Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software The Internet Upgrades

Opera Embraces Extensions For v.11 283

Posted by timothy from the fat-lady-not-even-in-her-suit-yet dept.
dkd903 writes "Opera is one of the most solid browsers around. It is very fast, extremely customizable, and has a lot of functionality that others do not have. Opera is also a very strong supporter of Web standards; it was one of the first browsers to pass the ACID 3 test. However, Opera has always been confined to a relatively small user-base because of one critical thing — lack of extensions. Well, that is about to change — at least the extensions part. Today, it has been announced that Opera 11 will support extensions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Opera Embraces Extensions For v.11 More

Opera Embraces Extensions For v.11

Comments Filter:

  • Wish I ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hylandr ( 813770 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @03:13PM (#33898820)
    Wish I could Mod Op..

    - Dan.

    • Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Someone write a "FirefoxTab" extension. Who else would like their Opera to leak memory?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

      You could have, but it's too late now. That's essentially what the firehose is, a way to mod submissions up or down. Speaking of modding, both the parent and this comment are OT (although this one may be slightly informative... you mods will have to fight it out)

  • Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the_one_wesp ( 1785252 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @03:13PM (#33898824)
    It's about time! I'm now excited about Opera again.
    • Same here. I used to use Opera, but I switched to Firefox for a couple extensions that Opera was lacking (primarily /Find Bar/). I still miss some of the Opera shortcuts and would love to switch back.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I tried Opera once, but found it to be too bloated. I'll stick with Links.

      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 14, 2010 @03:54PM (#33899478)

        Opera has a find bar. on any page just type a "." and continue typing the word you want to find.

        I suppose getting extensions is kinda cool, but really, most of the extensions I hear FF ppl bragging about is something that Opera has had built in for a looong time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sznupi ( 719324 )

      They are sort of there already. People are making apps for Opera Unite which don't really use online/"serverlike" capability, just do useful things locally. And userjs, capable of adding stuff to right click menu, even longer.

      So it's part adding few polishing bits, part marketing / it needs to be "extensions" apparently.

    • Me too, because I too am a very supporter of web standards.

  • End result:

    Hell... It's about time!

  • Because, out of everything, the only thing has ever held Opera back is the lack of extensions. Yep. Definitely. Nothing about having a weird interface, or having preferences in unusual locations. Just the lack of extensions.

    Sure.

    • What is weird about the interface?

      What is unusual about having the preferences in about:config?

      The only think keeping me on Firefox instead of Opera is Tree Style Tabs.

    • Re:That's What's Holding It Down! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 14, 2010 @03:33PM (#33899162)

      What is strange about the interface? I've been using Opera since the 90s, and when forced to use another browser I've never noticed anything extremely different. I've never noticed the preferences being in unusual places either, so I'd be curious if you could expand.

      Personally, the reliance on extensions is the problem with other browsers. Mouse gestures specifically is something I can't comfortably browse without, and I always feel its lack when I have to use another browser. This is one place where Opera just works and all other browsers are broken as far as I am concerned.

      I've never understood Slashdot's hatred for little Opera either. It's the only browser with a built-in shortcut to Slashdot (just type /. in the address bar). I guess just because it's not FOSS?

    • No, not the only thing ever. Opera was held back before by the ads displayed in the free version. Remember when they removed the ads and Opera usage skyrocketed?

      Oh, wait. I see your point.

    • Isn't bundled with the OS is probably the biggest factor, followed by lack of name recognition. Lack of extensions is probably down near not-open-source as far as most people are concerned. Anyway, can-run-extensions isn't going to help until extensions appear, unless it can run Firefox extensions. That said, I think it's a great move on their part, and it certainly makes me more interested. But I'm a nerd. :)

    • Re:That's What's Holding It Down! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmberBlackCat ( 829689 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @06:54PM (#33901908)
      I don't think Opera's problem is the lack of extensions. I think it's problem is websites that don't support it and, in some cases, specifically check for Opera so they can say the site is not compatible even if Opera could render the pages properly.

  • Firefox lovers of bloat stay away (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'd prefer the best browser to maintain its current level of anonymity and leave the IE and Firefox user as cherries to be plucked.

  • Here's hoping. Some ad-heavy sites are almost unusable in Opera now, because of the sheer number of autoplaying Flash videos. Not mentioning any names... [thedailymash.co.uk]

    • Re:Flashblock (Score:4, Informative)

      by Nichotin ( 794369 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @03:34PM (#33899178)
      You can try out privoxy [privoxy.org]. It is an ad filtering proxy server, which will work with any browser. I don't surf the web without it. Just install it, set your browser to use proxy 127.0.0.1 on port 8118, and voilá, obnoxious ads be-gone.

    • Re:Flashblock (Score:4, Informative)

      by alvarogmj ( 1679584 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @03:36PM (#33899226) Homepage

      You can enable a setting that allows plugin content to be downloaded only after clicking on it. Very useful:
      http://my.opera.com/dude09/blog/on-demand-plugin-opera-turbo [opera.com]

      Opera is what it is. Either you like it (like me) or you don't. Its lack of popularity is not due to the lack of extensions (after all, chrome and safari had bigger market share before having extensions themselves).

      I prefer it, over any of the others. But it seems there are a lot of bad misconceptions around and that's the biggest problem Opera Software needs to find a way to solve.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by JackDW ( 904211 )

        Thanks. This is not something I knew about Opera.

        Generally I think Opera is very good. Only a few sites have been a problem, and then only because of Flash. I have tried the Privoxy solution (suggested elsewhere) but found that it doesn't actually block very much. ODP is most likely exactly what I need.

  • Um, I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of other reasons Opera has a small user base other than the lack of plug-ins...*

    *(not that any of them is necessarily rational or deserved, mind you)

  • If Opera has a 'problem' it's that it's most well-known as software one needs to buy versus Firefox and IE being included in the purchase of a Windows product.

    They must be given a huge amount of respect for staying relevant and commercially viable versus costless competitors.

    I'm glad they are doing extensions. While I live underneath a rainbow with unicorns and fairies, I'd suggest making Firefox extensions portable to Opera.

    • Opera has been free for a while.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by The MAZZTer ( 911996 )

      Given many Firefox extensions have traditionally worked with the internals of Firefox (though not recommended of course), this not only explains why many break with each new Firefox release, but why Opera can't do what you suggest. Opera would have to BECOME Firefox to get Firefox extensions.

      On the other hand, Chrome has a fixed API for extensions, which you could theoretically implement in other apps easily enough (well, you need a JS engine first of course).

    • You've had multiple replies already, but ... Opera is free. I think the only product they were charging for, last I checked, was Opera Mobile, and that might be free now, too.

  • Extensions are critical? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Carik ( 205890 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @03:25PM (#33899006)

    I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

    I don't get it. I suppose this is nice if it gets people to use Opera, but honestly... if that's your excuse, there's probably a better reason you're using something else.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by characterZer0 ( 138196 )

      People do not not use Opera because it does not have extensions. People do not use Opera because it does not have a particular set of features provided by extensions in another browser.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PRMan ( 959735 )
        For me, it doesn't have NoScript. I don't use anything that doesn't.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sznupi ( 719324 )

        And yet, in large part of posts with "because of those extensions I can't live without", it turns out it was ignorance of features which Opera has built-in for a long time. How many times are we supposed to see "because Opera doesn't have adblock!" bs?...

    • I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

      You didn't realize that those two are in conflict? Why not use this browser? It doesn't have extensions! Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Which means the initial question is wrong and loaded.

    • I don't get it. I suppose this is nice if it gets people to use Opera, but honestly... if that's your excuse, there's probably a better reason you're using something else.

      People are hesitant to change, especially when they have a workflow they like. It's confusing, though, because nobody actually says that's the reason. "I don't want to change" sounds silly as a response to "it has better features!" Instead, "well I use a very specific set of extensions that I won't elaborate on" makes you sound much more level headed.

      It's a shame, really, "I like what I got" isn't a bad excuse. At least I hope it isn't, it's the one I use.

      • Who are these people who say "well I use a very specific set of extensions that I won't elaborate on"?

        All the people I've seen posting about it have been very specific about what they need from a browser.

        For example, I don't use Opera because it doesn't run AdBlock+. When it gets AdBlock+, I will give it another shot.

        • Opera does come with a way to block content. It's not quite as good as Adblock's design but you can still block stuff using asterisks (eg, *.doubleclick.* *adframe.php?* etc.). It's close enough that the deal breaker for me is mouse gestures since I've never found any extensions for FF that had the same responsiveness as Opera's.

          • Yeah, but the killer for me is the automatically updated block list.

            I don't want to build my own list of blocked domains when AdBlock+ is install and forget.

            I liked Opera's mouse gestures too, but I learned to live without them eventually.

            • I admit an updating block list would be very convenient but I like the game of finding what offending server is dishing me ads. Plus if it's a site I like and the ads aren't completely jarring to the eye and distracting me constantly, I'm more likely to leave them be rather than disabling all blocking to see what the site is like au naturel.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MagicM ( 85041 )

        For example it has NOTHING similar to Adblock Plus and Noscript. Instead you have to run a third party tool like privoxy, and do "all or nothing" JavaScript whitelisting to get a "kinda sorta, but not really" ABP and NS functionality.

        Opera has had content blocking [opera.com] for a while now. Granted, it doesn't come with a pre-built blacklist.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tacvek ( 948259 )

          There are two things that opera's content blocker lacks, that AdBlock Plus has. The first is subscribing to a block list (which is automatically updated).

          The second is complex blocking rules. It has basic wildcard rules, but Adblock Plus also has has exception rules, regex rules, a special wildcard that only matches the beginning or end of a url, a wildcard that matches "separator characters", rules to block elements through specification of the element type, the element style or id, etc.

          The end result is t

      • Re:Extensions are critical? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Ksevio ( 865461 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @05:16PM (#33900676) Homepage

        For example it has NOTHING similar to Adblock Plus and Noscript.

        Except of course for the content blocker (right click on the page and select "Block Content" or just download a precreated list from the web). Or the ability to set javascript/plugins on/off for individual sites. I'm sure NoScript does some extra nifty stuff, but it's clear you didn't try Opera for very long. Also, you seem to miss the point on page loading speed. It's not only loading pages fresh for the first time, but also jumping around in history and cached pages load much faster.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PRMan ( 959735 )

          right click on the page and select "Block Content"

          After the content has run, it's too late! I use NoScript to block you until I decide to let you run JavaScript or stop going to your site. My choice, based on the trust level of the site.

        • Except of course for the content blocker

          The content blocker doesn't autoupdate the block list like AdBlock Plus does. With AdBlock Plus you install it and then forget about it. The maintenance cost is higher with Opera as you have to find a block list to download and install, and then update it manually to keep current.

      • Re:Extensions are critical? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mantrid42 ( 972953 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @08:21PM (#33902914)
        ...It does have ad block. Built in. Right click, block content. That take too long? http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [fanboy.co.nz] That'll block damn near every ad on the internet. And use css to remove the whitespace. I'm amazed at how many ads clutter every web page whenever I use somebody else's computer.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      It's more like "Opera doesn't have $obscure_feature that is really important to me." and now it could be an extension. I like Opera, I find it works better out of the box than Firefox. Firefox can be custom tweaked in a zillion ways but it seems that because you got ten possible plugins they don't care how poor the default is. They'd rather just let the plugins fight it out than try picking one "best" and replacing the default.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hatta ( 162192 )

      Can I configure Opera to act like Vimperator [vimperator.org]?

    • I don't get it. I suppose this is nice if it gets people to use Opera, but honestly... if that's your excuse, there's probably a better reason you're using something else.

      I think you're misunderstanding the answer.

      "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

      Is not the answer. The answer is "Because it doesn't provide functionality that I can get through extensions for [browser X]".

      Hell, the question you should be asking is, why *wouldn't* you want extensions? It allows you to add the features *you* want, without

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Carik ( 205890 )

        The thing is, I've had that exact conversation with several people. They list what they want, I demonstrate that Opera has all that built in, and they say, as if it's a bad thing, "Yes, but those are built in, not extensions!" I've got no objection to extensions, I just don't see why they're required.

        Well... Ok. I do have an objection to extensions. I have to fight with them every time FF updates, and I need half a dozen of them to bring FF up to the level of functionality I have in Opera. And even the

        • They list what they want, I demonstrate that Opera has all that built in

          No, you list capabilities that pale in comparison. I've seen this over and over again. NoScript? AdBlock? Vimperator? Yup, there are weak, pale replicas of this functionality for Opera, but they suck compared to the real thing.

    • Often enough, the EXTENSIONS! contain that one obscure feature nobody else has.

      In my case only a Firefox extension (and as of Fx4 the browser proper) offers tab groups. I tend to work on various projects concurrently and to open tabs for each of them. Juggling them all and shoving unused ones off into bookmarks would be excessively tedious. With tab groups I can neatly organize them according to topic, save and restore entire goups at a time etc.

      Would I use Opera if it supported tab groups? Actually, pr

  • Opera user here! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nichotin ( 794369 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @03:32PM (#33899150)
    I have been using Opera for quite some time, and the speed and feature set is very good. What I do wish for, more than extensions, is to have each tab have it's own thread in a similar fashion as Chrome. I have experienced some crashes on my Mac because of plugins, and it would be good to only have one tab crash, not the whole browser.

  • Slashdot Editors (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Once again we see that we have very editors here at /.

  • Hurray! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by parlancex ( 1322105 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @03:37PM (#33899248)
    I used Opera for about 7-8 years and loved it, and I still do, but I recently had to switch to Firefox because the security vulnerabilities in Adobe Reader and Flash Player plugins were just too great of a risk and I need the blocking plugins that Firefox has. Although I was able to replicate a lot of my Opera experience in Firefox through plugins, like speed dial, a plugin that emulates the search strings functionality, mouse gestures, etc., the startup times, load times, and UI in Firefox are way slower than what I knew and loved in Opera. I hope noscript, adblock and flashblock-esque plugins make to Opera very quickly so I can finally go back.

  • Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MonsterTrimble ( 1205334 ) <monstertrimble&hotmail,com> on Thursday October 14, 2010 @03:45PM (#33899356)

    I use Opera on both my desktop and laptop and I honestly don't understand what the heck people have against using Opera as their browser. It's super fast and lightweight, the built-in RSS feeder is the best I've seen anywhere, and it works on 99.9% of the websites (the only issues I've had is when Adobe releases a particularly buggy version of Flash). And although I will get strung up for this, I LIKE Opera's Unite feature. It makes file sharing super easy when I need to set up something quick and easy for sharing photos with family or friends.

    Frankly, the stock Opera gives me everything I need in a browser. Why do I need extensions again?

    • I don't get Fanboyism either, which are mostly on mass consumer products and even more baffling, on free, open source software. Even the most low spec netbook can run 2 or more browsers. Why not have them all, especially if they are free? Why limit yourself to one particular browser, as if by doing so, you earn karma, expiate your sins, restore balance to the Force and prevent the sky from falling down. And why the vitriol on people who have a different browser/game console/airline/computer manufacturer/OS/

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Omestes ( 471991 )

        Even the most low spec netbook can run 2 or more browsers. Why not have them all, especially if they are free? Why limit yourself to one particular browser, as if by doing so, you earn karma, expiate your sins, restore balance to the Force and prevent the sky from falling down

        Why would I waste space on redundant software? If a browser does what I need, then why bother with the others?

        On my Linux boxes, currently, I only have Chromium. I used Firefox since it was called Phoenix, and recently hopped shit t

    • Frankly, the stock Opera gives me everything I need in a browser. Why do I need extensions again?

      *You* clearly don't.

      But let's say some guy comes along and insists that his browser should provide functionality X, Y, and Z. Would you prefer the stock browser get bloated with all those extra features you don't want? Or would you rather they be externalized and made optional through, oh I don't know, some kind of extension mechanism?

  • If only,
    ... opera had embraced a free model earlier
    ... had the backing of a massive corporation to have it pre-installed
    ... or had inherited a large core of users and developers
    ... or had the appeal of being open source

    I have been an opera user / fan for a while, and wish more people use it. But blaming the low adoption on extensions is insane.
    Opera 10 has been very disappointing in terms of quality control and I wish the team focused more on making it crash -proof and fixed all the non-working f

    • But blaming the low adoption on extensions is insane.

      Its the primary reason I wouldn't reconsider using it. Extensions directly translate into features. Lacking features which are important to users is far from, "insane."

    • I have been an opera user / fan for a while, and wish more people use it. But blaming the low adoption on extensions is insane.

      I don't know, as an Opera user also I frequently see comments about no support for NoScript and AdBlock as reasons why people don't even want to try Opera. Granted, those same people will probably find another reason once that one doesn't exist, but it is frequently cited as a reason.

  • They sure weren't the first ones to support rounded corners and drop shadows. It may seem silly to complain about such things but the more browsers support visually appealing CSS, the less hacks will need to be done for simple visual effects.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by satoshi1 ( 794000 )
      I'm pretty sure Opera had drop shadows far before Firefox. I don't count rounded corners since Firefox did it using -moz... CSS options. That's not really a standard, now, is it?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Yvan256 ( 722131 )

        AFAIK Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners before both Firefox and Safari, vendor extension (-moz, etc) or not.

        • Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners before both Firefox and Safari

          Damn, how did they manage that? Is that some quantum version of Safari?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Omestes ( 471991 )

          Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners before Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners?

          Thank you, your koan lead to much enlightenment.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Yvan256 ( 722131 )

          (re-read before clicking post... re-read before clicking post...)

          AFAIK Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners before both Firefox and Opera, vendor extension (-moz, etc) or not.

  • Opera's interface is a total fucking nightmare, and always has been. Obviously it appeals to some people, but those people are a minority. And insane.

    I swear, Opera's interface reminds me of a bad KDE application, with its enormous collection of settings and buttons, and default settings that almost EVERYONE hates.

  • Our main weakness is that we don't support extensions, and that we are not free software, ...

    Our two main weaknesses are that we don't support extensions, and that we are not free software, thus preventing inclusion in purely free-software systems and smooth integration in distributions. That, and the fact that few people know us.

    Our THREE main weaknesses are ... hmm, I'll come in again.

    I've found Opera a fantastic browser from the first time I used it, because of its great support for web standards. I used

  • Extensions only matter if we're talking about porting over NoScript.

    I recently made an honest effort to try out the latest stable release of Opera. I was pleased to note that it had a lot of the features baked-in that I was adding to Chrome and Firefox. It was fast and seemed to do a good job as a web browser. However, the first time I visited some forums looking for solutions to a random problem, I was sorely disappointed with the lack of Noscript. Sure, the message boards usually say "Sure you can di

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ledow ( 319597 )

      Right-click, Site Preferences - set your options and it always remembers them for that site (e.g. Javascript off, flash off, identify as IE, etc.). You can even turn off parts of Javascript like allowing it to open other windows or hiding the address bar. Maybe not as powerful but it's there and on the "magic F12 / right-click" menu too.

  • I never switched to Firefox because without extensions, it does too little, and with extensions, firefox is a mess of incompatibilities, leaks, and security concerns. I *like* that Opera does almost everything I need (bookmark synch, mouse gestures, adblocking...) right out of the box, with no flaky extensions.

  • I'm using Opera as I write but unfortunately I'm stuck with v10.10. Opera has this habit of breaking stuff that used to work well when new versions are released. My current gripe is streaming/motion video from various types of webcams like the Panasonic network cams and pc cams streaming using Webcam32 (and some cam other software too). I have a bunch of these that monitor remote sites, watch spectrum analyzers that monitor satellite uplink gear, etc. If I upgrade to the latest Opera version it breaks th
    • I'm on the latest, and I use that for the most part. Every now and then I need to fire up 9.62 or 10.10.

      The new javascript engine can be touch and go atm. It's not very forgiving and fails on numerous things that work in every other browser (including Opera's older versions).

  • Tamper Data? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shemmie ( 909181 ) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @05:27PM (#33900816)
    First browser to give me Tamper Data and Web Developer Toolkit extensions gains a big fan. Sick and tired of 400 meg RAM use from a browser. I'm looking at you, Firefox. O'course, sods law would be that somehow my extensions cause the FF memory leak. :o/

  • Lack of extensions is not a "critical bug." Being unusable for several major webmail clients for many years is, because there's no excuse --chrome, firefox and safari have not affected in years.

    Before Opera dares allowing extensions to "standard" web content, they must make sure this "standard" is usable.

    Firefox is the most compatible of my mother's 4 alternative browsers, but she hates its slowness on this single core pc. I can't recommend Opera to people like her because hotmail and yahoo are both broken.

    • Opera definitely has issues with some websites and (some javascript with the new Engine) --- but Hotmail, Gmail, and Yahoo definitely work.
      I'm on 10.62 and have all three open currently.
  • ... identify the problem.

    .
    However, Opera has always been confined to a relatively small user-base because of one critical thing -- lack of extensions.

    The reason Opera has never built up a large userbase is that it did not work on many sites that were important to perspective users. The Opera javascript engine, while fast, does not work with a lot of websites.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close