The Future of the Opera Brand (?)
-
blackbird71 last edited byOriginally posted by Frenzie:
Originally posted by blackbird71:
But when somebody tells me "this is why I did thus and so", then they either are telling me at least partial truth (there may be other unstated reasons) or are lying.
Telling the partial truth is more commonly called lying by omission.
Originally posted by blackbird71:
As I said earlier, YMMV in how you look at all this... but I accept what a person says as truth until, in my estimation, they have been proven to be lying (emphasis added).
That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? Yes, I quite agree. And Opera's PR was quite clearly unsatisfactory in just that part of my message you opted to omit.
I "opted to omit" simply to try to keep from swallowing an ocean; my posts are often overly long, and I continually practice triage to try to keep them within bounds. In this case you cite, are you submitting that because a contradiction of facts or assertions regarding Opera has occurred, it must be the result of a lie? You yourself stated in that series of posts that it could be ignorance. But it might also be a simple mistake or oversight.
This is part of a problem I've observed with this entire New Opera saga: many people are attributing all manner of evil or ill intent to a whole series of things that have unfolded over the past 8 months, without ever having known personally the people involved or having discussed things with them other than perhaps a brief 2-sentence exchange in a blog. Perhaps Opera has indeed made a business decision that many of us (myself among them) don't like; perhaps they made it for reasons and in ways that seem disconnected from much of their user base as manifested in these forums (which I believe). But to attribute the statements of Opera developers, certain incongruous details within change logs, or "official" statements by Opera to a conscious process of lying, deliberate deception, or such is to take steps I am simply unwilling to take at this point, based on common sense, what I know to have been true of Opera (and many of its still-remaining employees) over many years, and the nature of the facts I have observed thus far.
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by Frenzie:
here's a random relevant search result: http://my.opera.com/An-dz/blog/opera-dead
The comments by Hallvord, Blazej and Bruce Lawson are indeed relevant.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
"Of course, a browser is much more than just a renderer and a JS engine, so this is primarily an "under the hood" change." (Bruce Lawson)
Perhaps we need to consider that was the original plan but one that has gone abandoned for some reason (examples: Opera-Presto UI layer features incompatibility with the Chromium framework ultimately requiring the full rewrite anyway, the opportunity which arose to build a new UI from scratch that adapted better to the OSs native look and to drop the complex code which they pretended to run away from with the move of features used by nearly nobody).
About the search engine hijacking I think I remember a topic here on the forums of a person who had this problem.
There's no need to shout about this issue since the developers already said many times they intend to implement the option to choose the default search engine after implementing proper hijacking protection. -
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Perhaps we need to consider that was the original plan but one that has gone abandoned for some reason
That's a fair point.
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
build a new UI from scratch that adapted better to the OSs native look
Hah! You're funny.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
... the opportunity ... dropping the complex code of features used by nearly nobody.
Complex code of features used by nearly nobody, like bookmarks... :jester:
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by Krake:
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
... the opportunity ... dropping the complex code of features used by nearly nobody.
Complex code of features used by nearly nobody, like bookmarks... :jester:
Not quite, I meant IRC, M2, MDI, panels, etc... Speed Dial over Bookmarks was more of a vision-led decision.
-
Deleted User last edited by
from scratch
Does it mean "from zero"? In two or three months they can build a BROWSER much IDENTICAL Chromium from "the scratch"? Amazing!
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
drop the complex code which they pretended to run away from with the move of features used by nearly nobody
They said zero words about they can't manage code. They said they don't like to "waste resources" to "play catch-up".
Removing features because they like (or think the users *WILL* like) the "simplicity". -
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by blackbird71:
I "opted to omit" simply to try to keep from swallowing an ocean; my posts are often overly long, and I continually practice triage to try to keep them within bounds. In this case you cite, are you submitting that because a contradiction of facts or assertions regarding Opera has occurred, it must be the result of a lie? You yourself stated in that series of posts that it could be ignorance. But it might also be a simple mistake or oversight.
I think it's fair to assume that the entire post went out the door too quickly, with too little editing. It's not just the one sentence I picked out because it was pushed under my nose by ersi. As such, I also think the word unsatisfactory is quite fair.
Originally posted by blackbird71:
But to attribute the statements of Opera developers, certain incongruous details within change logs, or "official" statements by Opera to a conscious process of lying, deliberate deception, or such is to take steps I am simply unwilling to take at this point, based on common sense, what I know to have been true of Opera (and many of its still-remaining employees) over many years, and the nature of the facts I have observed thus far.
That's not what I'm suggesting, so I probably expressed myself poorly. I shouldn't have copied your word choice. I apologize for having wasted your time.
-
Deleted User last edited by
I still await the Universal Operating System…
If I understand (at least this much of the discussion…), there's a "conflict" (not yet a war! But history may moot my point…) between Intel/AMD and SPARC-like iron: Should the OS be simple and intuitive, and configurable? Or do our betters know better?
We've seen -over many years- what the latter yields, in application design…(I think that RISCs offer the better choice…)
-
aperture-focus last edited by
Originally posted by STAROSS:
>I mean, as other users have pointed out --- it is only a browser -- find another! But Opera is not "only a browser" . For me. and I suspect many others, Opera was my "gateway to the internet" for many years and frankly my "Comfort Zone" for the many hours spent online.
That's well said. I think I went from Netscape to Opera, and used it for about 10 years. Opera is almost like a childhood memory to me, so I'm a bit sad it's going away.
Yes me too. Never used IE much --- went from Netscape to Opera and stayed with it many years. It is a shame their management does not appreciate the brand value the "Old Opera" had.
There is always Sea Monkey I guess --- but that is too much a regression in terms of the interface as far as i am concerned.
-
aperture-focus last edited by
Originally posted by Pesala:
It is a clear progression in terms of user security since it prevents malware from hijacking the user's search engine. When they have found a safe solution, they will again allow users to set their own default search engine.
In previous versions of Opera I never once had an issue with search engine hijacking, and could easily set DDG as my default ------ so it is not clear to me at all how you would consider this a "clear progression".?
Forcing users to jump hurdles (now matter how small the hurdle) to avoid using Google is a clear regression in terms of privacy.
-
j7nj7n last edited by
It looks like another case where the user "secured from himself", because there can be no distinction between a search engine set willingly and covertly, unless they make it possible for the engine URL to be enterable via the GUI, and then encrypt it. But I guess that is not acceptable, because copying and seeing the URL is considered too complex for the user. I'd still see that method as unnecessary "secure" for a simple search engine, because if there is unwanted software writing to my configuration files running on my computer, setting the search engine is the least of my concerns. The only "safe" solution appears to be a set of search engines set by the authors.
