There's clearly a communications problem going on here.

The first post made by @livingpharaoh was actually in a different Opera sub-forum (Opera for Computers): https://forums.opera.com/post/164596 . In that post, he specifically stated he'd just installed Opera 58, was looking for "Themes" options, and got entangled while searching in Opera's website by a referral to "Tools" for the Themes option. He then asked if that website description was out of date. @Leo responded "yes, it is". Unfortunately, that accurate moderator reply didn't address the OPs' underlying concern of where might Themes be found in Opera 58 (actually, such as it exists, under Settings > Wallpapers and/or Appearance). However, the reply did answer the OP's specific question.

The OP then posted here in the "Forums" sub-forum with a sarcastic-toned complaint towards Opera's support, regarding what he deemed the insufficiency of the reply to his original post in the Opera-for-computers forum. Subsequently (and unfortunately), it seems everyone thereafter has been essentially talking past each other here.

Several observations occur to me:

1. The Opera websites indeed can too easily lead a user (especially one new to chromium-based Opera) down some confusing rabbit holes related to Olde Opera terminology and documentation which don't apply to New Opera. This is not the first instance of this in user posts I've seen.
2. Sometimes the most relevant, underlying nature of a problem post gets missed by a reply. I too am guilty of this at times, occasionally because of misleading language/wording/interpretation and other times by a particular mindset I may bring to my first reading of the problem post.
3. Sometimes, after a single problem post that doesn't get a (to them) 'suitable' reply, posters lose patience (and their tempers) and generate a 'snarky' post. What results thereafter is often a flame war that pulls in other attackers/defenders and alienates all involved.

I believe what's needed is patience on the part of each of us, original posters and responders alike, along with a willingness to calmly ask for and respond with more information and/or clarity when requested.

@rehmanjamshoro said in Spam advertisement:

OK sir who is responsible it. told me

This scam has been going on for several weeks. See: http://www.scam-detector.com/online-auctions-and-tech-scams/iphone-8-and-iphone-x-tester-scam

Scams like this can be difficult to trace beyond the original website you visit, since they are often the result of malicious ads running remotely on that website. Many sites don't sufficiently check out to whom they rent ad space on their sites, and sometimes ads on a site are sub-rented out to still other end advertisers by a middle man company. Such ads generate pop-ups independent of the site itself, and can be very difficult to trace back to the authors.

@leocg said in Why Use Opera?:

... So different situations, different needs.

This!!!

For many years I used Olde Opera precisely because it fit nearly all my browsing needs, just as my needs had evolved around the many features of that browser. When Opera elected to follow the Blink pathway, I was a rather ardent Opera defender for a time in Opera's old forums amidst the truly massive outcry against that change. My key point then was for users to be patient and give Opera's developers time to integrate various key features (whose losses were being loudly decried) into the new browser. As time went by, some of the key 'dropped' features needed for my work flow were indeed restored to the evolving design (bookmarking, in particular). But others were not, and even the bookmarks feature itself lacked certain sub-features that were very significant to me (eg: the ability to set bookmarks bar titles to text only, since I need 50-70 bookmarks on a given single-line toolbar and abbreviate their titles severely). During that time, I often found myself increasingly agreeing with @ayespy's postings in the old Opera forums trying to persuade the developers and posters of the need for what we viewed as better control, features, and customization capability in New Opera, but to diminishing avail. Opera's focus had shifted.

What was actually occurring was both a change in the way the Opera browser was targeted and a change in (or more accurately, my recognition of) the importance of various detail requirements of my work flow using browsers. Opera was now developing a browser for 'the marketplace', whereas I had evolved solid work patterns dependent on my having detailed control/customization of browser settings, functions, and features. Thus, for a long time, I persisted in using Olde Opera (12.18) for much of my work-related browsing and both New Opera and Firefox for my casual browsing. Fortunately, as Olde Opera became unacceptably obsolete in terms of website compatibility, Vivaldi came upon the scene. It allowed me the detailed customization and features in areas that my work flow had come to demand. It's design mantra was that it was "a browser for our friends", meaning those users who require detail browser functionality and control. Hence, it's a browser that is actually a configurable tool.

Today, I have different needs than most of the users now targeted by Opera. So I use Vivaldi for my primary browsing and New Opera for some casual browsing. And I experiment a bit with Otter. They're all good browsers given the roles they're intended to play... but they're each aimed at different user needs and priorities. Frankly, I'm glad they all exist. And they're free...

I keep imagining that in some future epoch, archaeologists digging back into our then-ancient ruins will be baffled about the meanings of all our 'modern' hieroglyphics, on everything from traffic signs to data embedded into flash memories. I sometimes wonder if we're reverting back to an age of picture-writing.

...
Home button? This is a archaism from a past decades. Just like bookmark manager, customizable user interface (also keyboard shortcuts, gestures etc.), skins, sidebars, built in email client and other rarely used features for a marginal part of users.
For an example, Google Chrome doesn't have all of these features. And, so? Worlds most popular web-browser.

@stng, the problem is that all users are different, and their ability to effectively adapt to differing browser conventions differs. A great deal depends on what exactly they use a browser for, and their needs (as well as preferences) in doing so. To some users, a homepage and button are superfluous to how they browse. To others, they are near-essential features for how they browse.

In my case, I use a 'homepage' function constantly in all my browsers as a way to come back to 'familiar ground' for setting up tasks I may need to do next. By addressing that same homepage in every browser on my system, I can use any browser with expectation that my starting point will always be the same, regardless of browser used. I favor certain browser brands for certain kinds of tasks, so the local bookmarks in each will and do vary over time and from browser to browser.

The homepage linked to each browser is a local htm file on my system I've created and maintain, listing roughly 250 key websites in 8 nested sub-pages, each titled by task topic. And yes, my browser usage is largely task-driven, though I realize that's not the case for many other users. Without the easy ability to access that common homepage, my workload becomes measurably harder. As a result, I find a homepage feature and button essential to my own useful browsing, and if they aren't provided as a built-in feature, I either find/create a workaround (such as an extension, using a special speed-dial, etc) that provides me ready access or else I relegate that browser brand to my array of little-used browser oddities.

Because I usually operate other complex and resource-intensive software while browsing, I seek to keep my browser load upon the system as low as possible, and running multiple tabs or speed-dials complicate the CPU and RAM situation greatly. Hence, for me and the way I use a browser, a homepage and a ready way to access it are essential elements. My point is that there is no 'archaism' to it... it's just a different set of usage priorities. Perhaps I'm indeed a marginal user, but if homepage possibilities don't exist in a browser - along with a simple way to access/implement them - I simply cannot efficiently use the browser. Obviously other users' mileage may (and will) vary, but that makes mine no less legitimate.

@coffeelover said in Can Opera be fully Trusted:

...
So... each of us has to make up our minds regarding the security of this Opera browser. ...

This. However, it applies to any browser; and it should be pondered continually and not just at browser adoption, if browser 'security' is a conscious factor in one's browser usage (though it's not, frankly, for many users). Part of the basic issue is that a browser user must necessarily entrust part of his personal data and his browsing preferences/habits to the care and competence of software designers and parent corporations which the user has never met nor really knows little about, regardless of the user's level of inquiry. Moreover, the kinds of 'insecurities' that may be knowingly ignored by one user may be considered 'catastrophic' by another, depending on how he defines "security". Truly, YMMV.

Obviously, you mentioned some past indications of questionable behavior on the part of subsidiaries of one partner in Opera's new parent ownership consortium. Whether or how those kinds of behavior might somehow ripple down or transfer into the actual design and 'security' of an Opera browser version is difficult to determine with any certainty. There is some measure of protection under Norwegian privacy laws, under which the Opera organization continues to operate. There is a greater measure of protection present in the inherent integrity and competency of Opera's software designers, since at the end of all factors, it's the designers who actually commit code to end product.

The real proof-of-the-pudding lies in the code itself. However, few modern browsers are fully open-source in every code fragment they contain... otherwise the makers risk giving away the store to competitors in how they solve technical problems and provide key features. So every browser containing closed-code presents a level of uncertainty regarding what is truly going on internally. It's part of the air which ordinary users must breathe in today's software world. In such cases, a security conscious user must remain ever alert for relevant fresh reports of insecurities within a given browser or its design operations.

Personally, I'm not unduly troubled by the revelations you list, since I believe those occurred historically in products created by entities distantly apart from the current Opera design group. In reality, the opacity of future corporate-owner influences on browser design within Opera is not much different from that characterizing Microsoft or Mozilla or most other browser makers - publicly or privately held. There are a few browser makers which seem more open in what they do (though it would be rude to discuss them in an Opera-sponsored forum), but there are no guarantees even then.

@acidinmyfridge said in IS VPN with problem now?:

... i'm using Vivaldi too. ... Wondering if they're gonna implement VPN as well. ...

If they do, it will be a good while from now. They have their hands full just developing the features they've been promising, plus they don't have the server farm/portals to support a VPN (or the cash flow to rent it).

To some users, any record of the names or content of visited sites left in the browser may prove an "embarassment" when/if other users share the system. In a few locales, certain leftover names or content records in a browser may have fatal potential. Not knowing the poster's reasons for wanting the browser records completely cleaned upon demand, it's hard to be critical. I do share the opinion that a browser function or settings label should accurately reflect reality, and an option to 'clean browser history' should indeed clear all the forms of browing records since each of them constitutes part of its true browsing history. Only clearing some of the data under such a label forms a misleading impression of security; this is even more true if there are not co-located alternate controls for records-removal that might act to reinforce a user understanding of the incompleteness of the original function.

@coffeelover said in Can Opera be fully Trusted:

... Today I see that China has been using tiny microchips to gain access to US companies. This is yet another reason why I personally do not trust software or hardware that comes from China. Read about it by going to the link below. ... For those like me who no longer trust Opera, the evidence seems enough. For others like Blackbird who believe the evidence is not compelling, there is little point in continuing the discussion. It really boils down to what one is willing to place his/her trust in and for me... ...

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/10/04/china-used-tiny-microchips-to-gain-access-to-us-companies-banks-government-contractors-report

Writing as someone who has spent much of his career dealing with highly classified materials, I feel there's a vast difference between an adversarial government covertly placing spy-chips into a market-leading company's industrial/commercial/military server hardware by bribing/coercing factory personnel within that adversarial nation in hopes of penetrating corporate/government networks so as to acquire strategic information versus that same adversary somehow getting some lines of snooping code covertly inserted into a second-tier Internet web browser that's designed by code experts outside the adversarial country and aimed at individual non-commercial users. Of course anything is always possible, but 'possible' doesn't make it likely - and it certainly doesn't necessarily make it even worthwhile. Covertness always carries the risks of unexpected disclosure, whose costs and fallout can be considerable when measured against probable reward for the effort. Consequently, the potential payoff must always be worth the risks incurred - and, frankly, the market exposure of Opera into truly strategic arenas doesn't really qualify as worth it.

But, as I think we agree, it all comes down to personal opinions and preferences. For me and the equipment upon which I use browsers, Opera is currently OK in a security sense. For equipment that really matters in a real-world security sense, I personally believe there should be complete isolation from the public Internet - a genuine airgap, if you will. Hence, the only practical browser risks for ordinary users is from non-nation-state hackers and vandals.

If a corporate System Engineer blocks processes from executable programs on the company-owned computer or network because of 'security problems', you may want to rethink trying to bypass his efforts. If his action reflects corporate IT security policy or efforts, bypassing or otherwise interfering with such blocking could be termed as a "career-ending move" in most organizations.

@MichaelRoss5 It's also the case with Vivaldi, so I suspect it's a characteristic of the chromium engine, common to all 3 browsers in one form or another. The real question is: how significant is that chromium behavior in the real, practical world?. In the first place, sensitive information should never be stored in a website's cookies. Second, there are better site-code mechanisms for protecting cookies (eg: the SameSite attribute).

@ghofrani It's my understanding that there exists only a max limit for each tab in the chromium engine of 4 Gb, which any rationally-designed website should never approach, let alone exceed. What kind of tab RAM "dedication" are you referring to?

@john30011887 said in Opera Latest Version Memory Leak.:

... Lol i just looked at taskmanager and for now its normal again, i haven't changed or touched anything and i even have twitch open right now and my usual 4 extensions being used, this makes no sense ...

Welcome to the wonderful world of troubleshooting! If the memory issue does seem to recur in the future, see if you can capture Opera's Task Manager listing (Shift+Esc) while things are still misbehaving. It gives a better process description for each running browser process than does Windows Task Manager.

@john30011887 In my Opera version (66.0.3515.27 with no optional extensions), there are 11 processes running in Windows Task Manager and 10 running in Opera's Task Manager (the difference being Opera crash-reporter being also shown in the Windows TM). If you have 4 optional extensions installed, I would expect you to only have 14 (or 15) processes running in a TM. Regardless, the relevant question is which named Opera process is causing the RAM explosion when it occurs.

@john30011887 Is/was your Opera installation set to have its graphics hardware acceleration turned on (and enabled within your system)? Deviantart is a graphics-rich environment and there may be some kind of relationship per the @chris1970au post right above yours. Note: this is a troubleshooting question, not necessarily a forever "fix".

What specific browsers work OK on your system? Also, can your Opera browser connect to a non-https site (eg: the map at http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_init_00.gif )? Finally, if it will connect to a non-https site, are there any https websites with which Opera will connect?

The insecure connection warning involves the inability for a browser to obtain the proper and current website security certificate and/or negotiate the correct encryption protocols associated with the certificate in creating an https connection to a website. Internet Explorer, Edge, and chromium-based browsers like Opera and Chrome use the site certificates stored locally (and kept updated) by the computer's operating system. Other browsers (like Firefox) use their own certificate stores obtained (and kept updated) from the browser-maker's servers.

If a specific certificate is outdated or revoked, attempts to use it to set up a link to the related https site will fail. If the certificate store itself is not present or access to it is being blocked for the browser installation, no https sites at all can be accessed. If there is a problem or mismatch of the encryption protocols specified by the certificate and those available on the computer, a specific https connection can not be made. Finally, as @burnout426 notes, if your computer is using a proxy for Internet connections, it may cause problems with certificates and negotiating https communications.

@brendan420111 said in Opera VPN sending spam?:

@sgunhouse

The way vppn works is it tunnels the data from http/https protocols and encapsulates them in an extra layer of encryption so that when data travel within network and over internet it is more encrypted so it cant be read by any kind of network analysers/sniffers.

Just before it gets encapsulated threw vpn it is first read by vpn and majority is logged so its very easy to get the email addresses you use in your browser.

a vpn encrypts data from ISP and authorities true but that dont mean that the data is private from the vpn providers ...

You misunderstand how the overall VPN encrypting process works with Opera. Https unique encryption depends on the specific certificates used to establish the https encryption protocols with the other party of the communication. Opera encrypts your packet headers going to its VPN via https using Opera's own VPN site certificate/encryption-protocols before also internally including your packet's detail information that has been separately encrypted by your computer using the destination's https site certificate/encryption-protocols, once they have been initially negotiated at first contact with the target site server.

The resulting packets (doubly-encrypted apart from the singly-encrypted target IP header info) are sent to the VPN server's IP, where Opera's server can decrypt only the IP for your target site. It then relays the still-differently encrypted internal packet data on to the target site's IP as if the packets came from the VPN server's IP. The VPN can only see the target site's IP, which in the case of eMail, is merely the master server but not the individual eMail account details (including your eMail address). Packets coming back from the target site are dealt with the same way, but in reverse... only the target address (in this case, your computer's IP) are visible to Opera.

Everything else you've written about how Opera might finance its VPN operations involves your personal conjecture or prejudice and is not founded in reality. In fact, as has already been posted, what you suggest would constitute a privacy legal violation in Norway (where Opera is legally chartered) and in various other countries.

@elpocito said in Run Out Of Memory:

@blackbird71
Okay, with history deleted and just the settings tab, this is what Opera Task Manager is showing:
BROWSER 38,172KB
...

OK, now I think we're on the same page (no pun intended). There was some confusion regarding which "task manager" was presenting some of the data used in both of our postings. The Windows Task Manager shows RAM in use, whereas Opera's Task Manager shows RAM footprint (the memory set aside for the program whether in use or not at any given moment). Both TMs are useful for analysis, but shouldn't be cross-compared since they refer to somewhat different memory values.

As it stands, your Opera Task Manager data is now in line with what I would expect for a settings-only tab on a 32-bit Opera installation. If you now bring back up your normal tab usage, does the browser now seem free from memory issues? If so, a key factor in improvement may have been turning off the battery saver feature recommended by @burnout426.

@elpocito said in Run Out Of Memory:

@blackbird71
Okay. Done everything. Usage is now 244Mb with just the Opera settings tab open. Is that within acceptable limits?

By "Done everything", what do you refer to? The 244 Mb with only the Settings tab open seems high; I'm seeing around 135 Mb under the same condition (and with no Opera extensions). Have you deleted Opera's cache, history, etc.?

@elpocito In your user account's Windows file explorer's menu: Select View > select Options > in the popup: select View > Under "Hidden files and folders", enable "Show hidden files, folders, and drives" > OK. This will allow file explorer to show hidden files on the computer.

FYI: An "AppData" folder is auto-created by Windows for each user account on the computer and is already assigned and in use at the user account level. It contains a variety of subfolders in which various Windows and apps program data is stored that is unique to each user account.

A "page file' is the term for when Windows detects RAM usage is nearing maximum, it will copy a block of that RAM memory to a set-aside portion of the hard-drive and release the block's former RAM space for use by programs; also called "swap file" or "virtual memory", Windows will swap data back and forth between RAM and the page file to reduce RAM overflow - however, because it involves significant hard drive read/write operation, it slows down a system greatly when invoked; the page file size can be set by the user but is otherwise defaulted by Windows to a percentage of the RAM or disk size; if/when the combined RAM memory space and the established page file space is exceeded by usage, the computer will usually give an error message, freeze, or blue-screen (depending on what gets jammed up first).