Talk:Opera (web browser)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Opera (web browser) article.
Article policies
Featured article star Opera (web browser) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the Opera Browser WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Opera Browser. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a class rating on the class scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Opera (web browser).
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Archive
Archives
1 2

Contents

[edit] DOM compliance

Cannot understand the action of AdrianTM - Opera creators clame the brouser be fully DOM compatible for at least 5 years already, but it up to the last version it coud not pass the simplest tests! Users have the right to know not only pluses, but drawbacks too!

First of all sign your posts add ~~~~ at the end of your post. Second, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies: WP:NOR -- AdrianTM 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There may be a few areas of DOM support which Opera doesn't support, I don't know as that is not my field. But the forum post you mentioned dates from 2004 (and there has been no further mention of Opera there), WinLIKE development seems to have stalled and their website does not seem to be Opera friendly. If there are specific issues which relate to the CURRENT version of Opera then you need to give hard facts with proper references according to WP policies. Which is why I added a {{Fact}} tag. Dsergeant 13:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry sir, but the last post on the Opera DOM incompatibility is dated March 09, 2006 09:06AM . Since that no improvements. 2. The latest WinLIKE relise dated 06/13/2007 - is it a "stalled" soft? 3. http://www.ceiton.com/ cannot be Opera friendly by defenition - because Opera DOES NOT work correctly with WinLIKE So, I HAVE to restore my remark. If it will be deleted by you again, I'll have to call it an abuse!Stasdm 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Which part of "original research" in WP:NOR don't you get? I have no freaking clue what WinLIKE is and if it follows standards, to put something like this in the article you need 1. to find a reference to it 2. the reference has to be credible, respectable, and current. 3. the issue has to be encyclopedic. Your POV pushing doesn't respect even one of these requirements. -- AdrianTM 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Just as an aside, the article on WinLIKE was deleted earlier this year - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WinLIKE and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_12. It is true that WinLike does not work in Opera (just checked) but the reasons are not clear, it is all buried in very unreadable javascript so may be simple incorrect browser sniffing. So WInLIKE cannot be used as an example on its own, there needs to be hard facts on the specific DOM function that Opera fails (if any). Opera 9 is largely DOM compliant, much better than earlier versions, and there has been practically no discussion about DOM on the Opera forums (where it should be discussed rather than in WP). Posts dating even from 2006 which probably relate to Opera 8 are not relevant. Dsergeant 14:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
PS - WinLIKE works in Opera if you mask as Firefox..... Dsergeant 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kill the Criticisms section

The Criticisms section is just a place where people will spew out POV nonsense (as is evident from the discussion just above this one). The article on Firefox (and Safari for that matter) does not have a criticisms section, so why should Opera? It's not like Opera is the only browser with problems/bugs. -Numbnumb 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm against Criticism sections or articles, they are original research and troll magnets, and 9 out of 10 cases they are not encyclopedic. -- AdrianTM 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So it seems that people agree with my post from above... :) -Localzuk(talk) 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I'm 100% with you on that. -- AdrianTM 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I also support removing the Criticisms section GreyWyvern 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Get rid of it, it looks an ode to bias!—RadicalSatDude 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I say there should be a Criticisms section, or page. If Opera doesn't get its own criticism section, the writers will be dismissed as "fanboys." We wouldn't want to compromise our credibility now, would we? At any rate, it'll be fun to compare the size of an Opera criticism section to say, the Firefox or Internet Explorer equivalent.
There are plenty of criticisms for Opera, albeit not so major. For example, Safari passes the Acid2 Test just like Opera, but is somehow much more tolerant and forviging to poorly written websites. Or Opera's screwy IMAP controls. Or that really really annoying way where the right edge of fixed-width pages dissapear when the vertical scrollbar is present.Applesanity 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it really puts a negative spin on the article, particularly calling it "Criticisms". If there needs to be an entry about criticisms of Opera, move it to its own page and link to it, don't uglify the rest of the article with it. And as said above, it really isn't fair to have a criticism section without other browsers having it. Either everyone has it, or no one has it. -Ice Ardor 00:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a little bit silly arguing that other articles are bad this one has to be bad either. No, a bad thing never justifies another bad thing. -- AdrianTM 03:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline Merger

The timeline section is already in History of the Opera Browser, I agree that it should be merged and removed from this article. The whole reason for the olrigional split was because to control the size. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klingoncowboy4 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree. The main article itself is rather long; the timeline contributing a good deal to it's length. Rather than sacrifice quality and information by shortening it, the timeline's purpose is best served as the separate article. Removing it from this article, and merging it with History of the Opera Browser shortens the main article and allows one master timeline to be kept up to date. Twigge 10:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death to the Criticism Section

V. 1 - Hmm...where to start? Non-MyOpera forum members are probably wondering and being skeptical about the source I'm quoting and the new format.

First and foremost. 2 main things:

Operafan2006 and me are not related. I have a separate account on MyOpera under the same name as the signed wikipedia account and it just happens that Operafan2006 has a page encouraging users to try Opera. (The footnote link).

That's nice that he's trying to make a page that notes the facts and fictions, but the Myths section looked too close to that particular page to be comfortable with. That's why I removed it as possible copyvio before I read this. --wL<speak·check·chill> 04:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And #2: I don't know how to put multiple footnotes so I apologize for what happened in the reference link.

It came out as a url in the references section. Not a problem since someone can fix it to our citation ways. --wL<speak·check·chill>

As far as NPOV, I'll let you judge for yourselves. Even though I was quoting a fan of Opera, I tried to remove the POV and most of the myths debunked are general knowledge among veteran Opera users and I'm sure there are better sources that people can find through a quick search. I'm just testing the format out and see what criticisms might there be to the new lay-out.

Somehow the way its laid out makes the section look like either an ad for Opera or an FAQ, both that aren't found in an encyclopedia. Ideally, I would blend the criticisms seamlessly into their topic areas, but there's a lot to work on. -wL<speak·check·chill>

As far as turning the individual myths into sub categories: I was considering whether they should or shouldn't and I went with should.

As I said before, the list looks sloppy, and I would like to see them blended in with the rest of the article. -wL<speak·check·chill>

It seems overkill that the Myth section have more categories now than any other sub category of Opera but when I think of how much damage the myths have caused already like there are still people believing that there are ads in Opera; maybe just maybe the myths are necessary to be highlighted in such an easy to spot way rather than just including words like ad-free in certain areas for the sake of better informing the reader.

After all, almost all reader would know this fact from asking about it in the MyOpera forums and checking multiple review sites of Opera but somehow there are still people believing some of the myths in Opera ---Trailing 21:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for Reorganizing the Features Section

The Features list, I think, is getting long and unorganized. It seems the only structure it has is alphabetical. I'm suggesting a format, much like the way the Opera page lists its own features in Opera Features Something like this:

  • New Features for Opera 9.x
    • Bittorent, widgets, thumbnail preview, site preferences, shortcut searching, etc
  • Browsing Tools
    • Mouse gestures, notes, keyboard shortcuts, fast forward, sessions, etc
  • Security Features
    • TLS 1.0, private data
  • Email/Chat Client
  • Customization
    • .ini access, drag and drop buttons
  • Accessibility
    • user style sheets, voice, zooming
  • Standards Support and Web Development
    • W3C Validation, info panel
  • Misc Features

I know organizing the features section like this is verging on an all-out advertisement for Opera, but I think, it can be done with NPOV, and thereby making a more logically organized "features" section. Unless, the entire Features section should be moved to its own page.

There already is the Features of the Opera Browser. I would suggest implementing the above on that page and heavily trimming the section here. Ideally the end result would be a paragraph or two describing Opera's main features on this article, and a much more in depth article at Features of the Opera Browser. You can always move content that is not duplicated across to the specific article. There is already a 'main article' link at the top of the Features section to dirext people to the right place. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've begun re-organizing the Features page. It's going to need a lot of clean-up, but at least now the flow of the page is more understandable. I've also removed some of the non-vital information from the features section of this page to the actual Features of the Opera Browser page.Applesanity 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
AON, I still think this section is way too long, particularly regarding The Other Article. Not sure what it should be cut down to, but if there's a more detailed reference in The Other Article then link to that? _> MonstaPro:Talk 14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The swedish chef!

We should mention the Bork version of opera. [1] Mathmo Talk 04:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bring Back the Criticisms Section

With careful monitoring and even more careful fact-checking, I believe that it can be done with NPOV. Opera is not perfect. Opera does receive criticism. All we have to is to watch out for the Firefox fanboys. Did you know that they bury and ban any user who posts www.firefoxmyths.com on Digg? A section that covers the cons of the Opera internet suite will level out this article, bring in some objectivism, increase credibility, and is a better approach than having this information scattered throughout. Plus, we can dispel some myths. Applesanity 04:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real Criticisms about Opera

  • Strange behavior with IMAP controls in the mail client
  • Lack of tolerance with poorly-written pages (compared to say, Safari 2.x)
  • Ads (old versions) - which, I think, seriously hurt potential Opera market share after Firefox was released
  • Inconsistent scrollbar behavior with fixed-width pages
  • It's proprietary

Lets not forget the inability to write HTML email with M2. Kc4 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False Criticisms about Opera

  • Opera Features are bloatware
  • Opera is not the fastest,[1] most secure[2] browser
  • No extensions
  • It's totally proprietary

That's a really bad idea. Please introduce in the article everything that's relevant, having a "Criticism" section attracts original research and poor quality contributions and of course POV pushing -- AdrianTM 04:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Put the criticisms where they are relevant and not in one troll magnet section.-Localzuk(talk) 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, beside the idea that criticism sections are bad in general I forgot to add this: the criticism itself has to be notable to be included into an Encyclopedia, not some fanboyish complains like: "Opera doesn't do [...], while IE or Firefox does". For example in the case of IE criticism section or even a separate page is OKish because criticism against IE or Microsoft products in general is rather notable and pervasive (it has large percentage of the OS and browser market and the browser cames preinstalled and cannot be actually removed), who cares if a product with 1% of the market is criticized, it's not like anyone is forced to use it.... if the product has downsides, fine, those should be mentioned, but inside the article, in the right place. Example: it is mentioned in introduction that Opera is a proprietary program, why have another section to complain about that (besides it's debatable if that's a downside, so it should be presented in a no-POV manner: info vs. advocacy) same thing about extensions, there's a section about that in the article, why duplicate that in other side of the article? Ads? There are no ads anymore, why talk about ancient version as criticism, at most present that in the history section. "Strange behaviour" and "inconsistencies" should be placed in the apropriate sections if they are encyclopedic enough to be mentioned. That's pretty much all the I can say about the issue at hand.... -- AdrianTM 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the majority has got me beat. Fair enough. You guys make valid points. I just get the feeling (irrationally or otherwise) that even though the article is great and fact-checked, it seems unbalanced. At any rate, I'm glad I put my opinion on the talk page first, instead of writing a whole section on the actual article, and getting yelled at. Sorry about putting this part first, and not at the bottom of the page. Didn't know the convention.Applesanity 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes the criticisms section should be brought back, and so should it be on all other browser articles as well. This is meant to be an encyclopedia so we really should provide both sides of the story. Quote:"Did you know that they bury and ban any user who posts www.firefoxmyths.com on Digg?" The reason they do that is because one person (who has many alternate accounts) keeps spamming that site not only at Digg but at many other forums and blogs. The criticisms on that site are outdated anyway. Mvent2 06:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Having just come back to look at the Opera page after a little while I am pleased how good it looks now that the criticisms section has been removed. As pointed out above most of the 'criticisms' constantly heard about Opera are 'false' and even those which are not are irrelevant for most people. WP should always stick to stating the facts and leave people to make up their own mind - with the current version they may well say 'OK, I'll give it a try, can't see any reason not to use it'. Dsergeant 15:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Criticism sections should be only in articles about art, Opera (despite its name) is just software. -- AdrianTM 12:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what exactly are you referring to when you say "Opera is not totally proprietary"? I don't neccessarily dispute the truth of that, but it's very vague. Has Opera released some source code at some point of which I was not aware? It should be noted this is a subject on which I am somewhat ignorant. 68.150.226.191 08:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Whom do you quote? Of course Opera is proprietary. If you deduced that from "False criticism" let me tell you that's not me who wrote that, somebody didn't sign their post, is useless to ask what do they meant if they don't sign their contribution, I usually just ignore this kind of posts. -- AdrianTM 12:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. 68.150.226.191 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The argument that "having a "Criticism" section attracts original research and poor quality contributions and of course POV pushing" is pretty dumb, it could be sai that "Wikipeida attracts original research and poor quality contributions and of course POV pushing", just because a section can be abused, doesnt mean the section shouldnt exist. Dopping the critism section smacks of fanboyism by the opera using editors of this page.--82.35.192.193 (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This article currently places a distinct positive spin on Opera. 90.128.37.21 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merlin information

"Merlin is the current code base used for version 9.0, 9.1 and 9.2. It will see only minor feature improvements (one announced for 9.2 which, according to the Opera developers, hasn’t been included in desktop browsers so far; Speed Dialing) and mostly bugfixes. After 9.2, it will no longer be used."

With the release of version 9.2 this is no longer future development. Kc4 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1996 Software

I see User:Snesfm has added the article to Category:1996 software. Since 1996 was just the release date of the first public version and there were earlier development versions since 1994 I suggest this is rather clutching at straws. Certainly since the only other program in that category is Windows NT... Dsergeant 12:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between Classic Installer, English (US) 4.0 MB and English (US) 4.7 MB (at current version 9.21)

I am trying to work out what the differences are between these two versions listed on the download page (for 9.20 upgraders). It would be nice if this info could go into the article (as that is what I come to Wikipedia for!) as I can't seem to find an answer anywhere else!? Regards, Mattjs 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The classic installer uses the original installer developed by Opera and used for all versions prior to v9. Since then they have also offered new versions which incorporate the MS Windows Installer which offers a few more options on install. Multilanguage versions are only available in the Windows Installer version. The browser itself is identical, only the installation package is different. If you only want the English version then the Classic installer is perfectly adequate. You must use the other version on Vista though. You can find more information on the my.opera.com forums. Dsergeant 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Helpful answer -- thank you!!-68.236.103.195 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MHTML support

Has anyone tried to save various pages as MHT file? I heard about some problems with scripts but I would be satisfied if it saves images problem-free (not like IE 7). 84.173.229.233 11:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: MHTML allows to save a HTML page with all images and other stuff in one file. 84.173.229.233 12:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried saving a few MSDN articles (with the left TOC). When I reopened, Opera's processor usage spiked to 100% and stayed there till I force-killed the process. When opened in IE, half the page rendered. I had to open in Word and extract the text to use. Later I figured out a simpler solution: disabling scripts opened the files perfectly in both browsers. I wont recomment Opera for MHT files, IE7 is much better in at least this respect. Though others may have varying mileage. --soum talk 17:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable comment! I wonder whether this script thing is exactly speficied in the correspondent RFC. 84.173.229.233 07:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo DS

A section on the Opera Browser for Nintendo DS/Lite states "Available for Nintendo DS and Nintendo DS Lite is an Opera version that comes on a regular DS game card, but with an additional Game Boy Advance cartridge for extra memory that can be plugged into the DS's 2nd port." The correct term would be "Nintendo DS Option Pack" as the memory expansion is not comaptible with the Game Boy Advance.Chugger1992 16:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recursion

How did you manage the recursion in the jpeg? (the picture of the same page viewed through opera?); I can't get my head around it.

[edit] which toolkit libs?

Is it GTK-based, or Qt, or wxWidgets? Inquiring nerds wanna know (then we'll have a religious war on whether it is lightweight/efficient or not. You game?). If it said so in the article, then you have my apology. Or not, depending on where it was.
--Jerome Potts 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

QT.

The Linux downloads used to have Static/Dynamic QT versions. Although it now has a certain amount of GTK stuff in it for compatibility with Mozilla plugins etc.

--ledow 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Market adoption

Also, a number of Linux distributions have made Opera available through their package management systems. Ubuntu and Gentoo, for example, allow users to easily download and install Opera through their respective package managers.

This paragraph is out of context in the "Market adoption" section.--190.66.146.238 04:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How so? The fact that Opera, which is proprietary software, is offered in the application catalog of some free Linux distributions is quite significant. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Some Linux distributions offer non-free programs (such as Flash, Adobe Reader, and others) that's not really notable. -- AdrianTM 05:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the fact that a proprietary application with such a tiny market share (far, far less than Flash or Adobe Reader) has found a foothold in the Linux world deserves mention. I think we can spare two sentences to note this detail. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Availability in Linux distribution repositories does not imply it is widely used among users of those distributions. Hence, it does not imply market adoption. Also, it is too much distribution specific. Finally, Opera has been available for Linux for so long before net repositories became so popular.--190.66.158.5 21:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No, Opera's inclusion in the application catalog does not indicate high market share among Linux users, but it does show a high enough demand for Opera to justify including it in the catalog. Opera has been available for Linux for a very long time, but here we see Linux actually embracing it a bit. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
To me this sounds a little bit like an interpretation and hence it's a little bit of "original research", it also doesn't sound like encyclopedic info, distros can add or drop programs at any time. But do as you consider better... -- AdrianTM 22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Opera market share by version" table seems to be all wrong. I fixed the link to the source, as the link was to usage share for search engines, not browsers. After checking the numbers in the table, they do not agree with the source at all. Could someone clarify where the numbers in the table came from? -- Schapel 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It's very weird. I can't find these numbers at all on their site anymore. I think it makes the http://marketshare.hitslink.com source not reliable at all.--Fenring 16:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That's odd. We've been adding NetApplications/Hitslink information to the usage share of web browsers and Mozilla Firefox articles (both market share by browser and market share by version) for quite some time, and I've never seen a problem with suddenly not being able to find the same numbers. I'll go ahead and change the numbers to match, and we'll see if they mysteriously change. -- Schapel 17:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe we've been using NetApplications numbers for some time. But today, it seems they have some inconsistencies. I don't know where the problem lies, but anyway we should remove these numbers until they fix the issue. They publish claims that are not verifiable, even on their own website. Lack of accuracy and reliability. NetApplications is making itself a questionable source. --Fenring (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement "These estimates depend on user agent strings, and may be low, as Opera is often configured to identify itself as a different browser to work around poorly coded web sites." about usage share is misleading, as Opera still contains the string "Opera" in the user agent string when it identifies itself as another browser. This is the spoofing used most often, and it doesn't seem to fool the major browser stats. When it masks itself as another browser there is no reference to Opera. This spoofing probably fools the browser stats, but it is used for very few sites. Therefore, Opera's identifying itself as another browser is unlikely to significantly affect browser stats. I'd like to see a reliable source cited to support this statement. -- Schapel 16:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no statistics about the usage of u-a masking in Opera. I'd simply remove the word 'often'. --Fenring 16:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok I see you've removed the word 'often'. Good. But you introduced "[estimates] may be slightly low". I'd like to see a reliable source cited to support the word "slightly". --Fenring 23:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I've removed the world "slightly". —Remember the dot (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone has removed the OneStat source and reinstated the W3Schools source because "it is the best we've got now that the other web site we're using seems to be giving low estimates for Opera." W3Schools is not the best we've got. We have several sources for global usage share that state Opera's usage is around 0.6%. W3Schools stats are for their own server only, and by their own admission, the people who visit their site "are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user," which would cause Opera to be overcounted. W3Schools' stats should not be used as a source of "Opera's overall global share of the browser market." -- Schapel 18:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually remove the OneStat source. In any case, I've removed the W3Schools source again and put in a more reliable one. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with references is that Browser JavaScript Explained is used as a source to support the statement "Opera sometimes identifies itself as a different browser to work around poorly designed web sites." The problem is that browser JavaScript, as explained by the source, does not cause Opera to identify itself as a different browser. Instead, it modifies the site's code so that it works in Opera. This modification shouldn't affect any browser stats. -- Schapel 18:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, that particular page really doesn't go into changing the user-agent string. I've changed the reference to this page instead: [2]. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The new reference does talk about changing the user agent string, and does verify that Opera identifies itself as a different browser to some sites. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to say anything about estimates of Opera usage being low because of it. In my experience, Opera still includes "Opera" in the UA string unless it masks itself as another browser, and the masking is done for only a few very sites by default. The browser stats sites seem to be able to accurately detect Opera even when it's identifying itself as another browser, and therefore Opera is not undercounted significantly because of the feature. I think this article should be like all other browser articles and simply state the reported browser stats, without saying that they may or may not be over or under counted. -- Schapel 00:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's all right with me if you remove that statement, but Samsara might be upset. Samsara said "Opera masquerading as other browsers for website compatibility is important to mention, as this affects estimates of market share." So, do as you see fit. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


It's not alright with me if you remove the statement. You can find a huge amount of sources (should I replace the reference by this one ?) that explain (isn't it obvious anyway ?) how Opera's masquerading may affect statistics. It's a fact. Though, by definition, we can't evaluate how it scales. How many users turned IE masking on by default ? Maybe a lot. But we really don't know. All we had to do is get rid of all the PoV like 'often' and 'slightly'. And it's done. --Fenring 11:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Come up with one good, definitive source (the one you just gave is just someone's personal blog, which is no better than a forum post because it is a self-published source) that says Opera is undercounted because of its user agent spoofing, and you may put that information in the article. -- Schapel (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
There are these ones: [3] [4] [5]. But while I read the article again, I finally find it better without the sentence. Instead of insisting on ua-spoofing, maybe we should simply say that these statistics accuracy (especially with so low numbers) is "questionable", "questioned", or "controversial". What do you all think ? --Fenring (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Those all look like self-published sources. They also describe how the number of page views for each browser may be overcounted or undercounted, but that does not mean the number of visitors, which usage share is based upon, will be overcounted or undercounted. I think it makes the most sense to say that Opera's usage share is about 1%. That gives a number with one significant digit and includes the word about, which tells the reader there's quite a bit of uncertainty in the measurement. The number 1% agrees to one significant digit with all the sources given, so is easily verifiable. And whether the number is undercounted or overcounted somewhat, it's still about 1%. We can all agree, and the reader can readily verify, that Opera's global overall usage share is about 1%, right? Let's not make it more complicated than it needs to be. -- Schapel (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. It'll make the article easier to keep up to date, too. --Fenring (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't verify the information that "Opera's overall market share is about 11% on mobile devices" from the sources given. Remember that according to WP:NOR "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation." Also, the references give usage share, although the article says market share. Are these copies of Opera that are installed but possibly not used? -- Schapel (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to do a bit of math to determine the statistics. The Safari on iPhone statistics are taken from [6]. The iPhone can only use Safari without special software not supported by Apple, so we can assume that nearly every device on the web that has the iPhone operating system is also using Safari for iPhones (we can ignore the handful that aren't). The other statistics are from [7].
    • Safari for iPhones: 0.09%
    • Internet Explorer Mobile: 0.03%
    • Opera Mini/Mobile: 0.02%
    • Blazer: 0.02%
    • Danger web browser: 0.02%
    • Total mobile browser use: 0.18%
  • Dividing by the total:
    • Safari for iPhones 50%
    • Internet Explorer Mobile: 17%
    • Opera: 11%
    • Blazer: 11%
    • Danger web browser: 11%

—Remember the dot (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not the math I'm concerned about. This seems to be a synthesis of existing data to create a new interpretation of the data, which is disallowed by the no original research policy. According to the policy, it "is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Can you find reliable sources that make all the same arguments you do? -- Schapel (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
All of the statistics came from the same source. [8] has most of them, and the operating system statistics allow us to differentiate between Safari for desktops and Safai for iPhones. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether all the numbers came from the same source. You're analyzing the numbers in a way that I've never seen done before. That's original research, which is disallow on Wikipedia unless you have a reliable source that give the same analysis. -- Schapel (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness, Schapel, the passage you cited talks about making an argument, not about presenting numbers. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Right. The numbers in question were the logical conclusion of an argument. The argument went as follows: Safari Mobile, Pocket Internet Explorer, and Opera Mini and Opera Mobile (among others) are mobile browsers, and the iPhone runs only Safari, therefore we can sum up the total usage attributable to mobile browsers, and then calculate the portion of mobile browser usage attributable to each mobile browser. That was a completely new argument and analysis that I have never seen published anywhere, and as such looks like original research. If someone could cite a reliable source with such an argument and analysis, and it were simply a matter of presenting new numbers in this article, that would be okay. -- Schapel (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You may or may not be aware that there was a discussion and resulting proposal some time ago (no, it's not policy as far as I'm aware, before you ask) that stipulated that simple facts well-known to everyone in the field would not have to be supported by references. This would typically include such statements as "since the structure of nucleic acids is composed of phosphate, base and sugar", or, "since gravity accelerates objects towards close objects of appreciable mass". Which browser variants run on mobile platforms is shown by the reference. I don't understand the nature of this missing link you seem to be looking for. BTW, the iPhone Safari part you cited is not relevant to how the figures were calculated. Safari for iPhone is just another browser that runs on a mobile device. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There wasn't any piece missing. It was putting those pieces together to make a new analysis that was the problem. You cannot draw new conclusions on Wikipedia. The conclusion that 11% of visitors who are using mobile devices are using Opera is a new conclusion. The reasoning behind the conclusion is, as far as I can tell, completely original and not published anywhere else. It's a great piece of work, but as an original piece of reasoning, isn't allowed on Wikipedia. It should be published elsewhere. -- Schapel (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "List of devices that ship with Opera"

I've removed the section "List of devices that ship with Opera". This is for two reasons. First, the Opera Powered products gallery, which was the main source for this list, is clearly incomplete, as it has no mention of cell phones or PDAs that come pre-installed with Opera Mobile (see [9] for an example). Secondly, it includes products such as the Nintendo DS and Wii, which do not come with Opera, but Opera may be bought for them. This throws into doubt whether or not any of the other products listed actually come with Opera, or whether Opera must be purchased separately.

For these reasons, I do not think that the current revision of "List of devices that ship with Opera" should be included in the article. If someone would like to improve it, making it more complete and backing it up with better citations, then we could put it back in.

For reference, here is the section that I removed:

[edit] List of devices that ship with Opera

See the Opera Powered products gallery

Another option would be to boil this information down to one paragraph and add it to the "Market adoption" section (with better references, of course). —Remember the dot (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Do the article need the second introduction paragraph "Development of the Opera suite began [...]" ? It belongs to the History section. --Fenring (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes because the lead section is supposed to summarize the rest of the article (see WP:LEAD). —Remember the dot (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the history is one of the important points. You don't find any history summary on the lead of Mozilla Firefox article. The lead should be straightforward about product's features. In Firefox featured article you can find enumeration of main features in the lead and in the feature section beginning also. And I think it's better. --Fenring 20:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Features

Can we add "page zooming", "mouse gestures" and "fit to width" (and explain it in "Usability and accessibility") to the enumeration at the beginning of the section ? These are very useful features. --Fenring (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of the section is just assorted features that don't fit into "Usability and accessibility", "Security", and "Standards support". It is not a complete list or enumeration. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually think that "mouse gestures" is worth mentioning (isn't it already in the article?) since Opera kind of chapionship this feature, and I think it would fit in "Usability and accessibility" section. BTW, Opera also has a "mouseless browsing" mode which is better than any other major browser. -- AdrianTM 18:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused by your message. Opera's mouse gestures have significant coverage in the article, and keyboard-only and voice control is also mentioned. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, if I compare with Firefox, I find the enumeration of major features in the lead, and again in the beginning of the features section. I think it makes the article really clear. You can explain the features further below in the article or in sub articles. And (I repeat myself) in the features enumeration, I'd include page zoom and fit-to-width, which are (if not unique) very representative of Opera browser. I don't want an exhaustive list of features. Just the main ones. --Fenring 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This article follows the same pattern as Mozilla Firefox: an overview of the features in the lead, general features just below the "Features" header, and subsections within the "Features" section for related features. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you've done a great job on this article. Yet, I find the lead of Mozilla Firefox more direct. 1st paragraph : basic definition (what it is). 2nd, features (how it is) : "Features included with Firefox are tabbed browsing, spell checker, incremental find, live bookmarking, an integrated download manager, and a search system". In this article the first paragraph is ok, but I'd rather introduce the features enumeration (it's not in the lead now) instead of the history summary. And my second point is : I'd add "page zooming", "mouse gesture" and "fit-to-width" in that enumeration, in the very beginning of the article.--Fenring 23:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've replaced the summary of Opera's history with a more appropriate summary of Opera's features. The lead section here is now similar to the lead section of Mozilla Firefox. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opera security

The lead states "Opera's overall security as measured by known, unpatched vulnerabilities compares favorably with that of other browsers." Opera does have fewer publicly known unpatched vulnerabilities as measured by Secunia. That is a concrete fact. Saying Opera's overall security compares favorable with that of other browsers is an interpretation of that concrete fact that amounts to original research. We need a reliable source for that interpretation. We should also be clear about the publicly known part, as there may be security vulnerabilities that are known but not publicly known, and the Secunia part, as other security sources such as SecurityFocus measure more unpatched vulnerabilities in Opera than in Firefox. Please stick to what the sources say. Misrepresenting what sources say looks to be the main problem with this article. -- Schapel 14:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok with the word 'publicly'. Though you've been very much active on Firefox's article, and if you look at it, you'll read : "Because Firefox has fewer and less severe publicly known unpatched security vulnerabilities than Internet Explorer [...]". No mention to Secunia's measures in that sentence either. Here is another sentence based on what the Secunia source clearly says : "According to Secunia, Firefox is the second less secure browser after Internet Explorer". About SecurityFocus, I found equal numbers of vulnerabilities for Opera and Firefox. Please verify your OR. So here is an off-topic question : why compare Firefox and Opera security on Opera's article, and not on Firefox's ? I sometimes find your PoV a bit biased towards Firefox. Your page even show that you support that browser. Please be neutral on WP. --Fenring 14:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why compare Firefox and Opera security on Opera's article? That's my point. To compare the security of those browsers, we need a reliable source to cite. I can't find any that compares the security of those browsers, therefore we should not do original research to attempt to. In regards to comparing the security of Firefox and Internet Explorer, there are ample sources cited that make that comparison in the Firefox article. I don't see that I'm being not neutral. I'm asking that the same policies be enforced equally in both articles. Where is the statement "According to Secunia, Firefox is the second less secure browser after Internet Explorer"? That statement should not be in Wikipedia unless properly cited. About SecurityFocus, they added a new Firefox vulnerability just today, so my statement was true earlier. -- Schapel 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The statement was a personal and verifiable synthetic claim about the information in the Secunia primary source. It is a descriptive claim about the material which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. There are a lot of reliable sources that compare security of the three or four major browsers. So the quite insisting comparison between IE and Ff's security in Firefox article can be considered biased. What you are saying is that we need to add more references that compares security of Opera compared to other browsers? --Fenring 18:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course. All Secunia gives is the number and severity of publicly known unpatched vulnerabilities. We can compare the numbers for various browsers and state that Opera has fewer publicly known unpatched vulnerabilities than others, according to Secunia. That is the descriptive claim about the material which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. On the other hand, saying Opera is more secure than other browsers, or better than other browsers, or compares favorably to other browsers, or making any comparison about the relative security of different browsers, is an interpretation of that descriptive claim. We need a source to cite for that interpretation, because making that interpretation requires specialist knowledge. It would depend on other factors, such as how long it takes Opera to patch vulnerabilities, how long it takes for those patches to be distributed to users, how well Opera informs its users of vulnerabilities and exploits, the severity of those vulnerabilities, and many other factors. I would start out by attempting to find a reference that says Opera is more secure than Internet Explorer, as that would be the easiest to find. -- Schapel 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. The sentence can be reformulate to add 'publicly' and 'secunia'. But actually, in your search, you'll find much more references saying Opera is and has always been the safest browser on earth [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16],... So, according to WP rules, we could add that claim to the lead. --Fenring 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Many of the references you give don't actually say that. The ones that do simply compare the numbers of publicly known unpatched vulnerabilities and assume that the one with fewest is more secure. This is such an obvious mistake we shouldn't use those references. The ones that make that mistake also look a lot like blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. Can you find "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that literally say Opera is more secure than other browsers, and are not simply comparing numbers and jumping to conclusions? -- Schapel 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I know, safest browser on earth was a bit "language abusive" (do you say that in english?). Did you notice this one compares fix rates, not only publicly known unpatched advisories numbers. But the best source I can find seems to be webdevout's one. It shows a lot more analysis than simply counting present publicly known unpatched advisories. It claims that 'Opera has shown a much better record than Microsoft at fixing its browser's vulnerabilities. Opera even caught up with its public vulnerabilities in June 2005 and has fairly consistently stayed on top of them ever since, which Firefox hasn't quite managed to do' while being very objective in its analysis saying nothing can be perfect. It shows a good view of overall security in the 3 major windows browsers. I think it's a great secondary source. Here is another source actually drawing the conclusion that Opera seems safer. --Fenring 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The first two sources don't seem to reach any conclusion, leaving the reader to interpret the numbers. That last source looks fine to me. It's from a recognized publication, the Guardian, that seems to have editorial oversight, and reaches a conclusion. You can say According to Jack Schofield of the Guardian, "Opera looks to be more secure than Firefox, but the difference is pretty small." That looks great as a source to support the statement that Opera's security compares favorably with that of Firefox. You also say Opera browser is a safer alternative to Internet Explorer. If you want to add a statement about Safari, you'll have to find a reliable source to verify that, too. -- Schapel 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, SecurityFocus reports 1 outstanding vulnerability for Opera 9.24, 1 outstanding vulnerability for Firefox 2.0.11, 11 for Safari 3.0.3, and 43 for Internet Explorer 7. But by all means, continue your discussion of how to best improve the article. Let's get this sorted out. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Two days ago, SecurityFocus listed no outstanding vulnerabilities for Firefox. Was Firefox more secure than Opera then? If so, is it not now? If not, how can we use mere numbers to determine that Opera is more secure than Firefox now? This is the problem with using numbers determine the most secure browser. -- Schapel 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Drawing these conclusions is objective and based on facts, but it's neither verifiable, nor useful. As you wrote, it's more interesting to find data that scale through time instead of present and ever changing state (especially with so low numbers and low severity). About your previous post, the first source has an analysis of the numbers, and conclusions. The webdevout does not simply republishes the secunia data. It compiles and analyses it in an deep way. But sorry for pointing to the wrong page. This is the one drawing the conclusion I was citing. So if summarize, we have these reliable claims :
  • '[...Opera is] the only vendor that maintained its patch rate between versions[...]'
  • '[...]Opera has shown a much better record than Microsoft at fixing its browser's vulnerabilities. Opera even caught up with its public vulnerabilities in June 2005 and has fairly consistently stayed on top of them ever since, which Firefox hasn't quite managed to do.'
  • '[...]Opera looks to be more secure than Firefox, but the difference is pretty small.'
  • 'Opera is a safer alternative to most other browsers on the market today[...]'
Which one to choose. I personally think we should formulate a sentence based on the second claim. As it has the objectivity to tell it's based on factual numbers. The parts I don't like : "which Firefox hasn't quite managed to do" which seems to point the finger to Firefox, and "pretty small" and "most other" which are vague. What do you think of something like "overall security better than IE, and even Firefox". maybe more neutral and simple, and implies that Firefox is more secure than IE (what the sources clearly say too).--Fenring 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Saying Opera has better overall security than IE seems to be fine, as we have at least one reliable source that clearly makes that statement. Saying Opera has better overall security than Firefox seems to be problematic, as the only truly reliable source we can find is one person's opinion, and even then they say it's a small difference. If you want to say that, you'll need to find a more definitive statement that backs up that claim. With the sources listed so far, I think the strongest statement about overall security a reader could verify is "Opera's overall security is better than IE and on par with Firefox." You can make other, more specific claims (such as Opera's "patch rate" is better than Firefox), but remember to be neutral you cannot ignore claims critical of Opera (for example, Opera has a longer average window of exposure to exploits than Firefox). -- Schapel 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering about that window of exposure. Firefox has had several flaws that have remained open for weeks or even months. How can the window of exposure then be 1 day? Also, what about the severity? A very serious security flaw that's left open for one day is worse than a trivial one that's left open for two days, right? In any case, the numbers don't add up for me. -Baffley (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opera mini is adware again

Beginning with the "Opera Mini 4 final" version, the opera mini browser is using two new adware hooks: it adds undesired sites to your rss feeds and your bookmarks. No matter how many times you delete this spam, they will always appear again (restored by the server-side software). At this moment (December, 2007), the spamming ads that repetitively appear in my phone (connecting from Spain) are Terra.com, ELPAIS.com, Marca.com and two Opera self-advertisements (Opera Community and Opera Mini Blog). This takes more than 50% of the available screen space.

I think this new commercial behaviour should be cited in the "Other editions" > "Mobile phones" where it says "It is offered free of charge" instead of "It is distributed as adware" and where the article says "Opera is offered free of charge for personal computers and mobile phones" (first paragraph). 158.42.250.70 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of a reliable source that discusses this? —Remember the dot (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presto in CS3?

Could someone please confirm that Presto is still being used in Adobe Creative Suite 3? Articles that need updating are Opera (web browser), Presto (layout engine), and Adobe Creative Suite. And please put your reference in those articles, thank you. Samsara noadmin (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opera Mini and Norwegian content

I've reverted this unsourced addition to the article twice:

Because the Opera servers are in Norway, web sites often behave as if the user is in Norway, serving Norwegian ads and occasionally using the Norwegian language by default.

The problem can't be that common since I can't find any site that talks about it. I checked and the English edition of Opera Mini does send "Accept-Language: en" (for English) when it requests a web page. Any Norwegian content must come from IP address sniffing to determine geographic location, which I will admit can result in ads targeted to Norwegians. However, if a web site disregards the Accept-Language header and instead decides to send a Norwegian-language page based on IP address sniffing, that is a bug in the web site, not a bug in Opera Mini.

Do you have any examples of sites that display in Norwegian instead of English when using Opera Mini? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Preview release" = officially available and distributed stuff via official downloads, NOT weeklies

Please don't put weekly builds in the infobox. The weeklies are not preview software. They are pre-preview, and only available momentarily to enthusiasts from a blog. They disappear as soon as a new one appears. The preview versions, however, persist on the official web site, forever. :) --Mareklug talk 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

mmh, but on the opera server i can find every weekly, so they don't disappear... mabdul 0=* 15:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's good to hear, in the interest of full access of any Opera build. If they would only all mount on my Macintosh (the dmg images...). However, it does not change the merit of what I just said. But thank you for this correction. :) --Mareklug talk 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)