Do more on the web, with a fast and secure browser!

Download Opera browser with:

  • built-in ad blocker
  • battery saver
  • free VPN
Download Opera

Search Engine Default

  • There is a very beautiful expression: "brevity is the soul of wit."

    I doubt he would understand the truth of that maxim.

  • ... You can't use argument about one thing, and ignore other that are almost the same. Just because it suit your argumentation here. Then argument of security is useless. That's my point. Also other things are security issues, but are allowed. So why this one cannot be? What is exact difference here? If you're telling about security here, then sure argue it as complex thing. Not taking only one thing you like, and don't accept other, that are the same.
    ... But when you can use security argument, I can use other, that are similar. So it can be judged complex. Because if you claim A cannot be, because of B. I can ask, so why is it that C is allowed because of B, and A not? I thin it's correct question.
    ...
    It's not about how Opera decided. But how it's practically presented and applied. Because there are ways to make everybody "happy". But not this way.
    ...
    My point is try to make things better, when there's a way. And sure here's a way. Here are options to make it even safe, and even possible to use by everyone. I won't advocate someone/something, when I know it can be made better. And current situation is not so safe, like you proclaim it to be, by using this closed approach. It's just deceiving.

    On the contrary, I've come to the conclusion you simply want to argue. To reprise: you made a complaint about the way Opera has dealt with default search engines, and made a suggestion here and elsewhere about what they should do to improve things. I responded with an explanation of what Opera has said regarding why they did what they did, indicated that indeed there is a security issue regarding browser hijacking, along with making some further comments about possible design complexities, workloads, prioritization, etc. that may have a bearing on implementing your suggestion. You then have dragged in all sorts of security-related things you don't agree with Opera about, and ultimately argued that any counter-discussion here supports Opera's infringing on your "freedom". The sum of it is that you've found something in Opera you don't like, made a suggestion, and now want to argue endlessly by invoking all manner of irrelevant things that only serve to keep your argument alive. Enough. I'm out of here... have a nice evening.

  • It is about security, they provide only 5 default search engines to avoid malware which changes the search engine.

  • ... You can't use argument about one thing, and ignore other that are almost the same. Just because it suit your argumentation here. Then argument of security is useless. That's my point. Also other things are security issues, but are allowed. So why this one cannot be? What is exact difference here? If you're telling about security here, then sure argue it as complex thing. Not taking only one thing you like, and don't accept other, that are the same.
    ... But when you can use security argument, I can use other, that are similar. So it can be judged complex. Because if you claim A cannot be, because of B. I can ask, so why is it that C is allowed because of B, and A not? I thin it's correct question.
    ...
    It's not about how Opera decided. But how it's practically presented and applied. Because there are ways to make everybody "happy". But not this way.
    ...
    My point is try to make things better, when there's a way. And sure here's a way. Here are options to make it even safe, and even possible to use by everyone. I won't advocate someone/something, when I know it can be made better. And current situation is not so safe, like you proclaim it to be, by using this closed approach. It's just deceiving.
    On the contrary, I've come to the conclusion you simply want to argue. To reprise: you made a complaint about the way Opera has dealt with default search engines, and made a suggestion here and elsewhere about what they should do to improve things. I responded with an explanation of what Opera has said regarding why they did what they did, indicated that indeed there is a security issue regarding browser hijacking, along with making some further comments about possible design complexities, workloads, prioritization, etc. that may have a bearing on implementing your suggestion. You then have dragged in all sorts of security-related things you don't agree with Opera about, and ultimately argued that any counter-discussion here supports Opera's infringing on your "freedom". The sum of it is that you've found something in Opera you don't like, made a suggestion, and now want to argue endlessly by invoking all manner of irrelevant things that only serve to keep your argument alive. Enough. I'm out of here... have a nice evening.

    I agree with you blackbird71.

  • Any chance you might consider just taking your paranoia elsewhere? Give it a rest for crying out loud. You've beaten it to death and no one is really that concerned.

    I'm sorry if it's bothering you, but you're not forced in any way to read any of this. Also if you know more about possible dangers, the more you care. From your point things can look like paranoia maybe. Also I don't think, that you represent everybody, to be able to tell who is how much concerned.

  • ...
    It's about freedom, when even this default list cannot be expanded. Because then there's no argument about security. And then there are totaly different reasons for this. And it has nothing to do with security. It's just excuse to use forced list.
    ...
    It's just deceiving. Correct question is, why then they didn't add StartPage. Ixquick,... to default serach engines, when it's safe, better much safer than engines they provide, and many are asking for it? It's lot of work? It's safer?
    Hmm... let's see now. If I use one of many free-of-charge browsers that requires me to insert a prefix letter before my search term in order to use a custom search engine, or else I have to either install an extension or use another browser, that has infringed on my "freedom". I'm sorry, but that concept of freedom either cheapens the kind of real freedom so many have died for worldwide, or it's a woefully exaggerated misuse of the term.

    We're talking about default search engine no custom one. In other browsers there's no requerment to prefix anything, or install specific extension. So make it simpler:

    • Why do I have to prefix searches or install additional extension?

    And no, there is no "correct" question involved... there's only just a question that you've asked. At the time Opera removed the custom default search engine capability (12.15), Opera was already in a Presto wind-down phase... Presto developers either were leaving or being re-assigned to Blink development, initially for the mobile markets. You and I are free (real "freedom") to speculate in hindsight what they could have done, how complex or difficult it might have been, or whether they "shoulda, coulda, woulda" done it under other circumstances. But they didn't do it. End of story. Our opinions on that are pure speculation.

    If you stated, that security is main issue here, than it's correct question. Still rather that speculate, you can answer it 😉

    • Why Opera can't add StartPage, Ixquick,... to default search engines, when it's safe, probably much safer than engines they provide, and many are asking for it? When it's not big deal to expand one configuration file?
  • I agree with blackbird71. Let it go! Take the paranoia elsewhere. Stop the repetitive posting.

  • It's not liberty issue? Other browser allows it. Allow me to choose safe engine.>

    Just because others do something or believe something doesn't make it right. It's fallacious reasoning to argue like that. Everyone in the world at one point thought the world was flat. Were the people who thought the world flat, right? One person said it was round. (And it was the one person, not the many, who had it right). Or when you tell your child he can't do something, and he cites other parents. They're letting their kids do it. What's right isn't necessarily something for majority vote. As for allowing you to choose the safe engine, I look for Opera to make the determination as to what's safe -- not to you.

    Sure, then it also doesn't mean, that Opera is correct. But as you mentioned (more times) you trust only them. So basically you're not opened to any suggestions. In correct debate, you have to doubt everything.
    You also rather than argument on specific thing revert back to - you trust only one. So you're acting just opposite to philosophy you just mentioned.
    This way you cannot review this thing deeply enough. Because on any point of opposite opinion you simply ignored it. Even on altering of suggestion, or trying to find some way. Any way. And here are many aspects you need to consider.

    You think this is the way how Opera will be better product for everybody? With this approach to things. When you can't argue, you are firing someone away. Oh sure. Liberty...>

    You can argue all you want. That's what a forum is for. But not one argument you have yet made has been compelling or persuasive to me. I trust Opera, in part, because this is an area where they have a lot of expertise, and they have set up the architecture and code of the browser. They are in the best position to determine if something is safe or not. Now if we had more information about the nature of their thinking, and prestigious experts to dispute it, we might have more of a basis to second-guess. But at this point, we don't.

    First you have to be opened also to different point of view.

    And sure, if this will be statement of Opera, and their way of dealing with things, to force their way, ignoring things, doing decisions without right reasons, some even behind users back, it will change my position. And also position of others. Hope it won't come to this. Also this is about finding reasons, where they can be. You're arguing just the way, who won't care, come on board. You who don't, go away. Even when your reasons are right. Basically this approach is just about loosing freedom.

    Oh, please. You're ignored?

    I said ignoring thing like facts, other view, .... You're personifying it.

    You're posting in a forum for "suggestions." And as for "behind the users' back," Opera develops a product, takes huge amounts of input at every phase of it, as the product moves from beta to general user mode. The characterization that anything has been done behind the users' back is crazy.

    I meant fraud check. And yeah, I know a little about development ;). Also you're talking, like Opera already made any change based on this suggestion, and even by force, and lost milions. No they didn't.

    And on the "freedom" thought, no way is this a "freedom" issue.

    You can't say no way, just because it's not your point of view.

    Does the developer of every product have to build into it freedom for a user to do anything? Not at all. You're not losing your freedom. In an open market place, you have freedom to use another product. And these products all cost you nothing, nada, zero, zip, rien.

    All products cost you nothing? For sure you're living somewhere else than me. Again it's business model of browsers, and circle of money flow. We can talk about royalties, or whatsoever in other forum about economy if you like. Yeah I remember times, when Opera cost money. Then they realized this is better way. So please stop this debate about "free" browser. They're free to decide to sell it. It's off the primary topic.

    And yet you're angry if you don't get absolute freedom to do what you want in that free product. Ha! Please, no offense, but I do find it very funny. It's an argument more fitting for a Marx Brothers comedy. You know 🙂 very surreal.

    We're talking about specific suggestion. Not about anything, absolute, ...

  • I haven't heard one thing, stealth789, that persuades me that additional search engines are safe and cost-effective for Opera, but you are seemingly filibustering, by going on posting forever it would seem, with a lot of totally scatter-gun argumentation, that is, at the least, very confusing. It's as if, for you, this is a "power" issue, and you are going to post forever. I mean, I write/post something, and five seconds later is a two page response. There is a very beautiful expression: "brevity is the soul of wit."

    First there's need to listen. You simple ignore any of variation, possibility, without even considering that there even can be other way for both sides. What I'm used for, is that if there's any suggestion or need, I'm trying to find a way. You're telling there's no way. As I can see it, there's simple way in change of 1 file.

    From my point bigger problem is, that in current situation I'm not persuaded that current engines are safe. No matter how much of them there is.

    And you know about exact changes, or anything when you're talking about costs of this hypothetic change? And yes, I'm trying to answer and react to any argument you're giving, there's a little difference. Even the fact that some are not primary topic. And the same option are here for you. So I don't understand what is it that your complaining about?

    And there's also "Sweep in front of your own door first". But ok, if you measure something by number of words or whatever.

  • ... You can't use argument about one thing, and ignore other that are almost the same. Just because it suit your argumentation here. Then argument of security is useless. That's my point. Also other things are security issues, but are allowed. So why this one cannot be? What is exact difference here? If you're telling about security here, then sure argue it as complex thing. Not taking only one thing you like, and don't accept other, that are the same.
    ... But when you can use security argument, I can use other, that are similar. So it can be judged complex. Because if you claim A cannot be, because of B. I can ask, so why is it that C is allowed because of B, and A not? I thin it's correct question.
    ...
    It's not about how Opera decided. But how it's practically presented and applied. Because there are ways to make everybody "happy". But not this way.
    ...
    My point is try to make things better, when there's a way. And sure here's a way. Here are options to make it even safe, and even possible to use by everyone. I won't advocate someone/something, when I know it can be made better. And current situation is not so safe, like you proclaim it to be, by using this closed approach. It's just deceiving.
    On the contrary, I've come to the conclusion you simply want to argue. To reprise: you made a complaint about the way Opera has dealt with default search engines, and made a suggestion here and elsewhere about what they should do to improve things. I responded with an explanation of what Opera has said regarding why they did what they did, indicated that indeed there is a security issue regarding browser hijacking, along with making some further comments about possible design complexities, workloads, prioritization, etc. that may have a bearing on implementing your suggestion.

    It would be much more helpful, if you come to conclusion about default search engines thing :). But let's look at it this way. I'm giving suggestion. When there is any argument against it, sure I'm trying to respond to it, and defend the idea. Also trying to find a way, other options,...
    You and other also responded with same issues that are not directly connected to default search engine itself. Also often generalizing things, that leads away from topic rather than arguing about specific option.
    Also you started to bring whole security as an issue. I mean generalized it too much, so you can't wonder, and blame me for it. So I started to show, that if you want to generalize, there are also other security issues, but dealt with differently. Just to argue to some of your arguments, that was going too far.

    You then have dragged in all sorts of security-related things you don't agree with Opera about, and ultimately argued that any counter-discussion here supports Opera's infringing on your "freedom".

    And freedom is one aspect or point of view to problem.

    The sum of it is that you've found something in Opera you don't like, made a suggestion, and now want to argue endlessly by invoking all manner of irrelevant things that only serve to keep your argument alive. Enough. I'm out of here... have a nice evening.

    And from your point it is security issue. Why do you thing that this is something about what I "don't" like"? There's also strong security aspect to change engine. So don't deceive it as option of like/dislike please.

  • It is about security, they provide only 5 default search engines to avoid malware which changes the search engine.

    Sure it is. But also from other side you know. And it's not about number (5). Also if security is main issue, then there should be question "How can I change search engine?". Not only like is it now "Can I even change search engine?"

    My point is, there is possible space for compromise. Not only restricting. I'm just used to rather look for a beteer way, than use the easier one. I'm sorry if it's bothering you, but from my point bigger problem is, that in current situation I'm not persuaded that current engines are safe. No matter ho much of them there is.

  • Also I did another check of file "default_partner_content.json"". While starting Opera is also looking for file ""custom_partner_content.json"". But I'm not sure what is the purpose of this. Also I tried to install Opera to virtual machine, and checked content of "default_partner_content.json". It's the same (also Base64 key). It indicates, that it's filled in Opera package. So it looks pretty hard-coded. So probably (without hacking Oprea dicectly) there's possible to change this file only on Opera side. Still it's not good that this file resides in Program Files directory. Then it's global, not per user setting like in profile directory.

  • It is about security, they provide only 5 default search engines to avoid malware which changes the search engine.

    Sure it is. But also from other side you know. And it's not about number (5). Also if security is main issue, then there should be question "How can I change search engine?". Not only like is it now "Can I even change search engine?"
    My point is, there is possible space for compromise. Not only restricting. I'm just used to rather look for a beteer way, than use the easier one. I'm sorry if it's bothering you, but from my point bigger problem is, that in current situation I'm not persuaded that current engines are safe. No matter ho much of them there is.

    I said 5 because it is what we have in Opera. Are you going to discuss this untill you feel convinced? We are just repeating everything. I'm out...goodbye.

  • This is not a diary to talk to yourself, Stealth.

  • @blackbird71 @lem729 @sidneyneto

    After editing of 1 line in JavaScript code of Disconnect Search Extension I managed to change "default" search engine to StartPage. Simply it's possible to change it to whatever I want. Basically major part of Disconnect Search is not needed, but I have no time to study extensions API, and how to alter Omnibox events. For now it's working for me. I still predict, that after update of extension there could come up some problems with this "solution".

    So for safety of others (I feel pretty safe with my configuration) I just hope, that Opera really check codes of extensions thorough, as any extension can have code to use API and alter search URL! Also then it's just really strange, that Opera is making change of default engines in file "default_partner_content.json" almost impossible, but API is opened to manipulation of searches the easy way. This way still change of default search engine is opened. Basically malware cannot change json file (can change but it won't help, as Opera use hard-coded engine), but can simply alter Disconnect Search, or in the future any other search extension, and override default search engine. From this point of view, it's really not safe concept, and therefore also bad approach to this whole problem.

  • This is not a diary to talk to yourself, Stealth.

    Sure, I should have known long ago, that I won't get answers. My mistake, that I'm probably used to other kind of forums. Sorry for your time. I'm just making things thoroughly.

  • You got the answers you wanted. We ( @lem729, @blackbird71 ) gave you all the reasons why Opera does not allow other deafauts search engines. This topic got off the topic. It became personal discussion.

  • @stealth789 I think you are right. Some members here are fearful of encountering trolls and in the heat of a premature self-defense are bashing people like you who don't deserve it.

    Your point about the search engines using secure connection (HTTPS) is kinda out of the context of the original issue (the lack of ability to set custom search engine as default, a different thing altogether), but it's a valid different security issue nevertheless...

    The Opera devs already acknowledged both issues discussed here, but I imagine something is preventing them from fixing the URLs to use HTTPS, etc.

    Why Opera can't add StartPage, Ixquick,... to default search engines, when it's safe, probably much safer than engines they provide, and many are asking for it? When it's not big deal to expand one configuration file?

    The default search engines preloaded in browsers like Opera and Firefox are sponsored. All these options (Google, Bing, Amazon, etc - except Wikipedia I guess) pay these browser vendors so they're included. I suspect it wouldn't be fair or interesting to those companies if Opera added their competition for free...
    These contracts, plus the built-in Speed Dial entries partnerships, are the main revenue streams of the desktop browser and they're what makes the browser free for us.

    About the lack of ability to set custom search engines as default:
    "The option was removed after we got targeted by malicious third-party "applications". It will return when we can protect against alterations by other apps and not the users themselves." - Daniel Aleksandersen, Opera employee.

  • @rafaelluik

    It's not at all bashing people for a different view. I find that characterization extremely offensive. At this point, after that comment, my feeling is, let people say what they want about Opera 22. I don't give a damn.

    Those of us who responded to this thread -- and you could have earlier, but didn't -- tried very hard to engage the poster in an honest discussion. But at some point, when it drones on and on forever, it becomes destructive. When you described at the end of the post the issue malicious third party applications made adding additional default engines a problem, that's exactly what we said. And in a manner that was courteous. And we tried to be clear. The poster was getting lost on "personal freedom and liberty.". The issues he raised -- while they were not coherent in my view -- took time to deal with. I mean, who has the patience and time to follow all the dismissals by the poster of answers provided, and all of the convolutions of what was presented?

    At some point -- in my humble opinion -- this thread should have been closed by the moderator as being repetitive and going nowhere. Instead, you suggest, people are bashing the poor poster. I mean, you can play both sides of the fence only so far. And this is a bit too much!

  • @rafaelluik
    It's not at all bashing people for a different view. I find that characterization extremely offensive.
    Those of us who responded to this thread -- and you could have earlier, but didn't -- tried very hard to engage the poster in an honest discussion. But at some point, when it drones on and on forever, it becomes destructive. When you described at the end of the post the issue -- malicious third party applications made adding additional default engines a problem, that's exactly what we said. And in a manner that was courteous. And we tried to be clear.
    At some point -- in my humble opinion -- this thread should have been closed by the moderator as being repetitive and going nowhere. Instead, you suggest, people are bashing the poor poster. I mean, you can play both sides of the fence only so far. And this is a bit too much!

    I agree with you. Rafaelluik is right in one thing: this topic does not belong to stealth.

Log in to reply