Option to edit DEFAULT SEARCH ENGINES

[blackbird71]

blackbird71 last edited by

@lem729, it's only a guess, but the mods may have more than one way to attack spamming, and depending on what technique they use, the results/effects may vary. If they go after an individual post, perhaps they can comment in place of it... but if they extinguish the hacker's account in certain ways, perhaps all his posts simply evaporate... I'm really not sure. In any case, the mods have a heavy enough load, so I certainly wouldn't want to add to it by asking for more manual intervention in such situations. I just wish the forum machinery itself did some things a little differently, this being one of them...

But, as I noted earlier, in the grand scheme of things, there are certainly worse things. Frankly, I'm glad (and very appreciative) that the mods are jumping on spam as fast as they do... it's a major, major improvement over the early days of this forum.

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by admin

Does it is necessary to discuss the same thing in two topics?
Very confusing, specially when it comes to chose where I'd post.

I hope all interested can see my comment here and that we are able to learn more together about the two issues (lack of HTTPS in some built-in engines and the setting of custom search engine as default):
https://forums.opera.com/post/42867

[lem729]

lem729 last edited by admin

For me, the issue was Opera's inability to add additional search engines because of the fear of a malicious takeover/hijacking of the search engine. And while there was agreement as to that by everyone, it would seem, except the original poster, there was an unfair, offensive characterization by rafaelluik of some of the posters in that other thread (including myself), unfortunately cross-referenced in the post above. In repeating -- through the cross-reference -- something, in my view, very much inappropriate, double damage was done. Now here was my response.

https://forums.opera.com/topic/3441/search-engine-default/78

Notwithstanding the above, every moderator has a difficult job, and I repect those who take on such arduous, sometimes thankless responsibilities. It's not always possible, like Solomon, to offer to divide the baby in two. This was a case in particular where the offer to divide really doesn't work.

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by

I'm sorry about any confusion... I'll try to clear up the things as we continue replying in that thread. I didn't mean to hurt anybody (and I believe you misunderstood what I wrote, or maybe I wrote very badly so it was impossible for something else to come out from this? IDK).

I'd like to remember you that although I'm a mod, I'm also a member. When I post, I post also as a member and I can let my opinions flow like everybody else. As a mod, I didn't condemn any of your attitudes nor advised/warned you, nor pointed to the forum rules nor anything. (I hope this can be understood and I don't feel remorse later. huh lol)

[lem729]

lem729 last edited by

Yes, no worry there, @rafaelluik

How terrible it would be if you couldn't wear your member hat and throw yourself into the fray now and then. And yes, sometimes when you do comment, it's hard for others not to see the comment coming from you in that moderator role. Still we badly need good moderators, so you are helping to perform an essential function. So please no after-the-fact remorse. If you always agreed with me, maybe -- haha-- I'd find you boring,
Now there was no intent to gang up on anyone, though passions can be heated when posts go back and forth almost, seemingly every minute. I know my own limitations on this issue, and that I don't have the technical knowledge to second guess Opera. That's why I have kept saying in this thread that I have to "defer" to Opera. And though we have some highly astute people, with much programming and computer knowledge in the forum, there's still an issue of whether they know enough about the problem Opera was dealing with, to say Opera was wrong in its determination. I highly doubt it. Therefore, I struggle trying to see what use there is in this thread, other than a vehicle to vent.

I guess we could contribute something in this thread (even make recommendations to Opera that might help it) if we knew (what, alas, I strongly suspect we do not, nor likely ever will):

(1) what data Opera had about the hijacking of its browser engines that led to the limitation in default engines offered, including how exactly the hijackings took place. In that regard, was there a uniform method, or might there be a number of different ways the hijackings occurred?

(2) how default engines (other than the ones approved by Opera) contributed to it, that is, made the hijackings easier.

(3) does Opera view its default engines as inherently safer than others would be if they made them available, and if so, why?

(4) or is that Opera needed to offer some default search engines to compete with other browsers ( maybe even made income out of the default search engines they offered), and that while all engines can equally (and as easily) be hijacked, that the risks of hijacking become greater if you offer more (hence a limitation on the number Opera chose to offer).

(5) or is it that for some reason it would help if we knew, typing the code would make any search safer, but Opera did need to offer some default search engines (to compete with other browsers) but wants to limit the risk of hijackings, by limiting the number of default engines offered.

(6) why typing of the one or two letter code, is in Opera's view safer.

(7) why via extension Opera lets Disconnect Search get around the limitation for DuckDuckGo, and any others in the Disconnect Search engine not in the Opera approved default list. (Surely Opera concluded this extension provides needed functionality). Maybe there's a liability concern. If Opera provides the additional engine, they are more responsible for safety than if a third-party provides it, where their review is on its face lesser.

In sum, unless we could provide Opera with this questionaire ;))) and get a full and complete response, I don't see how we can second-guess Opera and say they made the wrong decision. All we can do is to ask Opera to provide additional default search engines if: (a) Opera deems them as safe as those already provided, (b) concludes that typing the additional code in no way adds to the safety).

[notwithoutmymonkey]

notwithoutmymonkey last edited by

Despite Opera's excuses, it's clear that this decision has been taken for commercial reasons. The reason itself simply doesn't pass the sniff test of plausibility.

I don't want anything to do with Google. I object to the company, its practices and the insidious power that it is amassing. I used to remove it from my search options. I'm no longer able to do that. I have used duckduckgo, ixquick and qwant interchangeably for some time now.

I object to being corralled into using search engines that Opera has commercial agreements with and for this reason after many years of use, I will be migrating to Firefox where I can at least alter the default search engine.

[lem729]

lem729 last edited by

Now @notwithoutmymonkey, you say it is ckear the Opera decision to limit default search engines, "was taken for commercial reasons.". How so, clear? On what evidence do you base that conclusion? Am I missing something here? Opera asserted security reasons -- the hijacking of search engines by malware and adware, taking users to dangerous sites. Aren't you concerned about that? Perhaps you would like to have your credit cards and identity stolen. As for gross commercial actions (not that there's anything wrong with business ;)) check this article out, "Firefox hits the Jackpot with almost billion dollar google deal."

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/firefox-hits-the-jackpot-with-almost-billion-dollar-google-deal/1780

Firefox, it seems, takes more money from Google than any other browser. $1,000,000,000. Wow. Perhaps, by a longshot. So that's who you are about to jump in bed with. Smile. If you're that concerned about commercial reasons, what then are you doing? Now, if you want to use another default search engine, not provided by Opera, for what it says are security reasons, and are unhappy with the minimally obtrusive one or two letter code workaround or extensions, which make the code workaround unnecessary (like Disconnect Search) and expand functionality, and if you are not concerned about the safety issue, then fine, switching, of course, is your prerogative,

[stealth789]

stealth789 last edited by admin

For me, the issue was Opera's inability to add additional search engines because of the fear of a malicious takeover/hijacking of the search engine. And while there was agreement as to that by everyone, it would seem, except the original poster, there was an unfair, offensive characterization by rafaelluik of some of the posters in that other thread (including myself), unfortunately cross-referenced in the post above. In repeating -- through the cross-reference -- something, in my view, very much inappropriate, double damage was done. Now here was my response.
https://forums.opera.com/topic/3441/search-engine-default/78
Notwithstanding the above, every moderator has a difficult job, and I repect those who take on such arduous, sometimes thankless responsibilities. It's not always possible, like Solomon, to offer to divide the baby in two. This was a case in particular where the offer to divide really doesn't work.

Just one point of view. From developer's point of view. Inability is mostly excuse here. I can understand other reasons, but not, that they're not able to make it. It's just not correct. It's about finding a way, not ignoring it.

[stealth789]

stealth789 last edited by

In sum, unless we could provide Opera with this questionaire ;))) and get a full and complete response, I don't see how we can second-guess Opera and say they made the wrong decision. All we can do is to ask Opera to provide additional default search engines if: (a) Opera deems them as safe as those already provided, (b) concludes that typing the additional code in no way adds to the safety).

:). But I don't agree that we can't second guess unless they give answers. We can. And even more just because they don't give these answers.

[lem729]

lem729 last edited by

We know search engines have been hijacked in the past. And that if they are, the risk of damage to users can be quite severe. Credit card and identity theft are no laughing matter. So for me, there's no upside to disbelieving Opera when they say that the hijacking of search engines is a reason why they limited the number of default engines. I don't want to push them to do something that could harm users, including myself.

Now personally, I'm delighted if Opera provides more default search engines. My only concern is that they do not do so under pressure from users, even though they believe the risk of default search engine hijackings becomes greater. Rather I hope they are able to conclude, based upon further analysis, that there is no increase in user risk, and that they can, therefore, comfortably provide more default search engines. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. If Opera, however, continues to conclude that providing more default search engines would increase user risk, the "best" from my perspective would be for Opera not to provide the increased default engines.

[stealth789]

stealth789 last edited by

We know search engines have been hijacked in the past. And that if they are, the risk of damage to users can be quite severe. Credit card and identity theft are no laughing matter. So for me, there's no upside to disbelieving Opera when they say that the hijacking of search engines is a reason why they limited the number of default engines. I don't want to push them to do something that could harm users, including myself.
Now personally, I'm delighted if Opera provides more default search engines. My only concern is that they do not do so under pressure from users, even though they believe the risk of default search engine hijackings becomes greater. Rather I hope they are able to conclude, based upon further analysis, that there is no increase in user risk, and that they can, therefore, comfortably provide more default search engines. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. If Opera, however, continues to conclude that providing more default search engines would increase user risk, the "best" from my perspective would be for Opera not to provide the increased default engines.

If you refer laughing to my smile, it was meant for your questionaire ;). I never laugh when security is an issue.

And I got it, that are opinions here on some things are different. It's OK. I also don't want it to harm anyone. But from my technical point of view, risk is the same as allowing you to save your password. So it's simple. They can use same mechanism like for saving passwords in file Login Data. It's only SQLite database file with encrypted data. It's not like reinventing the wheel you know. And here I'm ready to argue to anyone with technical background. No problem.

[lem729]

lem729 last edited by

You smiled at my questionnaire. Good grief! But were you able to answer anything in it? Some of those are reasonable questions (from a technical and a common-sense background), starting with " what data Opera had about the hijacking of its browser engines that led to the limitation in default engines offered, including how exactly the hijackings took place." I mean this is basic, necessary information to decide whether Opera's actions were reasonable. All of that questionaire (one should never hide behind a forced smile) raises important issues without the answers to which you're basically shooting in the dark, in suggesting that Opera's actions have been inappropriate. Who knows what your might hit Having a technical background does not excuse the necessity to answer very essential questions, without which answers one can become like a person shooting a blunderbuss -- the pellets fly in every direction.

Now I'm not saying any of us are in a position where we could easily know the answers to those seven questions that I poseed. The information Opera had, upon which it made its decision on default engines, is not readily available to any of us in the forum. And huffing and puffing and talking about technical expertise in no way changes that essential problem with this thread. It is a reason why this thread is an exercise in futility.

[stealth789]

stealth789 last edited by

You smiled at my questionnaire. Good grief!

Smile was meant like "Well done ;)", so I'm sorry you're making assumptions and taking the wrong part of it. But it's your choice.

But were you able to answer anything in it? Some of those are reasonable questions (from a technical and a common-sense background), starting with " what data Opera had about the hijacking of its browser engines that led to the limitation in default engines offered, including how exactly the hijackings took place." I mean this is basic, necessary information to decide whether Opera's actions were reasonable. All of that questionaire (one should never hide behind a forced smile) raises important issues without the answers to which you're basically shooting in the dark, in suggesting that Opera's actions have been inappropriate. Who knows what your might hit Having a technical background does not excuse the necessity to answer very essential questions, without which answers one can become like a person shooting a blunderbuss -- the pellets fly in every direction.

These should be answered by Opera in first place. But sure, they don't care... But I'll come back to it. I won't run from question,... Even if it's not strictly question for me ;). And logic is not shooting in the dark. And what kind of excuse do you mean. I should excuse for what exactly?

And once again, you didn't even tried to react on my last assumption. You're again changing topic somewhere else.

Now I'm not saying any of us are in a position where we could easily know the answers to those seven questions that I poseed. The information Opera had, upon which it made its decision on default engines, is not readily available to any of us in the forum. And huffing and puffing and talking about technical expertise in no way changes that essential problem with this thread. It is a reason why this thread is an exercise in futility.

Here we won't agree either. I can make assumption based on analysis, logic, interpolation, ... to assume what's more likely. And I will second guess seriously everything. I won't trust something blindly, stating, I can't have my opinion? Question is, who's assumptions are more likely. But basically you're telling me you can't make assumptions. So sure it's hard to argue.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User last edited by

You smiled at my questionnaire. Good grief! But were you able to answer anything in it? Some of those are reasonable questions (from a technical and a common-sense background), starting with " what data Opera had about the hijacking of its browser engines that led to the limitation in default engines offered, including how exactly the hijackings took place." I mean this is basic, necessary information to decide whether Opera's actions were reasonable. All of that questionaire (one should never hide behind a forced smile) raises important issues without the answers to which you're basically shooting in the dark, in suggesting that Opera's actions have been inappropriate. Who knows what your might hit Having a technical background does not excuse the necessity to answer very essential questions, without which answers one can become like a person shooting a blunderbuss -- the pellets fly in every direction.
Now I'm not saying any of us are in a position where we could easily know the answers to those seven questions that I poseed. The information Opera had, upon which it made its decision on default engines, is not readily available to any of us in the forum. And huffing and puffing and talking about technical expertise in no way changes that essential problem with this thread. It is a reason why this thread is an exercise in futility.

I agree with you. Discussing this won't change anything now ç.

[stealth789]

stealth789 last edited by

(1) what data Opera had about the hijacking of its browser engines that led to the limitation in default engines offered, including how exactly the hijackings took place. In that regard, was there a uniform method, or might there be a number of different ways the hijackings occurred?

It's not important what data. Result was locking(signed by opera, and checked in runtime) of file search.ini in Opera Presto, and default_partner_content.json in Blink Opera against changes. Not files with users private data, but with default search engines. Suggesting, that even changing of password data are secure, when they decided to lock only search engines. Also protection of file system is not function of browser. And even if it's nice function, it can't be used as argument to restrict things. Then it's more fear factor, than argument, because then we're dealing with software able to access file system. And then there are much more important things to protect, than default search engine.

Also default search engines are in Chromium stored together with other custom engines in file Web Data. Opera did own mechanism. Yes if was maybe in time, when even Chromium hasn't default search engines there. Even so they could simply encrypt default search engines data in this file same way like they do with passwords in file Login Data. They made it more expensively. So mechanism used in passwords was not safe or was it more important for Opera to secure search engines file, than user's passwords data? If it's not, why did they did it harder and more expensive way? Or they care more about search engines security, or they don't trust mechanism used while saving user's password data. It they care more about search engines, then this security argument can flush itself. It they don't, but they don't trust user's password data saving mechanism, they also gave higher priority to deal with search engines against user's private data.
Still there was easier way how to deal with this problem, without much costs. Or the real problem is much bigger, but in other place.

Even reasons are money based. Or they made really really bad decisions, that don't make much sense. Or maybe they started with good reason, to "correct and enable later", but in time, this is still just better "solution". Still they didn't care to change anything about it in year and half.

(2) how default engines (other than the ones approved by Opera) contributed to it, that is, made the hijackings easier.

It's not about how many of them is, but about mechanism, how they are stored. So mechanism can make hijacking easier, not count of engines.

(3) does Opera view its default engines as inherently safer than others would be if they made them available, and if so, why?

As we know this engines except Wikipedia are paying to be in the list. And as I mentioned before, some are not even set correctly. And there are safer engines. So there's no "good" answer for Opera.

(4) or is that Opera needed to offer some default search engines to compete with other browsers ( maybe even made income out of the default search engines they offered), and that while all engines can equally (and as easily) be hijacked, that the risks of hijacking become greater if you offer more (hence a limitation on the number Opera chose to offer).

Sure we know they're getting income from searches. Sure every browser now offers default engine due to money reasons. Yet it's not reason to restrict change of it. Risk is about mechanism. It has nothing to do with number of engines.

(5) or is it that for some reason it would help if we knew, typing the code would make any search safer, but Opera did need to offer some default search engines (to compete with other browsers) but wants to limit the risk of hijackings, by limiting the number of default engines offered.

Typing of word safer? Really? Then if this is reason, they should disabled default engines at all. It's not making sense. They are not limiting risk by numbers. But by locking mechanism to change engines.

(6) why typing of the one or two letter code, is in Opera's view safer.

Who stated that this is safer? It's nonsense from technical point of view. If this would be reason, then they should change omnibox behavior, add search box, .... . Not has opened API architecture.

(7) why via extension Opera lets Disconnect Search get around the limitation for DuckDuckGo, and any others in the Disconnect Search engine not in the Opera approved default list. (Surely Opera concluded this extension provides needed functionality). Maybe there's a liability concern. If Opera provides the additional engine, they are more responsible for safety than if a third-party provides it, where their review is on its face lesser.

Because it's by design opened API. Just like some extensions can change things, this can override search engine.

And responsibility? So in the first place it's responsibility of user, not extension. This is question of some "Terms of Service", not any restriction of this kind. It's alibism.

And if you care about users security so much, you allow extension to compromise it, and you don't care, because you're safe by law while on the other side using security as argument? So (if this would be true) then yeah, this is approach users should love.

[lem729]

lem729 last edited by

It's not important what data. Result was locking(signed by opera, and checked in runtime) of file search.ini in Opera Presto, and default_partner_content.json in Blink Opera against changes. Not files with users private data, but with default search engines. Suggesting, that even changing of password data are secure, when they decided to lock only search engines. Also protection of file system is not function of browser. And even if it's nice function, it can't be used as argument to restrict things. Then it's more fear factor, than argument, because then we're dealing with software able to access file system. And then there are much more important things to protect, than default search engine.

I can't follow your answer. Opera had data about how the search engines were hijacked. I can't believe without that data, you can say, it doesn't matter, and argue that Opera should (wihtout your knowing more) provide more engines. You don't have enough information to say that.

Also default search engines are in Chromium stored together with other custom engines in file Web Data. Opera did own mechanism. Yes if was maybe in time, when even Chromium hasn't default search engines there. Even so they could simply encrypt default search engines data in this file same way like they do with passwords in file Login Data. They made it more expensively. So mechanism used in passwords was not safe or was it more important for Opera to secure search engines file, than user's passwords data? If it's not, why did they did it harder and more expensive way? Or they care more about search engines security, or they don't trust mechanism used while saving user's password data. It they care more about search engines, then this security argument can flush itself. It they don't, but they don't trust user's password data saving mechanism, they also gave higher priority to deal with search engines against user's private data.

-- A bit hard to follow what you're saying. I know English isn't your first language; the sentence is disjointed, and not clear to me. Perhaps, others can follow more easily. We don't know how the hijackings occurred. Maybe it's through a method somehow separate from the search engine data. If Opera did the encryption, does that mean it's safe from hijacking. Encryption can be broken. Maybe it's not that simple or financially easy to do the encryption. Does it matter whether Opera gives higher priority to protect user via search engine or passwords? If they don't protect the user in one area, it doesn't mean they shouldn't in another.

Still there was easier way how to deal with this problem, without much costs. Or the real problem is much bigger, but in other place.

There may, as you state, be a better solution. And some of what you are saying may resonate with Opera. But we can't really know at this point in time that there's a better, economically viable solution because of the total lack of information about how the hijackings occurred, the basis for Opera's determinations, etc -- which is the heart of the seven questions I asked.

(2) how default engines (other than the ones approved by Opera) contributed to it, that is, made the hijackings easier.

It's not about how many of them is, but about mechanism, how they are stored. So mechanism can make hijacking easier, not count of engines.

You may well be right. But Opera ought to have the most information on this issue. If as you say, it's the mechanism of storing the speed dial date, maybe it's more burdensome for Opera, when adding additional engines, to have to look to the mechanism for each one. Limiting the search engines as default keeps it more financially do-able, while maintaining safety.

(3) does Opera view its default engines as inherently safer than others would be if they made them available, and if so, why?

As we know this engines except Wikipedia are paying to be in the list. And as I mentioned before, some are not even set correctly. And there are safer engines. So there's no "good" answer for Opera.

The ones you say are safer -- perhaps startpage, duckduckgo -- may be in the context of searches being traced to a particular user, but still may be more susceptible of hijacking. Or at least, every engine addred as a default, may require configuration by Opera to make the engine safe, and expense, and Opera may have had to limit how much configuration and expense it could put into the issue. Now if some search engine owners are paying Opera to use the search engine, it make sense, they they be included as default right off (Opera has the income from them to invest into making adjustments to configuration, so that a search with that engine is relatively safer. If it's money that makes the creation of the free browser possible (and it is free for the user), it doesn't offend me at all. That's the world that "is," the world we live in.

(5) or is it that for some reason it would help if we knew, typing the code would make any search safer, but Opera did need to offer some default search engines (to compete with other browsers) but wants to limit the risk of hijackings, by limiting the number of default engines offered.

Typing of word safer? Really? Then if this is reason, they should disabled default engines at all.

You're missing a "verb" between "should" and "disabled" and it's not comprehensible to me, what exactly you're saying.

It's not making sense. They are not limiting risk by numbers. But by locking mechanism to change engines.>

-- Something with the sentence structure. Can't follow what you're saying to assess if it makes sense.

(6) why typing of the one or two letter code, is in Opera's view safer.

Who stated that this is safer? It's nonsense from technical point of view.

Maybe, maybe not. Look Opera spokesman says it wasn't safe to offer more default search engines, but they do offer for other engines the code. Implicit in that is that the code is safer. If it makes no sense to you, okay, but for me, I have to defer to Opera on that.

And if you care about users security so much, you allow extension to compromise it, and you don't care, because you're safe by law while on the other side using security as argument? So (if this would be true) then yeah, this is approach users should love.

I think you're mixing apples and oranges. To begin with, I myself have enough search vehicles to be happy. I use Disconnect Search which masks my search and purportedly makes it not (or less)(one hopes) traceable to me. I believe it's safer. In place of that, I would type the one letter code with the search engine of my choice, if I didn't want to use google, bing, etc. Now on extensions, I take a safety risk for things really important to me -- the feature the extension offers. I read the reviews, look at the number of downloads, view user comments, and then take some extensions. You claim to be logical, and yet IMHO you're not. You make this "mixing of apples and oranges" argument that, at least to me, makes no sense.

[lem729]

lem729 last edited by

@stealth789

I did mean to thank you, though, for one of your posts that encouraged me to go ahead and get that Https Everwhere extension. We're having this discussion, and I hope you're not feeling too frustrated. We're not that far apart. I too favor more search engines, but want Opera (before providing them) to make a determination that giving users this additional default search engine option would be safe for them -- at least as safe as the system currently in place. I'm not prepared to totally second-guess Opera on this, because the Opera Forum basically lacks of lot of information, that was the basis for Opera decisions, and Opera has some unique expertise in designing the browser that is out there (and trouble shooting problems that may have occurred with it). If we could question them by experts, and gather the information that was the basis for their decision-making, then we could second-guess them. But we simply don't have that luxury. The system isn't set up that way. We can't do it.

Look, you have raised some issues. Opera has the chance to think about whether the default search engine limitation is reasonable to continue. Or to change it. In the meantime, just to let you know: you did help me with that idea for the extension, and perhaps you helped others there too. So all is not lost. Impacts of our actions abound (beyond what we imagine). Everything is connected! Even if, haha, (and perhaps I'm too trusting, but it is my nature when there's a lack of essential information, and I respect Opera for the many years of browsing pleasure it has given me) I still think you go too far, by assuming/concluding without more information that Opera has no basis to limit the default search engines, or that the one or two letter code is just a charade, and has no safety basis.

[seaman123]

seaman123 last edited by

I hope Opera will add a feature to change the standard search engines. The only solution for me at the time is, rename the "default_partner_content.json" in the resources directory. But this is after every update necessary, so I hope there is coming an option to change the standard search engines.

I prefer DuckDuckGo but I can't change Google as standard (rename or delete "default_partner_content.json" doesn't help). That's really bad!

[meeotch666]

meeotch666 last edited by

New opera user here. I'm really disappointed to find right away that I'm locked out from setting my own default search engine.

I understand the argument that there's some large fraction of the userbase that needs to be protected from themselves, and from internet malefactors. However, I reject the premise that this means removing basic functionality for "power users" is the only option. It's easy enough to include a hidden option that's editable only by a human being.

And the suggestion that google & yahoo are somehow "safer" than startpage and duckduckgo doesn't even merit a response. Particularly if, as one poster above suggested, the searches aren't even implemented securely.

For now, I'm using the disconnect search extension to force my default search to duckduckgo (though I'd prefer startpage). But I hope the developers choose to re-institute this choice for those who are responsible enough to make it.

That said, so far I'm loving Opera. And the checkbox that disables the tiny space above the tab line? Brilliant!

[unrealmirakulix]

unrealmirakulix last edited by

+1, even if you can via editing a json.