Author Topic: 2013 Version: Browser Wars (Read 74483 times)

KynloStephen66515 · « **Reply #75 on:** February 13, 2013, 06:22 PM »

Little competitive gain and a lot of cost for Opera in maintaining Presto,
-Dormouse (February 13, 2013, 04:41 PM)

Without Presto, Opera can't be considered a competitor to anything any more.

If they adopt Chrome's rendering engine they become just one more "me-too" repackager trying to sell yet another pretty interface.

-40hz (February 13, 2013, 06:17 PM)

I could not agree more. All Opera will become, is a skin, with some tiny modifications, to Chrome. If I wanted that, I would fucking download Chrome, and make a skin for it that looks like Opera.

Fuck, this has got me major annoyed now.

Does anybody have an Opera Wand password reader...Kinda need to extract all my shit now so I can move to something else.

40hz · « **Reply #76 on:** February 13, 2013, 06:29 PM »

[ things like Netflix saying "We don't support anything other than Firefox & Chrome & IE"
-Stephen66515 (February 13, 2013, 03:17 PM)

With Netflix, it's really more them saying we don't allow individuals to use PCs running Linux.

You are required to be running a PC with Microsoft Windows or Apple OSX to view Netflix streaming movies regardless of which browser you want to use.

Which is amusing since Netflix does work on devices running Android, to say nothing of very popular Roku box.

Renegade · « **Reply #77 on:** February 13, 2013, 06:51 PM »

Interesting read:
http://www.glazman.o...EN-WEB-NEEDS-YOU-NOW
-fenixproductions (February 13, 2013, 06:22 PM)

Yet more fuel for my loathing of the entire "web" of crap with broken standards and crummy web programming for different platforms.

Self-interest in platforms is the real destroyer of the web. If companies/whoever actually built browsers for designers, programmers, and users, we'd have none of this silliness.

f0dder · « **Reply #78 on:** February 13, 2013, 06:59 PM »

As a user I'm not sure it will make much difference to me. It's a long time since the engine was one of the reasons I chose Opera as my primary browser. What would make me unhappy would be a takeover by Facebook.
-Dormouse (February 13, 2013, 04:41 PM)

Without competition between Firefox and Chrome, what would Javascript performance be like today?
Without Firefox or Chrome, would we still be stuck with IE6?
A bunch of competing engines is a good thing.

If they adopt Chrome's rendering engine they become just one more "me-too" repackager trying to sell yet another pretty interface.
-40hz (February 13, 2013, 06:17 PM)

Spot on the sugar. Again: what is their Raison d'être going to be?

f0dder · « **Reply #79 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:08 PM »

Self-interest in platforms is the real destroyer of the web. If companies/whoever actually built browsers for designers, programmers, and users, we'd have none of this silliness.
-Renegade (February 13, 2013, 06:51 PM)

The problem is a mix of silly designers that want to use bleeding-edge experimental features in production websites, and a standards committee that works way too slowly... instead of trying to make The Next Big Standard, perhaps they ought to try incremental releases.

allen · « **Reply #80 on:** February 13, 2013, 10:32 PM »

Does anybody have an Opera Wand password reader...Kinda need to extract all my shit now so I can move to something else.
-Stephen66515 (February 13, 2013, 06:22 PM)

I think if you use the lastpass binary installer you could then import into lastpass. Whether or not you want to use lastpass to store (and sync across browsers), it allows for easy export.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #81 on:** February 14, 2013, 12:05 PM »

Hm, what is their Raison d'être going to be, then?

And what about their pretty huge datacenter investment that had the purpose of processing websites to serve in the special (binary html ish) format for their mobile browsers? Lost investment?

While I haven't been fond of Opera in the last many years, it's a bit sad that there's one less browser engine out there, one less team to help influence the html spec. One step closer to WebKit being the new iE6?

Too bad if their old HTML engine is going to be discarded. Probably no chance of them open-sourcing it.
-f0dder (February 13, 2013, 08:51 AM)

Actually we might be several steps closer to that result. A guy at Softpedia thinks that Apple's refusal to allow browsers in the App Store is behind this. Google had to ditch its own version of Chrome to get in with a re-branded version of the Safari render engine. Mozilla demo'ed their version called Junior.

For those of us who followed the whole MS stranglehold with the bundling etc, this is amazing that Apple is apparently managing to pull this off.

But look at this snip:
"That alone is not much of a big deal. The problem is that apps don't also get access to the JavaScript engine used by Safari, Nitro which uses JIT (just-in-time compiling) to speed up processing.

Instead, Chrome and everyone else is forced to use the older JavaScript engine, which is significantly slower, as in several times slower.

In practice, any website that uses a lot of JavaScript, which means all good-looking and app-like mobile websites, will be noticeably slower on Chrome compared to Safari. "

http://news.softpedi...-WebKit-322592.shtml
http://news.softpedi...y-Apple-278246.shtml

I'm gonna keep digging to see if I can find any more good articles on this.

Meanwhile - everybody's copy of the Youtube demo video is gone "removed on copyright grounds".

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #82 on:** February 14, 2013, 12:27 PM »

More notes on Opera:

From an accounting perspective, isn't this a write-off of a huge asset? I have no idea how browser company balance sheets work, but ditching your X years of work on your own browser can't just be smooth sailing.

This article specifically mentions the "Webkit is the new iE6" theme:
http://www.extremete...ndering-engine?print

Edit: A snip from yet another article suggested not to just ditch Presto, but to open the source so that other people can do things with it. I really like that idea!

40hz · « **Reply #83 on:** February 14, 2013, 01:46 PM »

From an accounting perspective, isn't this a write-off of a huge asset? I have no idea how browser company balance sheets work, but ditching your X years of work on your own browser can't just be smooth sailing.
-TaoPhoenix (February 14, 2013, 12:27 PM)

Can't speak for Opera, but tax treatment of software development cost is an unnecessarily complex topic in the USA.

IRS says the costs of developing computer software (whether or not it is patented or copyrighted) in many respects so closely resembles research and experimental expenses that are governed by Code Sec. 174 as to warrant similar accounting treatment. As a result, a taxpayer may use any of the following three methods for costs paid or incurred in developing software for a particular project, either for the taxpayer's own use, or to be held by the taxpayer for sale or lease to others (Rev Proc 2000-50, Sec. 5.01):

(1) The costs may be consistently treated as current expenses and deducted in full under rules similar to those that apply under Code Sec. 174(a).

(2) The costs may be consistently treated as capital expenses that are amortized ratably under rules similar to those provided by Code Sec. 174(b) and applicable regs, over 60 months from the date of completion of the software development.

(3) The costs may be consistently treated as capital expenses and amortized ratably under the rules in Code Sec. 167(f)(1) and applicable regs, over 36 months from the date the software is placed in service. (Rev Proc 2000-50, Sec. 5.01(2))

RIA observation: If the third option is chosen, the cost of developing computer software also is eligible for a bonus first-year depreciation allowance, if the requirements of Code Sec. 168(k) are otherwise met.

I'm guessing they ditched it because they've already absorbed the cost on their P&L, and their balance sheet is suffering because of it.

Since most users don't care what rendering engine is lurking beneath the browser they're using, Opera might have decided that if they got rid of the expense of developing Presto - and most everything else stayed the same for them - their books would look a lot better.

At any rate, the cost to integrate an existing engine into their product has got to be a less than the cost of continuing to develop their own. So I think this was a pure survival move on their part. Something had to be cut if Opera was going to continue. And it looks like they decided they could afford to cut Presto.

Be interesting to see how much of their user base notices - or even cares.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #84 on:** February 14, 2013, 02:06 PM »

Does anyone know of a build of Chromium that has a more "FF-Esque" set of menus? I haven't really decided to love or hate the engine except on the plugin topic, but I despise the UI.

f0dder · « **Reply #85 on:** February 14, 2013, 05:45 PM »

A guy at Softpedia thinks that Apple's refusal to allow browsers in the App Store is behind this.
-TaoPhoenix (February 14, 2013, 12:05 PM)

Apple does allow browsers (unless something has changed), but (as you mention later) they don't allow access to the JavaScript JIT'er. While they probably don't mind the added monopoly value, the prime reason cited is security - it's very likely that their JS JIT'er could be used to generate pretty much whatever native code you want, thus making it much easier to jailbreak the iOS devices.

Gotta love walled gardens, aye?

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #86 on:** February 14, 2013, 05:57 PM »

A guy at Softpedia thinks that Apple's refusal to allow browsers in the App Store is behind this.
-TaoPhoenix (February 14, 2013, 12:05 PM)
Apple does allow browsers (unless something has changed), but (as you mention later) they don't allow access to the JavaScript JIT'er. While they probably don't mind the added monopoly value, the prime reason cited is security - it's very likely that their JS JIT'er could be used to generate pretty much whatever native code you want, thus making it much easier to jailbreak the iOS devices.

Gotta love walled gardens, aye?

-f0dder (February 14, 2013, 05:45 PM)

Hmm, I read those articles as saying that the only browsers they allow are things that use the deep Safari core, and not just any old browser like for example if MS wanted to stick IE on there, or Firefox.

But yes, I hate the new push to the walled gardens, and I only treat my phone as *gasp* a phone, with a few amusing widgets that do save a little time, but nothing for serious work.

f0dder · « **Reply #87 on:** February 14, 2013, 06:02 PM »

Hmm, I read those articles as saying that the only browsers they allow are things that use the deep Safari core, and not just any old browser like for example if MS wanted to stick IE on there, or Firefox.
-TaoPhoenix (February 14, 2013, 05:57 PM)

Dunno if they only allow safari core, but disallowing access to JS JIT (even for alternate browsers that use the safari core, as far as I understand) make the point pretty moot.

Lashiec · « **Reply #88 on:** February 14, 2013, 06:11 PM »

Well, this explains why they stopped releasing new test builds.

I'm going to adopt a wait and see approach until they unveil the final product. From the press release, it isn't much clear what Opera is actually going to do with the desktop product. It does suggest that all they're really going to do is to integrate WebKit into Opera, something that potentially has few drawbacks.

But the mention of Chromium got me thinking that maybe the higher ups are redirecting the company focus on other, more profitable interests, moving manpower from the Desktop Team to other projects and transforming the desktop browser into little more than an Opera-branded Chrome, effectively pulling a Nokia, which does sound like a colossal bad idea... unless brand pull and user inertia is strong enough to only lose the most dedicated users, all two of us

The browser market is getting more and more hostile to the likes of Opera, with some opportunity windows closing fast, so you gotta do whatever you can to stay relevant. Even though one of them windows can't be jailbreaked

Speculation aside, this change is akin to Opera Software throwing the towel. Years and years of effort, laid to waste. Precisely now, when things were so much better than in the old, much difficult days. Business is business, I guess. I hope the future brings along open source versions of Presto and the various incarnations of their JavaScript engine, preferably BSD-licensed, if only for preservation and research purposes.

The competition angle is interesting too. The browser wars have gone cold. Everyone is on WebKit now. Apple, Adobe, Google and now Opera. It's quickly becoming the de facto rendering engine, specially for embedded development. People bemoaned the lack of a reference HTML engine for years and now they pretty much have one, and as open and portable as it can be. Does it make sense for Microsoft and, above all, Mozilla to keep developing Trident and Gecko?

KynloStephen66515 · « **Reply #89 on:** February 14, 2013, 06:15 PM »

Polite Request

So we can get this thread back on topic, could further posts related to tne Opera/Webkit move, to https://www.donation...;topicseen#msg318078

Thanks!

KynloStephen66515 · « **Reply #90 on:** February 14, 2013, 06:21 PM »

Or not...I'm a moderator, not a cop

<Wheatley> stephen
<Wheatley> i will continue to post in the browser wars thread
<Wheatley> you will not stop me

(Wheatley is Josh on IRC)

Josh · « **Reply #91 on:** February 14, 2013, 06:21 PM »

Polite Request

So we can get this thread back on topic, could further posts related to tne Opera/Webkit move, to https://www.donation...;topicseen#msg318078

Thanks!
-Stephen66515 (February 14, 2013, 06:15 PM)

May this thread rest in peace

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #92 on:** February 14, 2013, 06:37 PM »

Polite Request

So we can get this thread back on topic, could further posts related to tne Opera/Webkit move, to https://www.donation...;topicseen#msg318078

Thanks!
-Stephen66515 (February 14, 2013, 06:15 PM)

What in fact IS the topic? The thread opener was from you with:

What browser do you use, and why don't you use the others?

I use Opera (Still), mainly because IE sucks heavily, Firefox and I don't get on very well (Although, it really isn't all that bad of a browser), Chrome just plain fails constantly and isn't worth the time, nor energy. I don't really care about any of the other browsers out there...
-Stephen66515 (January 28, 2013, 01:36 AM)

So will you STILL be using Opera now?

KynloStephen66515 · « **Reply #93 on:** February 14, 2013, 06:46 PM »

The topic was to discuss what browser you use and why, but we seem to have drifted into a topic there is already a thread for.

So will you STILL be using Opera now?

For the time being, yes...but I am actively looking at other solutions.

Giampy · « **Reply #94 on:** February 22, 2013, 08:08 AM »

Today I have read something about Lunascape. It has three rendering engines, so the user can choose the best one for the page he/she is seeing. It also accepts add-ons for Firefox.
Very interesting indeed.
If you have tried it, what is your judgment about Lunascape?

f0dder · « **Reply #95 on:** February 22, 2013, 08:13 AM »

If you have tried it, what is your judgment about Lunascape?
-Giampy (February 22, 2013, 08:08 AM)

Haven't tried it, but triple the attack vectors in one browser? Might be convenient, but security-wise it's a nightmare. (And how much bother is it, really, to open a separate browser for a no-good browser-dependent site? How many of that kind of sites do you visit these days?)

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #96 on:** February 22, 2013, 09:38 AM »

Today I have read something about Lunascape. It has three rendering engines, so the user can choose the best one for the page he/she is seeing. It also accepts add-ons for Firefox.
Very interesting indeed.
If you have tried it, what is your judgment about Lunascape?
-Giampy (February 22, 2013, 08:08 AM)

I think your sig line is relevant here!

40hz · « **Reply #97 on:** February 22, 2013, 10:15 AM »

If you have tried it, what is your judgment about Lunascape?
-Giampy (February 22, 2013, 08:08 AM)

I tried it and didn't see that it brought any noticeable advantages. Sort of struck me as an all-purpose approach which (to me) usually means: incorporates the disadvantages of each without realizing any significant gains in return.

And it does (theoretically and statistically) expose you to many more attack vectors. Especially since the baddies could have an easier time by simply targeting the weakest and least secure engine for exploit at any given point in time. So I'll have to agree with f0dder and the others on that concern.

With people - the more partners in the ménage - the greater the risk of picking up an infection.

The same goes for software.

tomos · « **Reply #98 on:** February 22, 2013, 11:35 AM »

With people - the more partners in the ménage - the greater the risk of picking up an infection.

The same goes for software.
-40hz (February 22, 2013, 10:15 AM)

a suitable note to start the weekend on

bit · « **Reply #99 on:** March 27, 2013, 10:13 AM »