Opera 8.5 vs Opera 9.b

DO NOT turn this thread into a flame thread against any or all browsers. I use all three (Firefox Opera and IE) depending on what I need done.

Just wondering if anyone had the chance to try Opera 9b, and if it's any better than 8.5?

I'm hesitant about the whole bittorrent integration into the bowser.

Also what are your opinion on the Widgets? They sound like an Extension type deal, and would be a welcome addition to Opera.

Thanks.

I disabled the Torrent integration because I prefer Azu. But it's pretty sweet otherwise.

You'd recommend it over 8.5, then? No annoying bugs/features that can't be fixed?

The earlier 9 betas had some issues with not letting you save .torrent files if you disabled the inbuilt handler, but not for a while not. I'm using build 8372 and I've no complaints at all.

cool, thanks

I have had Opera 9b freeze and die on me several times, so it's not all roses just yet. However, they finally fixed some (rather trivial, dammit) bugs that lasted the entire 8.* cycle.

You can install 8.5 and 9b in seperate directories though, so why not try both?

Opera 9 works great. And the integration of adblock is so much better that the crap you find on firefox.

I use all three (Firefox Opera and IE) depending on what I need done. For example, if I need to get malware, I use IE.

They still don't let us set an arbitrary user agent though. That sucks sweaty balls.

The IRC client needs more love too.

Opera is lame, use Konqueror.

>>9
"The IRC client needs more love too."
The mail client is even worst. Opera is a fucking good browser, not a good internet application suite.


>>10
Only as a file manager.

Opera sucks sure there's an ebuild for opera but it just get dropped to /opt, it's statically linked, and it's CLOSED SOURCE, which means that it is a BINARY package.

What's this /opt anyways? Gosh Unix directories are made of gay and retarded.

>>12
Furryfux Troll.
Ban plz

>>14
if we banned people for browser trolling, there'd be nobody left.

I think you should run the last stable version of Opera.

www.opera.com

>>16
Don't listen to this retarded troll.

Download www.oprah.com instead

>>13
OK LISTEN HERE YOU FUCKFACE AND ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO BITCHES ABOUT THE FHS (THAT'S THE UNIX/LINUX STANDARD FILE HIERARCHY FOR YOU SHITFUCKS WHO DON'T RECOGNIZE): YOU FUCKASSES ARE MORONS.  Unix/Linux's legacy lies in SERVERS (i.e., computers that do REAL work, that aren't fucking toys or substitutes for pen and paper).  Meaning that stuff like SECURITY and RELIABILITY are necessary things.  By placing binaries in their own directory (/bin) and other files in other locations, YOU can actually PUT BINARIES on a READ-ONLY PARTITION, thereby making your system INVULNERABLE TO VIRUSES, ROOTKITS, etc.  But no, you shithead dickheads who think the Windows way (which isn't really any different, try running Windows apps without the registry lol) can take your shitty apps and fuck yourselves along with your insecure systems.  Thank you and have a nice day.

PROTIP: we engage in serious business on the Internet

>>18
The FHS is shit. I don't give three bits a damn about your stupid server needs when I want a sane directory organization for my personal computer. FHS is also hell for hacking around and shit to tell where shit is and should be. Then you have completely confusing and illogical names such as /etc (etcetera, for configuration?), /tmp (temporary, but don't delete or shit will break), /bin for "binaries" (though only executable binaries, not other binary data), /var/lib insanity, /opt bullshit, / vs /usr vs /usr/local stupidity (a popular source of problems), and it's made of boxes of shit. All the shit gets tossed into /usr/bin, talk about order and cleanliness (something perhaps you'd want in a server too). Then you have the obnoxious library version conflicts, and you don't have a way to fix it because "." in LD_LIBRARY_PATH is not the executable directory but the launching directory. The stupidity. Really, all this is so fucked up Mozilla had to use sh scripts to launch Firefox and Thunderbird reliably without relying on 40 stupid libraries of a specific version which you should have. This piece of shit also makes it hard to impossible to have several versions of the same software running if they depend on the same directories. And don't try to remove shit by hand, better leave that to some fucked up, bug-ridden, piss slow package manager. In fact, needing a package manager means something fails. If the system was laid out correctly, cp and rm would be your "package managers". And I can go on and on about the insanity and sheer stupidity of the FHS and all the Unix faggot fanatics that support that piece of shit.

woah there! flamebait! shall we do it >>20?

FHS was designed for pretty much anybody - remember that unix was designed for servers. FHS was designed for minimizing reduncancy, maximize sharing and maximizing flexibility for the maximum number of people. you really need to read the FHS. http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEFILESYSTEM
I've read it once and to me (and apparantly many others) it seems like FHS is a sane standard.

The short names are used to minimize computer resource usage. For a server in a business, the resource savings do add up. e.g. in /user vs. /usr, the /user string is 25% longer than /usr. do the math and you'll find in a year, the computer does less work overall by not pushing as many character bytes which will impact electricity usage.

Running different versions of a software simultaneously is a specialty task. Very few people have this requirement. As a result, the system is tending towards using only one version of the software. If I had this requirement, I'd just statically link the app or contain everything the app requires in a directory (mswindows-style) and drop the result to /opt.

As your gripe about package managers, don't you see the benefits of dynamic linking and shared libraries? Incrementally updated shared libs have an immediate effect upon app that depend on them. Only one copy of a library is needed on the hard drive and in memory rather than having multiple library copies in every app that needed it. Package managers exist because of all the benefits of shared libraries.

If all you wanted was gobolinux why didn't you say so. For me, the waste of resources by having multiple copies of libraries that have the exact same function is insane.

>>21
The short names are used to minimize computer resource usage. For a server in a business, the resource savings do add up. e.g. in /user vs. /usr, the /user string is 25% longer than /usr. do the math and you'll find in a year, the computer does less work overall by not pushing as many character bytes which will impact electricity usage.

hahaha oh wow

holy shit

roffle roffle rofflecopter

>>22
I'm serious. Consider the time when Unix was designed. Consider the hardware that Unix was running on, the PDP-7. Running a computer also means cooling the computer. Over the lifespan of a year, the number of characters that this machine didn't push resulted in real savings because less energy was required to push character bits around as well as less energy required to cool the machine.

k

>>24
Yeah and we should also use 8.3 filenames and ascii encoding because using long filenames and unicode would be totally wasting precious computer resources.
Seriously though if you think using short directory names saves computer resources and electricity you should just go and kill yourself now.

One word, the forced indentation of code. Thread over.

Forte Blowpipe class struggle Fortezza Qaddafi assassination gamma
sniper Centro INSCOM digicash Exon Shell advisors SEAL Team 6
fissionable

>>26
Consider the time when Unix was designed

>>29
Considering the time when linux itself and FSH and other similar abortions of linux file system hierarchy "standards" were developed that still doesn't explain anything.

>>20
The names may not be logical (actually, only /etc and /usr is illogical) but you know what, it's MUCH better to type /etc/whateverconfigfile than to have to fucking type "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Whatever\This\That\Yeah_This_Is_Really_Fucking_Organized", etc. (<- pun intended)

>>31
Very true, the registry is fucking mess. But, for the most part, the end user isn't forced to browse the registry to use programs on their computer.

I'm sure Linux seems organized if you know it and grew up on it. The same with DOS/Windows users. If I had never really used DOS or Windows and only really used Linux, I would probably be so utterly confused by most of what DOS and Windows use for "standards". Alas, this is not the case. Quite the opposite actually.

For me, Linux seems like a really nice, quick, streamlined operating enviornment until you actually have to start installing and configuring software for it. Things like appget make life easier, but installing or running an application I just download of the Internet requires a masters degree in programming. Why can't I just double click an install program, choose a folder to install it and let the installer go to work? Why can't it be easy? I'm sure for hardcore Linux users, you have reasons that make sense to you, but for someone who's used Windows operating systems their whole life, it's a hard (read: impossible) sell.

Also, >>18 is a pretty classic "Linux defense" argument. Start talking about Linux not making sense or being too hard to use, and instead of the user base trying to explain the benefits and helping out, they just spout off some "you're fucking stupid" lines. Please tell me how you expect to convince people that Linux is a better choice with reactions like that?

Linux will never become as popular as Windows as long as a Windows user in a Linux conversation continues to be treated as a black person in a KKK meeting.

>>32
Until it crashes or you need to remove some spyware.

No, you don't have to browse the registry on Windows.  You (usually) get a (sometimes) bug-free poppin' fresh graphical eye-candy-oriented interface that costs you $29.99 and up, just to modify settings that in Linux you can do with a text editor.  (In before piracy, lol closed-source)

Yes, running multiple versions of a program on Linux is bad.  But it's not something you should be doing on any operating system unless you're a developer.  Which you're obviously not.

Furthermore, Linux isn't profit-driven.  We DON'T NEED the stupid people.  If you are too stupid to figure out things or ask for help properly, expose your ass to Bill Gates and receive the exploitation you deserve.  Linux has always been about intelligent and technical minded people coming together to create a better product than one that a beaurcratic business model creates.  Knowledge and intelligence will power and win this fight, not herd mentality.  I've run into many problems with Linux, but I've always perservered, asked questions, and have been willing to learn.  The payoff has been spectacular.  Whereas with Windows, you only learn enough to survive until your next reinstall. </thread>

>>21
The FHS is insane as fuck. The short names are a hassle, but they are also semantically incorrect and the whole design seems to be the botched result of crap over crap trying to accomodate new requirements to an old, clearly inservible convention.

Also, as for saving CPU with short names, CFLAGS JUST KICKED IN, YO! OMG OMG /usr/bin -O3 -m64 -march=athlon64 -mtune=athlon64 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -malign-double -ffast-math -ffloat-store -fstrict-aliasing -funroll-loops -funroll-all-loops -floop-optimize2 -falign-jumps -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-exceptions -fprefetch-loop-arrays -fexpensive-optimizations -fmove-all-movables -s -fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap!!!

Running different versions of a software simultaneously is a specialty task.
Not too uncommon for DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS and that's supposed to be Unix' sweet spot. Also, what about different versions of libraries? That's how /lib turned out to be such a big ugly mess and it's still not right in some cases. Also, try installing two different C compilers with different headers and libraries.

I'd just statically link the app or contain everything the app requires in a directory (mswindows-style) and drop the result to /opt.
Lol. The "Windows" style (as much as I hate it, Windows is much saner here) is about executables being able to find DLLs in PATH, and PATH beginning with ".", and "." meaning the executable directory. LD_LIBRARY_PATH just fails, and you just can't do the same thing on Unix because of its braindamaged design here. At best, you can fix it with a shell script that sets everything up, like Mozilla does. That's the only way to have sane software on Unix.

By sane, I understand this software should contain everything it needs (which you may decide to delete if you want to rely on libraries in some other dierctory, or you may want to hard link to save space(*)), and it should be completely relocable. "Installing" (or the more enterprisey "deploying") it means you copy the directory or expand an archive. Uninstalling means you delete the directory. Configuration (and this is where Windows fails miserably with the registry) must be in INI files within the application directory (global) and a configuration subdirectory in home for per-user configuration, although handling profiles itself and keeping them in the application directory is fine too (useful when OS users != real users, or you want several profiles).

(*): I have a script to detect identical files recursively, then allow me to choose which ones to hard link to save space. You can link libraries that are of the same version safely this way. Deletion of any is alright, and updating means copying over it so the link is broken and other applications keep their correct versions.

As your gripe about package managers, don't you see the benefits of dynamic linking and shared libraries?
I see them. And I see this should be simple enough so that I can handle it myself with cp and rm.

Incrementally updated shared libs have an immediate effect upon app that depend on them.
And this effect usually means you've been raped in the ass.

>>24, >>26
Consider the time when Unix was designed.
I do, but you consider the time it's now, and our needs today, and the fact we're running an OS based on the 30 years old design requirements and constraints, and the fact hippies made them their religion and don't want to upgrade.

>>31
Windows' registry is shit. I'd still take the registry shit over the FHS shit, but ideally, I'd have neither.

>>33
I don't get spyware on my Windows, and if I need to remove shit, I just go and delete it boldly.

Windows costs far more than $29.99. It's more like $299.99.

Yes, running multiple versions of a program on Linux is bad.  But it's not something you should be doing on any operating system unless you're a developer.  Which you're obviously not.
I'm >>20, and I am a developer. (DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS)

Furthermore, Linux isn't profit-driven.  We DON'T NEED the stupid people.
I agree, and I agree with this point. And just exactly because Linux is aimed at people who know what they do and are frequently developers, I wonder why don't we get something better than the piece of shit the FHS is. I'd think "mess", "limited" and "semantically wrong" would be attributes you'd apply to stuff on the Windows platform, not Linux.