good enough." person. Not to mention that enough non-IE users force sites to follow standards, levelling the playing field against IE.
      • Funny for myself a former long time Opera user (used it from version 3.5 onward, until FF 1.0)I keep re-trying Opera, but already I am addicted to firefox features and functionality, and keep returning to Firefox.

        A couple of times recently I thought I would give Opera yet another try, and I got frustrated with bookmarks both times.

        First I was using it with folders on my bookmark toolbar. But when I tried middle clicking the bookmarks in folders nothing happened so I couldn't launch them in new tabs, like
        • I think this is where there are differences. First, I have yet to see a useful extension that could not be replicated for any browser via another helper program or userjs or whatever.

          Second, what I do see is the possibility of exploits for extensions same as BHOs in IE.

          Third, I see many people having popular extensions break when they upgrade.

          For me, extensions seem to be far more a hassle than they are worth. And as far as I can tell, there are enough people out there who feel the same to make Opera pro
    • Re:I'm not impressed (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FFFish (7567)
      Opera has Firefox beat hands-down when it comes to plain ol' usability. There are so many things it makes so very, very easy to do, that Firefox either does not do or does not do easily.

      Whenever I move from Opera to Firefox, I find myself frustrated and going back.

      It continues to surprise me that people don't see thirty bucks of value in Opera, and settle instead for the piss-poor experience of MSIE and the clumsy experience of Firefox.
  • by deft (253558) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:32PM (#12994997) Homepage
    Well, "milestone" is lofty, but this certainly does lend legtimacy to the software as a real tool just like, say, winzip or anything else that just does a job, and people use it for good and "bad".

    Should make Opera look good too.

    The underlying thing here that looks great for BT is that Opera must have done some due diligence and decided they were on good legal ground to embed the software... which may be seen as a green light for others to do the same.
  • by MTO_B. (814477) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:32PM (#12995003) Homepage
    Thanks to google's summer code we can hope to have a functional BitTorrent client built with XUL/XPCOM.

    Included in Firefox? :-)

    Check the Mozilla development projects that have been accepted for Google's Summer of Code program:
    http://summer.mozdev.org/projects.html [mozdev.org]


    And the MozillaZine news about it here:
    http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6 874 [mozillazine.org]
  • I may just have to switch browsers now. Unless Firefox comes out with a Torrent extension before the new Opera goes stable for my distro. FireTorrent, anyone?
  • IANAL but wasnt their a precedent set in the US courts recently where a company could be held responsible for creating a tool that enables copyright infringement.

    Crazy as this is, arent Opera just asking for trouble here? Surely the smart thing to do would be to have someone develop plugin that provided BitTorrent functionality. Opera doesnt have pockets as deep as most corps but they are deep enough to make them a target.
    • Re:Legal problems? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ari_j (90255) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:44PM (#12995143)
      The precedent recently set is that you cannot distribute a tool with the intent that it be used to infringe copyrights. Grokster distributed software and said "Go illegally download songs to which you have no license!" Opera is saying "Go and download really big files!" Including Bittorrent is no different than including HTTP in their web browser, since either can be used for both lawful and unlawful purposes. What would make Opera a target is if their new release were advertised (at all! ... hahaha, I kill me) with the tagline "Opera 8.5 with Bittorrent: the world of pre-release movies is at your fingertips."
  • Just more proof... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:34PM (#12995027) Homepage
    ...that bittorrent the technology is not going away. In fact, it is a vastly superior method that should replace HTTP/FTP for most file downloads. There should be no more need to find mirrors, simply run it and let the program decide which sources are the faster. An integrated client will introduce a lot more people to it. Now, if they get consistantly better download performance perhaps you'll even see popular demand :)

    Kjella
    • by mikefe (98074)
      It isn't good for low latency (and dynamic content) transactions only because of the increased number of round trips bittorrent requires, but for anything that can be batched or sent ahead of time it should work well.

      I have been thinking how it would be great for streaming media (even live feeds), if you only delay the play cursor 30-60 seconds.

      The media players with embedded bittorrent clients would swarm on the feed for the data before the play cursor, and if there are any missing pieces (maybe 5 second
  • Well I guess (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CSMastermind (847625) <freight_train10@hotmail.com> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:35PM (#12995035)
    I see the advantages here and in other ways I see the disadvantages. In one way I'm excited at the thought of not having to run a seperate program to download a file using torrents. I even see that it might force other browsers to do the same (I'm betting we see a firefox addon in about a week). I could even picture a time when all webpages are sped up via torrents.

    At the same time I'm worried about a browser doing too many things. I'm not going to start using opera just because it can handle torrents but if IE or Firefox starting doing it I would be rather happy. It's kinda like the various PlayStations playing Dvds when competing with a dreamcast or 64.

    This also begs the question, will this help make torrents more mainstream? I know plenty of average people who have no idea what a "torrent" is. If more of the general public starts picking it up who knows what will happen with things like piracery.
    Meh, just my thoughts.
  • Is this necessary? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm perfectly happy with Azureus. I doubt that the BitTorrent client integrated into Opera will be better.

    This seems to be an unnecessary feature. I don't see myself using it over Azureus.

    BitTorrent clients also tend to use up a lot of memory because of the nature of BitTorrent. Would this impact Opera's preformance as well?
  • What a great way to see that they get banned from corporate desktops across the planet.

    This will change Opera browser installs on enterprise systems to go from "officially not allowed but generally ignored" to "hunted down and killed at every opportunity".

  • by slapout (93640) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:44PM (#12995142)
    Is "Opera vs FireFox" the new "vi vs emacs" ?
    • Only if they started sticking ads in vi and decided to also sell it ad-free.
    • by kahei (466208)

      With Opera vs Firefox, each contender has many advantages; the argument could go on forever and in the end it's just a matter of taste, and of suitability for a particular role.

      With vi vs emacs, it's a much more important issue that has thankfully already been settled by vi winning.

      ^Z
      ^C
      end .end
      quit
      ZZ :quit :wq!

    • Is "Opera vs FireFox" the new "vi vs emacs" ?

      No, "Firefox vs Opera" is the new "vi vs emacs".

      And, just like before, everyone knows firefox is better than opera.
  • For most people this will make fetching torrents a lot easier. Problem is ofcourse that most people are still using IE.

    It wont make me switch back from Firefox (I used to use Opera), as I'm simply addicted too extensions. Plus I still haven't encountered a better bittorrent client than Azureus [sourceforge.net].

    And as the rest of the people here say: I bet we will see a bittorrent extention for Firefox pretty soon. The wonders of competition. Security issues apart, this shows why a browser monopoly is just as bad as o

  • by wowbagger (69688) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:54PM (#12995263) Homepage Journal
    Adding a Bittorrent client to a browser doesn't seem like a good fit to me - a BT client needs to run continuously in the background, downloading and uploading the files.

    A browser's model is more one of "load the thing and show it" or "Stream the thing and show it". How does that map to BT, where you cannot even "stream" a thing (since you are getting the pieces out of order)?

    Will we see people who's torrent clients only serve the file while it is being downloaded, and then stops?

    Personally, I run Torrentflux [torrentflux.com] - which is a PHP CGI app that allows me to download & serve torrents on my server - then I just point my browser at it to set things up.

    Now, *if* the browser plug-in then communicated with a [daemon|service|external program] that did the torrent work, and all the plug-in did was send the command to the external entity to command the queuing of the download (and then open a window in the browser when the download is done)- then that might make sense.
  • Oprah? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ewg (158266) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:55PM (#12995274)
    I'd be more impressed if Oprah [oprah.com] offered support for BitTorrent.
  • Hrm... why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Duncan3 (10537) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:58PM (#12995300) Homepage
    When I click on a torrent it already automaticly launches and starts. The BT installer is mean and lean, no worries there.

    Won't this just mean one more thing for Opera to have to write/maintain/patch themselves?

    Still a cool move, just... why?
  • html over torrent? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wormuniverse (818854) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @01:12PM (#12995445)
    this is just one step closer to the dream of webpages being served as torrents. Imagine the benefit to mid level, and non commercial websites. http://www.4chan.org/ [4chan.org] comes to mind as a major benefactor.
  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @01:19PM (#12995523) Homepage
    Bittorrent is great. Having it as part of the browser is great. But isn't it about time that the Bittorrent protocol become a W3C standard? Or is Bittorrent too hacky, and ill-suited to be a standard? If Bittorrent wants protection from IP litigators and large-scale adoption, this would help a lot.
  • Open with... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Relic of the Future (118669) <`dales' `at' `digitalfreaks.org'> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @01:20PM (#12995535)
    I don't know about you, but when I click a link to a .torrent file, it pops up btdownloadgui... how is this any better?
    • Re:Open with... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by akozakie (633875)
      Because Opera has a unified UI for downloads, with a "Transfers" panel, etc. So, you have a few downloads running, one using FTP, one HTML, one BitTorrent. Why look at 3 different windows if you can have it all in one list - progress bars, current speed, estimated time left...

      It's akin to asking why Acrobat provides a plugin - after all if I click on pdf Acrobat would start anyway...
  • by Progman3K (515744) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @01:20PM (#12995537)
    Another precedent being set for the LEGAL use of BitTorrent.

  • Problems with this. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @01:41PM (#12995759) Homepage
    I can see two problems with this.

    The first is that bittorrent is not really a stable protocol. By which I mean, the protocol itself is still under active development. I could imagine in-browser bittorrent being great for about two weeks, then all of a sudden Azureus will come up with some kind of funny extension or the main Bittorrent team will come up with a better multi-root-tracker swarming mechanism or some such and all of a sudden the in-browser client won't work with any of the new torrents out there. That would get obnoxious.

    The second is that web browsers are not stable. I mean, web browsers crash a lot. I expect a torrent to be running for hours and hours, becuase if it won't be going that long, well, it makes less sense for it to be torrented in the first place. Even the most stable web browser I've ever used, I'd be a little cautious to run bittorrent inside it because some afternoon I could be reading a site it doesn't like or something and I could crash two or three times, getting booted out of my hypothetical torrent each time, before that torrent finishes. I'd hope or wish there was some way to move the actual bittorrent downloading into a separate process, one that isn't effected by browser crashes, even if it's transparently "part of" the web browser from a GUI perspective. (Come to think of it, I kind of wish at times someone could make a web browser where every window got its own process space, or something, so one browser window could lock up or crash without effecting the others. Web browsers are practically OSes now, they might as well start acting like it.)

    Other than these things it seems like a good idea.
  • by iamjoltman (883526) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @02:01PM (#12995947)
    In Soviet Russia, BitTorrent embeds Opera

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.

Working...