Opera+Choromium core=The best defination of a loser king :(

yoosefdoost

yoosefdoost

Hello Dear Opera Staff
This is not a support request, This is a SOS massage for saving what remains in Opera kingdom! I hope you read it well and stop the continue the mistake of current development Opera:

Long ago, when almost 90% of internet users used MS Internet Explorer I meet Opera. In fact, I used to be an Opera user since Opera 7. Although Opera had some mistakes and there was some really awful releases like 8.x and 10.x, Opera was so good that I never think about using an alternative and I became it's real fan. In those times, Opera was like a miracle to me. It was the most innovative we browser which used the minimum system resources and provided the fastest speed. I think the main reason for this success for Opera was the "Original Development of an Independent and Innovative web browser".
After extension of Google Chrome, many web-browser developers decided to use Google Chromium as the core of it's software. Even Mozilla Firefox which sometime was the biggest opponent of Opera did this mistake. Soon I found unfortunately Opera did this mistake too. Although it is undeniable that Google Chrome now is the most popular and one of the most powerful web-browsers, it is undeniable it is marked by bad weak points which never observed in old versions of Opera. For example Google Chrome uses memory (RAM) like hell and this problem ports to new versions of Opera. Although Mozilla understand about this mistake and start to develop an original web-browser by fixing Chromium weak points, Chromium based Opera versions in fact are ONLY CHEAP GOOGLE CHROME REDISTRIBUTION which original Google Chrome browser even work more efficient. For example, although the RAM usage problem is almost fixed in Mozilla Firefox while Opera process in Windows task manager is just like the Google Chrome: Each page has a separate process which fools OS that the browser not use a lot of memory, but the some of these separated processes shows the web-browser eats all system resources like hell.
The other problem is this mistake make users vulnerable just like IE ages, when the web browser of almost all users was the same it it provided the best opportunity for hackers, because It is undeniable that diversity in web-browsers is a bad problems for hackers to develop a general malware.

I hope Opera developers stop to continue the mistake releasing a cheap copy of Google Chrome and continue the original Opera policies which was based in a foundation of innovation, creativity and independent development of an original and really lovely product.

Thanks for your time

blackbird71

blackbird71

Unfortunately, a part of your basic premise is wrong, and it weakens your argument. Firefox is not built upon chromium, but was built on the entirely separate Gecko engine which was then modified for process isolation (multiple processes) via Mozilla's Electrolysis project. Firefox is now transitioning to Quantum, a low-level re-write of Gecko. Whatever the name, these are not chromium based. In any case, the new Firefox versions are almost certain to demand more processes and memory and have much higher complexity than any previous Firefox version.

The reason this matters is that it's an independent demonstration that modern browsers are necessarily focused on many things that were either not as relevant back in Olde Opera days or that simply were not technologically supported by ordinary hardware capabilities and software technology back then. Browser security has become paramount today; likewise, the ability to have many graphics-laden tabs open simultaneously without mutual interference, hijacking, or privacy compromise. As a result, this now leads different browser designers in many of the same design directions. Unfortunately, the resulting hardware and supporting software demands are higher than with older designs, so that users with older systems find more hardware-taxing difficulties with the newer browsers than they had with older ones.

None of this is likely to change in years to come, as long as the vast bulk of users continue prioritizing their browsing the way that they do. Browsers are designed in response to perceived user demands, for better or for worse in terms of those of us who may not fit into that bulk of user category.

yoosefdoost

yoosefdoost

Dear blackbird71:
I don't know why I have a memory about Chromium license in Firefox. I checked what you said and it seems you're right. So I should thank for your correction. However, it do not change the Chromium problems that makes Opera a cheap release Google Chrome while Opera was one of the web-browsing technology leader before it.:(

Since Opera was a brave and innovative company which could lead the technology, surrendering to google chrome not only dose NOT help it to survive, but also make users vulnerable just like IE ages, when the web browser of almost all users was the same and it provided the best opportunity for hackers because It is undeniable that diversity in web-browsers cause many problems for hackers to develop a general malware.

blackbird71

blackbird71

I can't dispute that design diversity can be a good thing, since I too believe it is. However, design effort costs resources that are in proportion to the scope of the design work, particularly in terms of money. It also means that a given design may not have attributes fully identical with those of other designs, which has major significance when it comes to working with websites and the unique ways different ones may code their sites. Google (and hence chromium) has very deep pockets financially from other business areas, and can underwrite a lot of design and maintenance costs that are simply impossible for small companies to match on their own, especially when the end product browser is given away free.

Olde Opera spent years and much money struggling to maintain full compatibility with various large websites that continually re-coded their websites to match the evolving peculiarities of "big name" browsers, but which thus excluded many smaller browsers and how they worked. In the end, when major browser redesign was finally needed, Opera (and many other browser makers) selected the existing and available chromium/Blink engine as their browser's rendering engine, since that engine was already at the core of Chrome and was thus widely compatible with most website code. More important, website compatibility could be maintained by the chromium consortium and the websites with minimal costs to the end browser designers.

If the universe of web browsers was based on a paid product model, things might be different. A company could perhaps offer a superior product at a higher price to cover higher development costs and hope to woo the market toward it, thereby perhaps eventually lowering its price through volume and coming to dominate the market. Unfortunately, the browser universe uses a free product model, and design and compatibility-maintenance costs have to be instead covered by advertising or preferred-sponsorship placements in the browser. This means cost tradeoffs have to be much more carefully considered.

These are all realities that govern why things are the way they are today. These set boundaries on what can be achieved practically in browser design, regardless of the attractiveness or wisdom of alternative ideas.

leocg

leocg Moderator Volunteer

This discussion is about four years late.

However, it do not change the Chromium problems that makes Opera a cheap release Google Chrome

And what makes you think this way?

while Opera was one of the web-browsing technology leader before it.:(

In its latest years, Opera Presto was running behind Chrome and other browsers simply because the developers couldn't add all the new resources quickly enough.

This made Opera to take a long time to start supporting or even support at all features that other browsers already supported.

but also make users vulnerable just like IE ages, when the web browser of almost all users was the same and it provided the best opportunity for hackers because It is undeniable that diversity in web-browsers cause many problems for hackers to develop a general malware.

Diversity is still there and didn't change that much since the beginning of the Web.

yoosefdoost

yoosefdoost

This discussion is about four years late.

I agree with you but I think it is better than a destiny like Mosaic web browser for Opera.

I totally agree with This:

If the universe of web browsers was based on a paid product model, things might be different. A company could perhaps offer a superior product at a higher price to cover higher development costs and hope to woo the market toward it

As far as I remember Opera 7 was not free and it contained ads in header. In that time there were many other paid web browsers too. Although today almost all famous web browsers are totally free, it is undeniable that a superior web browser can find it share in global market even it will not be free. On the other hand, there are many individuals that are ready to donate a good project that fixes current browsing problems.

And what makes you think this way?

Because someday Opera was one of the web browsers that developed independently and although it had not considerable conflict with many websites, many web developers checked their website compatibility with it. In that days, Opera was an independent developed web browsers that was always a candidate in speed checking test, etc.

In its latest years, Opera Presto was running behind Chrome and other browsers simply because the developers couldn't add all the new resources quickly enough.
This made Opera to take a long time to start supporting or even support at all features that other browsers already supported.

It is not really a bad thing if it help to develop a superior product. For example, many of Android features were like a dream for iOS users, but no one can deny that iOS is a more optimum OS since it can handle many tasks more efficiently even with less powerful hardware in comparison with it's android opponents.
It is undeniable that google is a pioneer in many new technologies, but in my opinion google is not good enough in software development because it is a company which is getting bigger and bigger and have not enough time to concentrate to optimizing it's software products.

leocg

leocg Moderator Volunteer

I agree with you but I think it is better than a destiny like Mosaic web browser for Opera.

But you know that all discussion on that will be just rhetoric, right? Absolutely nothing will change because of it.

Because someday Opera was one of the web browsers that developed independently and although it had not considerable conflict with many websites

Opera Presto always had issues with many sites since the beginning. When web pages were just html, such problems may not have been noticed but when the web started to become more complex, Opera incompatibilities with pages also started to show up.

They've implemented lots of 'quick fixes' to solve those issues.

In that days, Opera was an independent developed web browsers that was always a candidate in speed checking test, etc.

Yes, Opera was known for its speed but it was a long time ago in a totally different Web. As the Web became more complex, Opera slowed down.

It is not really a bad thing if it help to develop a superior product.

The point is that it wasn't really one. It could have lots of tools and features but in what really mattered for the users, being able to load and use their favorite pages, Opera was failing.

For example, many of Android features were like a dream for iOS users, but no one can deny that iOS is a more optimum OS since it can handle many tasks more efficiently even with less powerful hardware in comparison with it's android opponents

I can't discuss the technical part but as an user I prefer Android.

A Former User

It was a bugger that Opera 12 was abandon, but now since things have progressed and improved I'm glad they made the switch.

Opera Neon concept browser was huge news and sparked a lot of interest. Neon has some amazing abilities - which proved that Opera still has what it takes to be on the front of web browser development. So many browser features that are now common originated on Opera Presto.

As year 2017 moves forward it's likely we see more Neon features incorporated to Opera. Exiting times to be with Opera!

yoosefdoost

yoosefdoost

Unfortunately, a part of your basic premise is wrong, and it weakens your argument. Firefox is not built upon chromium

In Firefox address bar type "about:license", then press enter.
Press "Ctrl+F" to find "Chromium License". Click on it, then you can see this:

Chromium License

This license applies to parts of the code in:

browser/extensions/mortar/host/common/opengles2-utils.jsm
editor/libeditor/EditorEventListener.cpp
security/sandbox/
widget/cocoa/GfxInfo.mm

and also some files in these directories:

browser/extensions/mortar/ppapi/
dom/media/webspeech/recognition/
dom/plugins/
gfx/ots/
gfx/ycbcr/
ipc/chromium/
media/openmax_dl/
toolkit/components/downloads/chromium/
toolkit/components/url-classifier/chromium/
tools/profiler/

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

blackbird71

blackbird71

Licenses for computer code act much like product patents, wherein the original creator maintains legal rights to certain idea implementations in code which he has defined and published. The code and ideas involved may be anything from major core elements of a browser to simply a small peripheral way of doing some specific task. The mere presence of licensing of third-party elements in a browser does not reveal the scope of how significant the related code may be to the primary operation or functionality of the browser. For example, the licensed use of a third-party code snippet dealing with part of the implementation of certain kinds of extensions or plug-ins does not have significant impact on how the rest of a browser operates nor on its privacy aspects. Likewise, the licensed use of a third-party code snippet providing a technique for implementing or improving DRM-protected playback of entertainment media has no impact on ordinary browser functionality, etc.

What is missing from your search listings are any descriptions of what the specific chromium links actually involve or how greatly - if at all - they impact the browser's ordinary functionality, security, or privacy. Just because my Toyota automobile may use a technology element or principle patented by Fiat and licensed out to Toyota does not mean the car is a Fiat, nor is designed nor operates like a Fiat in any substantive way.

yoosefdoost

yoosefdoost

Dear blackbird71
I just add what I told about Chromium licences in Firefox in 3rd post of this topic:

Dear blackbird71:
I don't know why I have a memory about Chromium license in Firefox.

blackbird71

blackbird71

Dear blackbird71
I just add what I told about Chromium licences in Firefox in 3rd post of this topic:

Dear blackbird71:
I don't know why I have a memory about Chromium license in Firefox.

Currently, there seem to be 7 web browser engine variants still under active development: Gecko (Mozilla Firefox), Edge (Microsoft), WebKit (ancestor of Blink - Safari), Blink (Chrome, Chromium, Opera & many others), Goanna (forked from Gecko - Pale Moon), KHTML (ancestor of WebKit and Blink - Konqueror), and Servo (Mozilla experimental). Olde Opera's Presto has joined a growing number of dead browser engines no longer being developed by anyone. When one boils down the ancestories into families, there are really only 3 unique families of browser engines still under development: Gecko, Edge, and Webkit/Blink/Goanna/KHTML (with Servo yet to see the light of day in the non-lab world).

There's a reason for the small number, and it has to do with the costs of engine development and continuing support in a rapidly evolving Internet world. You were correct earlier: the smaller the array of engine choices, the more limited will be the feature sets compatible with the engine API's, hence the more similarities between browsers built on in-common engines. Unfortunately, that observation will make no headway against the economic pressures acting against totally new engine development. With the entire Internet model now built around 'free' products and services, browser/engine development and support costs will continue to exert irresistible pressure for browser makers (like Opera) to adopt already-existing and supported engines. At this point, all users can do is make the best choice for themselves from within the universe of available browsers. We can look back fondly at this or that feature set or capability of browsers no longer in production, but at the end of the day, we must deal with the world that is, not the world that was.