Choose Opera

userjs has been greatly under-advertised. It takes digging behind the hoods to unleash it. Just making it accessible somehow is a great start...

not many people fancies widgets.

Widgets + user js + user css can still not do what extensions do. I wonder if Jon knows this.

Originally posted by fearphage:

Widgets + user js + user css can still not do what extensions do

Not everyone wants what extensions do.

Originally posted by Jon:

I do believe that we should strive to adapt to every user. You may not get your Opera out of the box

Not everyone wants what extensions do.

And some do. What's your point? People who do not need a given extension can simply decide not to install it.

Originally posted by lucideer:

Not everyone wants what extensions do

Not everyone wants what extensions/mail/irc client/torrent client do either but we're stuck with them. What's your point?

Originally posted by fearphage:

Not everyone wants what extensions/mail/irc client/torrent client do either but we're stuck with them. What's your point?

I know you've made the point that you prefer the current Opera over the current Firefox, despite it's lack of an extensions API (usually in response to someone telling you "to go use Firefox if you want extensions that much" or some such retort), but in my personal view there's two ways of creating a featureful browser - create a minimal one with an extensions API or a featureful one with reliable stable features. Anyone wanting the extensions API (badly enough) is free to use the former.

You believe you can have the best of both worlds, but as a long time Firefox user, I disagree based on my own experience. I came to Opera out of frustration with XUL and it's poorly made addons.

You've said before that Opera is a more competent development effort that wouldn't botch it up - you may be right but I'd still rather see that effort spent on giving me features I want, not enabling less competent addon devs to give me second rate versions of the same.

Also, on your point about UserJS, I really can't think of very much that couldn't be achieved with a more complete UserJS api. Some rudimentary UI/settings access, XDomainXHR, File I/O and.... what more do you need really. You can't do everything with that, but there's very little you can't.

I have only used a FF a few times, less its addons; finding Opera good enough for me, but from a development point of view guys - what's the Opera trouble with releasing an API ?

Just an education needed pls.

Originally posted by dapxin:

what's the Opera trouble with releasing an API ?

Just an education needed pls.

Given that it's closed source, you'd have to work for them to know the answer to that. It might not even be much trouble, in fact looking at the files in the Gogi builds you'd think it wouldn't.

Originally posted by lucideer:

create a minimal one with an extensions API or a featureful one with reliable stable features

reliable and stable features are good... but what about the ones people actually want though? A large number of Firefox's features and functionality started life as extensions. Someone saw the desire and made the extension and then firefox intelligently gobbled it up. Inline spell checking began as an extension if i'm not mistaken among many other things. There are things that are not important enough for Opera to implement right now/today/immediately but the community wants them right now/today/immediately. However, Opera has its own secret set of priorities. I understand that the team is stretched thin and thus why they keep stressing that they are hiring. They just can't keep up with all the extension devs. I'd say a high percentage of feature requests in the feature request forum are "please do this like xyz extension". Another side of the same coin is I don't want to fight with, load into memory, etc. 80% of the wishes I see in the wishlist forum. I hope Opera add a calendar/ftp client/image editor for all the people that want those components (not i). However, I hope I don't have to download them unnecessarily and load them into memory everytime i open the browser. I would like if there was some separation. I wish mail was activated like voice: something you find and it downloads the necessary components and then you can use it.

Originally posted by lucideer:

not enabling less competent addon devs to give me second rate versions of the same.

So you think all the best developers in the world work at opera? I don't. I think no matter what company you work at or what piece of software you admire, there are always more competent, more intelligent, more innovative people out in the world. I do believe Opera's staff are quite intelligent but I don't think the top 100 smartest people in the world work at Opera, Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, Sun or any other company for that matter. Joe Hewitt designed the firebug extension. He was an outsider and designed the gold standards for web development tools. I and a staggering number of web developers think he is very competent. Not sure who designed the adblock+ extensions but it is the best ad blocking browser compenent out now, hands down. Both of these extensions outshine opera's built-in components. Chatzilla extension > irc's client. the speed dial extension > opera's pioneered feature of speed dial. The problem is that opera's staff is incapable of keeping up with 10s of thousands of extension developers. No matter what Opera innovates and creates, extensions can copy it. Within weeks of speed dial, the firefox sped dial extension was birthed and it is better than opera's implementation in my opinion (even though i don't use speed dial in any browsers). A lesser problem is that Opera has a tendency to innovate and then forget about features/functionality. If there were extensions and you thought it was inferior, guess who could fix it... wait for it... YOU! Turnaround time on implementing and fixing extensions can be measured in days and weeks. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Opera's development process. Very few people (read: diz [my hero]) can fix things in a timely manner in Opera now. (Side note: diz once fixed a regression in under 24 hours. The official fix came out 2 builds and 8 days later.) The rest of the community have to wait through the agonizing process of getting bug fixes and feature requests filled from the tower of secrets that is opera. I and i'm sure many others have been waiting for literally years for bug fixes and feature requests. Inline spellcheck was requested back in 2006 and possibly earlier. We only got it recently.

Originally posted by lucideer:

You can't do everything with that, but there's very little you can't.

I've responded to this already long ago.

Originally posted by fearphage:

A large number of Firefox's features and functionality started life as extensions

Really? Last time I checked, Firefox didn't have "a large number of features and functionality".

Originally posted by fearphage:

I'd say a high percentage of feature requests in the feature request forum are "please do this like xyz extension"

I read the wishlist forum quite often. I'd say a small percentage.

Originally posted by fearphage:

I hope I don't have to download them unnecessarily and load them into memory everytime i open the browser

Given that the mail client isn't if you've no accounts, I would tend to trust Opera's devs to handle memory management fairly well, they have up until now. Far better than Firefox's have using the modularised model you propose.

Originally posted by fearphage:

Joe Hewitt designed the firebug extension.

Firebug is an excellent example. There are quite a few excellent Firefox extensions. But I guarantee if you gathered up every such brilliantly designed Firefox extension and installed it you would still not have anywhere near Opera's functionality and be severely lacking in speed. The point is, despite your claims that Opera's devs are "thinly spread" and can't keep up, they can, and do. You chose two good examples where they've been slightly outdone by firefox addon devs (chatzilla, speeddial poor examples), amongst myriad features in which they've not.

There's even examples that aren't so black and white - take Greasemonkey. Possibly the very first extension I'd install in Firefox, yet that's because it's a great idea that noone else has done better, not because I believe it's well made (you and I have discussed my reservations about GM's development at length before). Opera's equivalent is admittedly lacking in some areas (only XDomainXHR and auto-install actually), but this is one of my only real issues with Opera (which is why I asked Jon about it), but generally speaking I truly believe most of their development efforts are far more competent and well thought out than those of FF addon-devs.

Originally posted by fearphage:

I've responded to this already long ago.

No you haven't. You responded to AyushJ long ago, and I read your response long ago (I believe I linked that very comment in a thread at one point). And reading that I was quite surprised that AyushJ siimply accepted your response at face value. It wasn't a very convincing response.

Originally posted by fearphage:

How would you use that to restructure the Error console? Add a new toolbar? Change the cycling order of tabs? Make dialog boxes for settings? Add complete new fields to toolbars? Debug javascript? Log network requests, headers, and repsonses?

error console, toolbar, cycling order of tabs, make dialog boxes for settings, new fields can all be bundled under

Originally posted by lucideer:

UI/settings access

Debug javascript and log net requests admittedly can't, and were probably what turned AyushJ off responding way back in '07, but more recently we've been hearing about something called Scope...

Originally posted by lucideer:

Last time I checked, Firefox didn't have "a large number of features and functionality".

Of the features and functionality it does have, a large number of them began life as extensions. The error console, inline spell checker, download manager, addons manager, etc.

Originally posted by lucideer:

Given that the mail client isn't if you've no accounts, I would tend to trust Opera's devs to handle memory management fairly well, they have up until now

The mail client is loaded into memory when the browser starts which is unnecessary in my case. Also when I download a new copy of Opera, i'm downloading torrent, irc, mail, client code that I'm also not using.

Originally posted by lucideer:

But I guarantee if you gathered up every such brilliantly designed Firefox extension and installed it you would still not have anywhere near Opera's functionalit

Firebug destroys dragonfly currently. Perhaps obliterates is a better word. Dragonfly is too young to compete at this point. AdBlock+ is expontentially better than content block.

Originally posted by lucideer:

The point is, despite your claims that Opera's devs are "thinly spread" and can't keep up, they can, and do

Why did it take two years for opera to catch up with inline spellcheck? When firefox 2 got it, that's when requests for it really picked up. Firebug came out late 2006 (i think), look at the noncomparable state of dragonfly now. Are they keeping up?

Originally posted by lucideer:

You chose two good examples where they've been slightly outdone by firefox addon devs

Have you ever used firebug? It sounds like no if you think it is slightly better than dragonfly. Dragonfly has tons of potential but sadly the project is moving so slowly. I can't wait until they get the open source portion to a state where the community can contribute in a structured manner.

Originally posted by lucideer:

(chatzilla, speeddial poor examples)

Could you please explain why these poor examples? Opera created speed dial but the speed dial extension has a lot of functionality that opera users are still requesting in the wishlist forum... seems wrong.

Originally posted by lucideer:

amongst myriad features in which they've not

Besides performance, what features do you think are superior in opera AND can't be copied and improved upon by extensions? Also, there are a myriad of crappy/poorly written userjs scripts, skins, and widgets too. Does that discredit the awesomeness of the good ones?

Originally posted by lucideer:

more recently we've been hearing about something called Scope

Scope still has a lot of maturing to do. We are waiting for an updated version (in core 2.3) to be able to do more now. For some of the thingsSomething would need to be native/compiled. One of the things that makes dragonfly not as cool is the interface is slow/laggy/non-native. Making a toolbar in javascript/html that sits next to the native one would suck by all stretches of the imagination. All the changes and functionality hooks you are talking about making sound like an aplication programming interface... or API as some call it. I'm just saying...

@lucideer: we can go back and forth forever. you don't want an extension api and have infinite patience to wait for your feature requests to be added (if ever). I don't want to wait years for every feature request. I want the opera devs to give me the tools to solve my own problems since they aren't rising to the top of their internal priority lists. If you don't like extensions, don't use them. Problem solved, no?

Originally posted by lucideer:

I'd still rather see that effort spent on giving me features I want

You know, there are lots of separate internal teams. I think widgets, mail, irc, etc are a waste of time but if those guys weren't working on those things, there is no guarantee that they'd be adding advanced filtering to the error console or fixing core bugs i've filed. I said that to say that devs working on an extension api does not imply that they are taking time away from your pet feature/bug fixes.

Originally posted by fearphage:

The error console... download manager, addons manager

Really? They needed extension developers to inform them they needed basic stuff like that.

Originally posted by fearphage:

The mail client is loaded into memory when the browser starts

I use M2 so I can't test this right this minute, but I was under the impression that it wasn't if you've not added an account.

Originally posted by fearphage:

Firebug destroys dragonfly currently. Perhaps obliterates is a better word. Dragonfly is too young to compete at this point. AdBlock+ is expontentially better than content block.

Hanging on tightly to your two golden examples I see.

Originally posted by fearphage:

Have you ever used firebug?

Yes. It's better than Dragonfly, but not incomparable. "obliterates" is an enormous overstatement.

Originally posted by fearphage:

Could you please explain why these poor examples?

In actual fact they're perfect examples. You seem to basing your opinion of them on the "more is better" principle - both have more features than Opera's equivalent but both are bloated an unstable.

Originally posted by fearphage:

Besides performance,

Why bother giving an answer when you've pre-empted it with such limitations?
Even without that, your question is irrelevant. You ask of features that can't be copied upon/improved on with extensions - any feature can, the point is whether it will be.

Originally posted by fearphage:

One of the things that makes dragonfly not as cool is the interface is slow/laggy/non-native.

Purely because of the download. I use it locally and there's no lag. As for your non-native argument, this is purely aesthetic. If you don't like it, redesign it. Since you're so keen on users improving the browser. Opera has the same abilities as Firefox re access to native chrome graphics. See example here.

Originally posted by fearphage:

I want the opera devs to give me the tools to solve my own problems since they aren't rising to the top of their internal priority lists.

Can I ask you a question. Why specifically don't you use Firefox? Is it a lacking feature - if so why not "solve [your] own problem"? Just curious...

Originally posted by fearphage:

If you don't like extensions, don't use them. Problem solved, no?

Tried that with Firefox. It didn't solve my problem, it motivated me to switch.

Anyway, I'll stop now. That post was farrr too long. This is a comments list, not a forum.

Originally posted by lucideer:

Really? They needed extension developers to inform them they needed basic stuff like that.

I think they had some implementation of these in most cases but the extensions were better obviously. Then eventually firefox cannibalized the extensions to make the core experience better.

Originally posted by lucideer:

Hanging on tightly to your two golden examples I see.

These two extensions, firebug and adblock+, singlehandedly shatter your previous thought/theory.

Originally posted by lucideer:

I'd still rather see that effort spent on giving me features I want, not enabling less competent addon devs to give me second rate versions of the same.

Extensions developers are obviously not inept and don't provide 2nd tier functionality/features. I'm sure there are more but I'm speaking about these two because I use them and compare and contrast them to dragonfly and content block all the time.

Originally posted by lucideer:

You seem to basing your opinion of them on the "more is better" principle - both have more features than Opera's equivalent but both are bloated an unstable.

Strangely the things that you describe as bloat are being requested in the wishlist forums as features. So I guess one way to look at it is the community wants bloat. Even the devs wish the irc client did more. The best description of the irc client is it works. Its not a great experience. It's not fun to use. It is functional at best. That's pretty much all it has going. It doesn't do basic things like logging. I didn't say it doesn't calculate pi to the 10th digit. Just basic stuff.

Originally posted by lucideer:

Yes. It's better than Dragonfly, but not incomparable. "obliterates" is an enormous overstatement.

How often do you use it? You still think they are too close together. Do you use it regularly or did you use it once or twice a few weeks ago? Are you a web developer? I use firebug professionally 5-7 days a week. I also use it to make userjs scripts and help make browser.js patches for opera. I would like to use dragonfly but the convenience, speed and ease of use (along with lots of functionality) not there yet. The dragonfly is still in it's larva/pupa stages. Firebug took 2+ years to get where it is now so dragonfly still has time. I'm not saying dragonfly has lost the battle but it is too young to compare now. "Right click -> inspect element" is golden.

Originally posted by lucideer:

Why bother giving an answer when you've pre-empted it with such limitations?

Extensions can alter virtually every aspect of the browser, but they can't add MDI and improve performance to my knowledge. That was my point.

Originally posted by lucideer:

You ask of features that can't be copied upon/improved on with extensions - any feature can, the point is whether it will be.

(emphasis by me) At least we agree, extensions provide firefox users the ability to copy and improve on any feature they see in another browser. Again weeks after Opera pioneered speed dial, firefox users had a speed dial extension containing features that are still being requested in the opera wishlist forums now. That is powerful to me.

Originally posted by lucideer:

Purely because of the download. I use it locally and there's no lag. As for your non-native argument, this is purely aesthetic.

I had that same thought and tried it. It is faster but the interface is still slow because its javascript, css, and html (not compiled code or some native construct). When I click a button in Opera, for the most part, the response is instantaneous. Even running dragonfly locally, that is not the case.

Originally posted by lucideer:

Why specifically don't you use Firefox? Is it a lacking feature - if so why not "solve [your] own problem"? Just curious...

Performance is 90% of it. I don't have the resources to solve firefox's performance issues. Also, i use MDI quite often. I love the opera community. I like most of the opera staff. It's just an awesome place to be. Besides web development which requires opening your page in a bunch of browsers, i originally started using firefox as an application that runs firebug. If they developed a stand-alone firebug, i bet firefox usage would take a hit because most devs i know get sucked in that way. Its a gateway drug. As horrible as firefox is, it runs firebug which makes all that horribleness bearable since i have a job to do. I generally wonder how i did web dev before firebug. I'd compare it to the cavemen hunting with spears before guns meat markets.

questions for you: is opera already perfect to you? do you have any feature requests? are you ok with those feature requests taking multiple years to land in the product IF they ever do? You wouldn't use a "second rate" version of your feature request while you waited several years to find out if opera decided to implement it? Are you ok not knowing in 5 years if they are working on your feature requests, started work on it and stopped, or laughed at it on the first day and threw it out?

You seem hellbent against extensions. I think chrome will be a good test case. Chrome didn't have extensions when it debuted and it has more market share than opera in the US according to most measurements (like 2% compared to 1.1%). When chrome and chrome's extensions api were announced the loud firefox users (reddit and digg) seemed to agree that they were all waiting for certain extensions (largely adblock+, noscript, flashblock) and then they would switch. (In my experience, missing functionality and features that they had with extensions is a normal complaint from ff users when they try opera) I can't wait until chrome's exension api is fully functional, then we can see just how true that was. Chrome feels expoenentially faster than firefox already so I'd love to see how the extension api affects that and how having another extensible browser in the field affects market share. If the results are good, maybe that will speak to the appropriate people at opera.

Originally posted by WayOfTheBastard:

It's as if what Firefox does, Opera must do too

Not true. But when chrome, safari, firefox, and rare cases IE gets a new shiny feature, the wishlist forums know about it because people say "can you do this like browser XYZ?" and in the case of extensions its "I used to use extension ABC i want that functionality in opera"?. The speed at which extension makers make extensions and browser makers add new features/functionality which both sometimes produce feature requests for opera (and some of them don't suck) is not something they can keep up with. You are comparing the work of 10s (100s?) of thousands to the work of the core, dragonfly, and desktop team (maybe more) but i would put easily put the count under 500 people. (feel free to correct me)

Originally posted by WayOfTheBastard:

Opera will obviously never be able to keep up with Firefox at being Firefox.

Agreed. There are some things firefox can't keep up with opera on like performance and MDI thus far.

Originally posted by WayOfTheBastard:

The question assumes that Opera isn't going in other directions where Firefox is not keeping up.

It depends on what you mean. If opera pioneers a feature and extension makers want it bad enough, they will keep up and in some cases surpass. That is the power and convenience afforded to them by extensions.

Also in the instance you quoted, i was referring to comparing dragonfly to firebug. The state of things is firebug is the measuring stick to which all other web developer tools are measured. So this is a game of catchup in that regard.

Originally posted by fearphage:

These two extensions, firebug and adblock+, singlehandedly shatter your previous thought/theory.

If they were typical of every other Firefox extension they would shatter my theory. If we were comparing two products which debugged webpages, blocked ads and did nothing else they would. They're not and we're not, so my theory is sound.

Originally posted by fearphage:

Extensions developers are obviously not inept

Some extension developers are not inept. The developers of your two golden examples may not be inept. This is not typical of the majority.

Originally posted by fearphage:

How often do you use it? You still think they are too close together. Do you use it regularly or did you use it once or twice a few weeks ago? Are you a web developer? I use firebug professionally 5-7 days a week.

Often. I think they are relatively close - very close considering Dragonfly's age. I use it regularly, not as often as 5-7 days, I use Dragonfly a lot more now - it's not as good but fits most of my needs without requiring me to open another app. I only open Firebug when I find Dragonfly lacking.

Originally posted by fearphage:

It is faster but the interface is still slow because its javascript, css, and html (not compiled code or some native construct).

I don't get this. Firebug is not compiled, as for a "native construct", if you mean XUL I don't see how it's different than (X)HTML.

Originally posted by fearphage:

You seem hellbent against extensions.

No, not exactly. I welcome "extensibility". I just believe Firefox's way of doing it is completely overbearing. I have mentioned UserJS UI/settings access before - I think you asked whether this constitutes an extensions API, if it does then I'll support an extensions API. I just don't want XUL+XBL+XPCOM or any equivalent (especially not the last).

Originally posted by fearphage:

I think chrome will be a good test case.

Yes, I'm keeping an eye on that project. Although it's fairly slow with a lot of use already so I dunno. Firefox 4 as well is of interest as the Mozilla 2 codebase seems aimed at cutting down code, removing a lot of XPCOM, etc. We'll see.

Nice Talk (O.O)

Originally posted by fearphage:

Also when I download a new copy of Opera, i'm downloading torrent, irc, mail, client code that I'm also not using.

And it's still in a smaller package than Firefox, huzzah!

Originally posted by fearphage:

How often do you use it? You still think they are too close together. Do you use it regularly or did you use it once or twice a few weeks ago? Are you a web developer? I use firebug professionally 5-7 days a week. I also use it to make userjs scripts and help make browser.js patches for opera. I would like to use dragonfly but the convenience, speed and ease of use (along with lots of functionality) not there yet. The dragonfly is still in it's larva/pupa stages. Firebug took 2+ years to get where it is now so dragonfly still has time. I'm not saying dragonfly has lost the battle but it is too young to compare now. "Right click -> inspect element" is golden.

I used to use Firebug every day when I was stuck with Firefox at work.. Now I use Dragonfly every day and find it to be much better and more featurefull than Firebug. Granted some of Opera's Javascript errors lead you knowhere and / or around in circles, but they're easily fixable after poking around in Dragonfly. I'm not sure what major differences would be outlined as a downside.