Opera 10.10 Released, Includes New "Unite" Tech 262
Opera 10.10 has been released, and with it their new "Unite" technology, which allows users to share content directly between all of their own devices. Unite wraps both web browser and web server into a single package in an attempt to change the way users think about their browser. "'We promised Opera Unite would reinvent the Web,' said Jon von Tetzchner, CEO, Opera. 'What we are really doing is reinventing how we as consumers interact with the Web. By giving our devices the ability to serve content, we become equal citizens on the Web. In an age where we have ceded control of our personal data to third-parties, Opera Unite gives us the freedom to choose how we will share the data that belongs to us.'"
just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:5, Funny)
Let me give you an example.
If you're cooking your own pizza, you have the choice on what to put in it. Make it a normal pizza or a pan pizza? Make it square or round? What toppings to put on it? Unite allows you bake your own pizza in the heart of your pc, and you can choose what to put on it. Want ham? Fine! Want pineapples? Fine! Want tuna? Fine! Want pepperoni? Fine! What would you have as a sauce? Barbeque sauce! The widgets you install and enable are your toppings and you choose what you want to have.
What comes to the "from the but-does-it-live-in-the-cloud dept.", I personally dont want it to be in the cloud. Then I lose control over it. That would be like having a happening in your town square where everyone is ordered to bake their pizza. They bring it there, put it out and lose control over who eats it. Direct friend-to-friend model lets you control who eats your delicious pizza, or who even knows about it. And if that said pizza happens to be a bad one and it comes hunting you later, you can pull it off. Good luck trying to do that in the town square after people have ate your pizza already.
So what I'm basically saying is that *I* should be the one controlling my content, not some other site or cloud service. Unite makes that easy for people.
Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:4, Interesting)
So what I'm basically saying is that *I* should be the one controlling my content, not some other site or cloud service. Unite makes that easy for people.
On the other hand, it means that content on Unite is ephemeral and subject to the vagaries of hosting everything on one's computer(such as the information only being available while the PC is powered on and Opera is running, not 24x7). Also, does the app data stored on a computer running Unite survive a reinstall, which tends to happen often on Windows machines?
Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:4, Interesting)
Or does Unite provide a way to find the content that other people have put up? I don't understand what market Opera is trying to target here. Anyone with the where-with-all to setup their own web server and the associated DNS host records and the like has probably already done so. The OP bashes on Facebook, but Facebook (and Myspace and whatever the other sites are) offers the person an ability to tell someone else, "Look me up on Facebook. My name is..." Does Unite offer the equivalent capability?
It seems to me that the large majority of what people want to share online isn't their own content, but content that they come across. Facebook is the perfect example. It seems to be filled with links to YouTube, links to other webpages, and blogs and whatever else any particular person finds interesting and wants to share with their friends. Very rarely do the large majority of people want to share content that is uniquely theirs. The one big exception that I can think of is music. Myspace seems to have the lion's share of that market. And on the subject of music, who wants to eat the bandwidth costs of serving up music from their own computer when a site like Myspace, or YouTube or listentomymusicyo.com will do it for you, for free?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Facebook and the like offer zero security. If you understand the risks of what happens on Facebook well enough to make an informed decision to put your stuff up there, you probably understand it well enough to throw up a quick web server.
The social media have been a great equalizer in terms of access, but that's a double edged sword.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Opera apparently made a business decision to go for the 0.1% of the market
It's about time they focused on growing their userbase!
Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:5, Insightful)
Or does Unite provide a way to find the content that other people have put up? I don't understand what market Opera is trying to target here. Anyone with the where-with-all to setup their own web server and the associated DNS host records and the like has probably already done so. The OP bashes on Facebook, but Facebook (and Myspace and whatever the other sites are) offers the person an ability to tell someone else, "Look me up on Facebook. My name is..." Does Unite offer the equivalent capability?
I think the idea is more to host your own stuff, such as your pictures or some other small app like the Fridge notes [opera.com] without having to muck around with DNS and servers and pasting the link to your friends over IM. That way you can tell your friends to leave you at note at an URL like http://macbook-win7.jfim.operaunite.com/fridge/ [operaunite.com] instead of having to sign up for yet another service for only one simple app.
It seems to me that the large majority of what people want to share online isn't their own content, but content that they come across. Facebook is the perfect example. It seems to be filled with links to YouTube, links to other webpages, and blogs and whatever else any particular person finds interesting and wants to share with their friends. Very rarely do the large majority of people want to share content that is uniquely theirs. The one big exception that I can think of is music. Myspace seems to have the lion's share of that market. And on the subject of music, who wants to eat the bandwidth costs of serving up music from their own computer when a site like Myspace, or YouTube or listentomymusicyo.com will do it for you, for free?
I don't think the purpose is to replace any serious hosting proposal, it's more of a share with a handful of friends thing.
Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:5, Insightful)
If you check out some of the Unite apps, it isn't even necessarily about sharing.
Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:4, Informative)
The target market is the not-tech savvy home user. Grandma wants to see the newest pics of her grandchildren getting a bath, and styling the new clothes she sent to them. Momma ain't real tech savvy, but she can put those pics into a folder, then invite her mother (in-law) to view the folder via unite. Easey-peasey. There's no need to put those pics on MySpace, Facebook, or any other hosting site - they are private. In fact, putting naked baby cheeks on the web just MIGHT get someone arrested for child pornography - the laws are crazy in some places.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That makes a lot of sense. It fills that niche for data that is too big or otherwise burdensome to share via email, but that you don't want to put on a site like Flickr, YouTube or the like.
Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, you can mark your stuff as "private" in a lot of places - but they are still hosted in the cloud. I haven't poked far enough into Opera Unite, but I don't think they cache your pics. Meaning, once Grandma gets those pics, you can remove them from your shared photo, and no one else is going to get them, either from Google cache, a guessed password, or whatever. Besides - will Flickr share your warez files, or your ripped MP3's? It seems that Unite will share ANYTHING you want to share.
Re: (Score:2)
I started my post with a question asking about what it was that Unite offered. Apparently despite your best attempts not to, you went ahead and read what I wrote none the less. I'm not sure what is the bigger fail... my failure to read the article, or your failure to follow your own precepts.
Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be new here - TO THE ENTIRE INTARWEB - if you honestly think that every single shred of corporate-hosted content isn't already volatile and at risk of disappearing at any moment at the whim of somebody you don't even know.
The Web has ALWAYS been volatile. That is both a strength and a weakness. Right now the Web is thoroughly capitalistic in nature; are we proposing to fully socialize it, to the point of demanding that everything "submitted" to the Web instantly becomes public domain and forcibly archived somewhere for all eternity?
The lesson you should learn is that if something you see on the Web is important to you, don't count on it being there a year from now: save a copy for your own damned self. Nobody else can read your mind and know that it's important to you and thus feel obligated to keep it anchored in the exact same spot because you'd prefer it. Regarding whether we should change the ownership of information once it's been made thus public, that's a (ongoing) debate for another place and time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was me, but Thunderbird isn't behaving quite the same way with /. RSS feeds these days and it doesn't recognize logins, so comments made inside the RSS feed wind up being anonymous. It used to be that hitting Reply would spawn the browser, but not so any more; I don't know whether it's Thunderbird or Slashdot to blame for the change. It's not as practical as before, but maybe that's a good thing if it causes me to keep my trap shut more often?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I take it that (a) you know absolutely nothing about RSS or (b) your tongue is planted firmly in your OTHER cheek where we can't see it?
Re: (Score:2)
Check the documentation - your web browser is not really becoming a "web server" - your requests go through their proxy server at yourdevicename.yourusername.operaunite.com
They've just wrapped xhmhttprequests (XHR) in their own custom javascript class, and provided a default proxy for it.
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-unite-developer-primer-revisited/#conceptsproxy [opera.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What protections does the cloud afford ?
- Privacy ? uncheck.
- ownership rights ? uncheck (woman's personal photo used in an add)
- data security ? uncheck (see Sidekick)
Any connexion to the Web is a conduit for malware: Bittorrent, IE... Because MS regularly makes a hash of things does not mean that any connexion is unsafe. Please, prove your point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My PC is powered and running 24x7.
If you lose all your data everytime you reinstall Windows... I've got one trick to teach you.. it's a brand new concept, called partitions... And another one, called backups... bleeding edge stuff !
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm confused, even though you made a pizza analogy (maybe there's a reason we stick with car metaphors). I from the summary and press release, I thought unite was mostly for sharing stuff between your devices, not with other people or as a social networking... thing... I was under the impression that there were plenty of, er, cloud services where you could put your files on the cloud and then share them with one person instead of everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused, even though you made a pizza analogy (maybe there's a reason we stick with car metaphors).
Ok, you drive a hundred miles, wrap your frozen pizza in tin foil (much like our hats) and put it on the exhaust manifold. The result is... PIZZA!
(and no, I'm not PAG. I think he used to be BadAnalogyGuy but that's just an ignorant guess)
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats on birthing one of the worst analogies ever posted to slashdot.
Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be interesting to see how they're handling security, though. Damn, now I'm going to have to download it.
Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:5, Interesting)
It even seems to be a pretty good performing web server, opera are also know for their good attitude towards security. I think it's killer.
Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:4, Insightful)
And you require all of your family to join Facebook, click past their terms of service, and befriend each other?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:just friends, no facebook, no cloud (Score:5, Insightful)
You really think Opera created a shill /. account solely devoted to the heretofore unheard of pizza analogy?
Re: (Score:2)
Are there benefits?
Re: (Score:2)
And this is the point in the conversation where we all get modded "-1 Offtopic".
Meh. I was still going for funny.
Also, I love it when my sig seems to perfectly complete my post.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. Hi-Fi = sites you have to sign up for, upload, invite your friends to, get them to sign up, log in, etc. All you do with Unite is send them an URL to whatever they need, and it's done. Also, Unite is much, much easier to use than standard web servers, P2P, FTP, etc. And it can be add
Except in China? (Score:3, Insightful)
I love how all the computer companies have these new-age wonderful human mottos for their products, like "Unite", and then cut deals with dictators to try and make a couple of extra bucks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't seen a response to that yet.
What were Opera's alternatives?
Refuse? They would be thrown in jail, and the Chinese office would be history.
Pull out? How would that help anyone? It would just deprive the Chinese people of another way to access the web. The more ways to access the web, the more work for the government when they are trying to censor
Re: (Score:2)
Refuse? They would be thrown in jail, and the Chinese office would be history.
Yes, that's what is called doing the right thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Except in China? (Score:4, Interesting)
What were Opera's alternatives?
They could have refused to do business in China, as long as the Chinese policy doesn't change.
Just like IKEA have stopped doing business in Russia [nytimes.com], for slightly different reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The more ways to access the web, the more work for the government when they are trying to censor it.
Except when companies (like Opera -- and many many many others) graciously cooperate in neutering their products so that they can access China's markets, that makes the censors' jobs easier.
These companies are complicit in China's censorship. On top of that, they're also providing a nice smokescreen for the Chinese government.
To wit, the more interesting question you're not asking is why does China government allow their people to use Opera or Mozilla (or Microsoft or Cisco or IBM or Dell, etc.)? Why not
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't "graciously cooperate", they are forced to. And no, it does not make the censors' job easier. The more services, the more work to keep track of everything.
No, they are forced to, and at the same time they are offering choice.
So much are the Chinese paying you? (Score:2)
This is false. Because of actions like these, the Chinese become increasingly aware of what's going on, as do foreigners.
You're defending this arrangement pretty strongly. Mind you, do you have a stake in it? I mean, I know a lot of companies and people make these kinds of claims and then trot out this line. I am leary of the conflict of interest. Are they really doing it to help the people of China, or are they really just helping themselves? I don't even think they see the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
The more services, the more work to keep track of everything.
You keep saying this. Even though my reply explicitly rebuts it.
More things = more to keep track of = requires more time and resources = more difficult to control.
Joe the Censor has to watch all sorts of things. But, lucky for him, he knows that 90 percent of the things he monitors are made by his friends. He asked his friends to make changes to the things so that he doesn't have to worry that they might be used for something Joe doesn't like.
Joe trusts his friends because he knows they know that if he finds out that they lied to him, he wont let them sell any more things at all! (Boy, it sure is nic
Re: (Score:2)
like the old slogan (Score:2, Funny)
Dyslexics of the world, untie!
Forget "Unite"... how's Opera doing on CSS 3? (Score:3, Insightful)
It may sound silly and pointless to a lot of devs, but supporting things like border-radius and drop-shadow (even with the temporary vendor prefixes) would be nice.
That's one area where Safari is way, WAY ahead of both Opera and Firefox.
Breaks broadband service contract? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess it depends what the EULA means by "server". ALL computers serve at least some data, even when browsing the web. So what does the IPS consider too much data? 10 gig of uploading per month is okay, but 20 isn't? They never really defined it.
For that matter, is running a bittorrent client that's constantly uploading considered a server? If so then most of us reading this forum are violating the EULA.
ISP ToS Violation? (Score:2)
And for those of us who's ISP's Terms of Service inclue a line that boils down to "Thou shalt not run a web server on your home PC unless you pay for a buisness-class connection"... well, what then? Just... don't use Opera?
Re: (Score:2)
what then? Just... don't use Opera?
Don't start Opera, open the Unite panel, login to your Opera account, and enable the web server. When you install a new copy of Opera and start it up it doesn't magically start serving up all of your content.
Makes sense to me (Score:2)
Unite makes a lot of sense to me:
- I keep ownership of my data. No more finding my personal photo used in an add, like happened to that woman a while back.
- I keep control of my data. No more entrusting it to some advertiser, their trainees, their subcontractors...
- I can easily backup all of my data. See the Sidekick debacle.
- Everything is in ONE location
- I have relatively fine control over who can see what, and can change content and rights at any time.
It currently is not very polished, though It IS ver
Holy retro Batman! (Win 98) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (Score:5, Insightful)
But why won't you try Opera? Is there a good reason? Is it because it's closed-source? Is it because at the beginning they were not offering their browser for free?
FWIW, Opera is a fine browser, much better than IE, on par with Firefox and Safari. Also runs very nicely on a Nintendo DSi, given the limits of the system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have. It's on my system right now along with Firefox, Konqueror and Chrome. Addons are the critical component in which these other browsers than Firefox are very much behind. I would ditch Firefox in an instant if Chrome or Opera or Konqueror managed to be as flexible as Firefox but they're not... yet.
Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have. It's on my system right now along with Firefox, Konqueror and Chrome. Addons are the critical component in which these other browsers than Firefox are very much behind. I would ditch Firefox in an instant if Chrome or Opera or Konqueror managed to be as flexible as Firefox but they're not... yet.
Most of the features that are provided by add-ons to Firefox are built-in to Opera. Additionally, Opera allows User JavaScript, and even supports GreaseMonkey script. So ... is it just a matter of the principle and theory of flexibility, or are you actually missing some specific function that is provided by add-ons in FF and not provided in Opera?
Re: (Score:2)
Noscript,CS Lite, Adblock, menu editing features, scrapbook etc... You *could* block ads and control cookies and javascript but it's not nearly so clean as Firefox's addons allow. To me, Opera reminds me of Gnome. Things can be done but it's not really designed to do the job efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Noscript,CS Lite, Adblock, menu editing features, scrapbook etc... You *could* block ads and control cookies and javascript but it's not nearly so clean as Firefox's addons allow. To me, Opera reminds me of Gnome. Things can be done but it's not really designed to do the job efficiency.
I agree that the accessibility of some features really needs some work. My biggest complain in that regard is wrt the handling of UserJS files, for which you are essentially on your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Opera offers the same functionality built-in has thousands of addons? Then it must really be bloated.
By the way, where is Vimperator, DownThemAll, DownloadHelper and support for DBus notifications on download completion?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the former, but JS can be quickly enabled/disabled by pressing F12. You can also associate the toggle to a shortcut of your own preference.
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember correctly, F12 enables/disables javascript globally but not locally. You can't selectively disable javascript with F12. So if you go on a site and want to keep the site's javascript but not doubleclick's javascript, then you're SOL. Noscript is wasily configurable and doesn't need to be told every single time you visit a site.
Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (Score:5, Informative)
Right-click->Edit site preferences.. lets you edit those for individual sites. If you want a no-script like thing, disable global javascript and enable for sites you want it to function at.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (Score:5, Informative)
And I would even say that it's a better browser than Firefox or Safari, but that's of course everyones own opinion. The robust interface and feeling on how fast things work is just good though. Firefox doesn't really come close with it.
That being said, Opera doesn't really even have low usage numbers. It has over 50% marketshare in Russia and CIS countries [opera.com], being the #1 browser. It has really wide deployment on mobile phones, Wii's, other electronic equipment and hotel tv's and so on.
Actually making a better profit than Mozilla too, so I don't see why they wouldn't keep developing new things (and Opera has usually been the first one to actually develop new browser features)
Mozilla Foundation: Revenue $75 million (4 employees)
Opera Software: Revenue $89 million (675+ employees)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (Score:5, Funny)
Despite low desktop usage numbers after more than a decade in existence Linux folks continue to spew out features. Good for them but I still won't touch their product.
Nuff said.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Linux doesn't go out of its way to please the Chinese government with its new update; Opera did. Linux isn't closed source either. The two aren't in the same boat here.
Re: (Score:2)
What? The government of China told Opera to change things? That's strange, I would have thought the democratic government in Taipei would do better than that.
Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone asked: "How does not having any kind of access to Opera Mobile/Google/etc helps the people in China, compared to having a censored version?"
I haven't seen a response to that yet.
What were Opera's alternatives?
Refuse? They would be thrown in jail, and the Chinese office would be history.
Pull out? How would that help anyone? It would just deprive the Chinese people of another way to access the web. The more ways to access the web, the more work for the government when they are trying to censor it. There needs to be as many ways to access the web as possible, because the more there are, the more difficult it is to police, and the easier it is to poke holes in the firewall. You are clearly blinded by your own ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a great market, but you have to ask what your soul is worth (turns out mine is only 50 bucks and a copy of firefox).
Re:Wow, Opera has what I call ambition... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they chose to comply in order to avoid trouble like arrests of their Chinese employees and such.
But you didn't answer the part of my comment that dealt with how staying in the market helps the Chinese people, and how pulling out would be detrimental to their freedom. Again: More services = more work for the government = less oversight = more chances that there are holes in the firewall.
As it happens, there are several ways to access the uncensored web through Opera Mini even after this. If Opera pulled out, these holes would be gone forever, and there would be no opportunities to open new ones. Your brain. Use it.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say it's a moot point to their freedom. The government will simply ban it, when it becomes a detriment. In addition to this, the government could just look at those with Opera as greater security threats.
These people should be using BETTER software to get around the china holes.
My
Re: (Score:2)
I just explained to you how Opera being completely shut down in Chine would have been detrimental to the freedom of the Chinese people, but you chose to ignore it and rant on.
The government doesn't see Opera as a problem, but the fact is that people have already discovered several ways to work around the firewall in Opera Mini. The more services, the more potential holes, and the more difficulty for the government to enforce the firewall.
Opera being completely blocked would not have hel
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese government is detrimental to their freedom. If the internet gets to the point where the Chinese government feels that it doesn't have control, they'll throttle the hell out of it until they can control it. Using Nokia and Opera and any other corporate entity to accomplish the task.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese government is detrimental to their freedom.
If the Chinese people are content to live under that system without trying to affect change, who are you to say that they should have a different government? If the Chinese feel like their freedoms are being curtailed, isn't it their responsibility to do something about it, not the responsibility of Opera or Google or some random guy on Slashdot?
I mean, we can sit here and talk about things the Chinese government has done or is doing, but at the end of the day the Chinese people are still content to live u
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the Chinese government's history of headshotting and crushing opposition under tanks, if you lived in China and opposed what the government was doing, would you be in any hurry to advertise that fact? The Chinese government is in the business of suppressing dissent with any and all means available. Don't assume that the government's existence is indicative that it's what the Chinese people want.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you've convinced me of the wrongness of my position with all the profanity and ad hominem attacks. China has significant control over the connections to its borders. They will not allow their walled garden to get out of their control unless the people fight them tooth and nail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny... I haven't heard anything about Firefox or Chrome doing what Opera did. Opera certainly had a choice. They chose to support the censorship in China in exchange for more market-share. Nokia and friends helped China to set up the firewall in the first place for the market-share too; are their actions excusable as well?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because neither Firefox nor Chrome work like Opera Mini. They are like Opera Mobile, but Opera Mini is a thin client which needs a server to handle websites, because that's the only way it can work on low-end phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Linux doesn't go out of its way to please the Chinese government with its new update; Opera did.
1) Just out of curiosity, what demands could the Chinese government possibly have on an operating system? You don't need to censor an OS, it's the applications they're worried about.
2) I wasn't aware that "Linux" is an entity that the Chinese government can make demands on, but what's the point of demanding that "Linux" make changes when the Chinese can just make their own [wikipedia.org]?
This is aside from the fact that the parent was comparing consistently low usage numbers instead of vague support for government ideolo
Re: (Score:2)
1) red flag linux and green dam.
2) Red Hat and friends could be restricted from offering support for their flavors of Linux unless X demand is met.
3) Maybe so but I felt that it was worth noting a few things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite low usage numbers after more than a decade in existence Opera folks continue to spew out features. Good for them but I still won't touch their product.
I wonder why. It's not open source but it's still gratis and technically superior to anything else I've tried.
For me, Opera is like Usenet (Score:3, Insightful)
Best kept secret.
Nice features with a target size small enough that malware that might go after IE or firefox won't touch.
I browse in a VM with Opera. Never lets me down.
Still a small size. Damn thing fits in less than 10 MB of disk space.
Stuff like this unite threatens this. I wish they would stop making it better so suckers will stay with IE and firefox.
The unite stuff rocks. Your parents could never setup p2p or ftp, but they can use unite. Better than some file sharing site when all your family has got
Re: (Score:2)
Only possible downside is needing to setup a opera account to use the DNS
really? that's the only downside you can envision to setting up a web server on your parent's PC?
it says it runs in a sandbox, but sandboxes can have holes. especially when they let independent developers write plugins.
and, even if everything is 100% secure, what's to keep your dad from accidentally sharing that text file where he keeps his bank account passwords with the whole world?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Y'know when I first saw this I thought "hey cool, if only it was on some other browser"...
What is it about Opera exactly that has the stink of death on it? I mean it went through phases where it wasn't free and had embedded ads in it, as far as I know those days are long gone. So if that's the case what gives?
My current running theory is that it just has an unfortunate name. When I think of "Opera" I think of a long, boring musical experience in Italian.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, then on the other hand when I saw it I though “boy, I sure hope Firefox doesn’t suddenly get the irresistible urge to copy this silly feature”.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ISPs won't like this (Score:5, Informative)
ISP's wont care about it. They only do if you start running some heavy traffic stuff on it. Here in Scandinavia that has been standard clause in the TOS for ever, but I've never got any saying from ISP about it (even while actually running a high traffic website on my 100mbit).
Lots of people also run gaming servers, even more so because for example MW2 is now automatically choosing one of the players as a listen host. P2P clients also usually start a listening server, technically, and so do all the IM clients when sending a file and so on.
They wont have any problems with this.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Scandinavia that has been standard clause in the TOS for ever. . .
Hey, that's great. In the US ISPs most certainly will care about it because they believe they are entitled to profit from any addition of features or functionality, period.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they don't. They probably don't even know about it. The second that it becomes a problem though (infection, illegal content - basically anyone firing a complaint) they now have a club to hit you with.
My ISP (xs4all.nl) however has a very liberal TOS. Basically you can do with your link whatever you want (I don't think you may sell it to others, but that's about it). Companies use it for cheap web access for instance. And they've got all shell accounts, web disks, newsserver, configurable filters,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can I give you my Mom's phone number so you can explain her how to do that ?
With Unite, she was up and running in 20 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great, another let-down from Opera. Are they supporters of real-world, widely used standards like H.264 and AAC or are they supporters of open-source formats that practically nobody uses like Ogg Theora?
P.S.: I hate those open source projets names... it reminds me of the "Homer Car" Simpsons episode. Stop trying to sound smarter than the general public with your product names, maybe you'll have some luck (see: "FireFox"). "Ogg" sounds like the sound a caveman would make and "Theora" sounds like "theory" whi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're dealing with nerds, here. Coming up with 'Ogg' was probably a defining moment in that young person's life.
Rejected names were "ReallyGoodVideoCodec", "VideoOpenSource" and "dvxiddidvxd".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "Open Video CODEC" would have been "OVC" for short... not as tech-sounding as "H.264" or "MPEG-4", but still has a ring to it. Better than "Ogg".
Even a vague reference to something nerdy could have resulted in a better name, such as the "QHG [wikipedia.org] CODEC" or "SB1 [wikipedia.org] CODEC".
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm how does it require UPnP ?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)