Firefox and Opera

lacuna · June 2007

As far as I am aware, Firefox is the 2nd most popular web browser but I don't understand why. Opera has been around much longer and you don't even have to pay for it anymore.

Apparently you can make Firefox as functional as Opera by downloading and installing add-ons but why would you bother when Opera is ready to go out of the (metaphorical) box?

anybody care to enlighten me?

<center>Mythic Meg</center>

Shadow_Conspiracy · June 2007

I downloaded Opera yesterday, and it was crap, like seriously slow.

<center>Bike!</center>

jamiejim · June 2007

I have only used Opera for a day or two, but tbh I much prefered Firefox. It just seemed much easier to use and nagivate around (although im sure that was only cos im used to it). And the Firefox extensions are great, they allow you to customise Firefox pretty much exactly how you want it.

mbukjames · June 2007

Mozilla if the best Internet web browser thingy I have used! So much quicker than IE and Opera IMO.

Mr Chucker
The frame
stikorz [:D]
My Ride

Blue_Ink · June 2007

Its all down to personal preference and what you are used to. I always used to use opera and found it far easier and better than firefox but then i got my computer completely blitzed and had Firefox put on at the same time. So because i've been using it more i like firefox at the mo but not because its any better, just because i'm used to it.

To fear death is to limit life

Fantastic Mr Fox · June 2007

Well, I started using Firefox and I had no idea about Opera. I'm used to FireFox now so I can't be arsed to change. My N80 runs Opera though, and I must say that I'm very impressed with it.

<hr noshade size="1"><center>I'd rather not.</center>

Anonymous · June 2007

I used firefox for ages, until IE7 came out. Now it's IE7 all the way.

Apple's Safari is due out on windows soon. Can't say i'm likely to switch though. It's never been that highly rated on Mac, but now it's got to compete with Opera, FireFox, and IE7.

<hr noshade size="1">
My trusty steed
1999 marin wolfridge, Marzocchi Jr Ts, Saint cranks, D321 rims, Hope C2s, raceface bits and bobs, XT running gear. All vintage stuff! (apart from the saints)
<hr noshade size="1">

sjdrifnfo · June 2007

Why change from firefox to opera, if essentially they do the exact same thing? and vice versa.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by homers double

No you didn't, you lie, exaggerate and bullsh<s></s>it you way through life to try and feed your ego, which quite frankly is the size of a deflated cum catcher on the end of a midgets condom.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Big Red S · June 2007

Marketing.

Opera's never really marketed themselves well, FF managed to portray themselves as /the/ only alternative to IE (or, rather, the fashionable browser), and fill the web with propaganda about how IE's really bad. And FF does most of what people want from a browser, too.

Same reason there's all these people using Windows when there are far, far more complete OSs around. But they don't feel the need for the 'extras' like software repositories, so they're quite happy with what looks to everyone else like an incomplete solution.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

HappyZZZCamper · June 2007

Opera is very, very slow compared with firefox. It's not really an issue on most modern P.Cs, I just prefer firefox. It's all down to personal taste really.

<hr noshade size="1">DH is for pussies. Bring on the Roadie!
My Blog

Anonymous · June 2007

If by incomplete you mean the most integrated graphics solution, the largest supply of software, the largest supply of hardware and drivers, the widest array of compatible ancilliary equipment, the widest support network, the easiest to repair, ..................

Seriously though, as good as linux distros, and BSD are, the only real-world competitor to Windows is OSX. Hell, most BSD shell commands even work in OSX like they should.
Linux has it's uses, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a long, long long long way behind the curve.
You can show me screenshots of BERYL until the cows come home, but it ain't going to change the facts.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

Same reason there's all these people using Windows when there are far, far more complete OSs around. But they don't feel the need for the 'extras' like software repositories, so they're quite happy with what looks to everyone else like an incomplete solution.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<hr noshade size="1">
My trusty steed
1999 marin wolfridge, Marzocchi Jr Ts, Saint cranks, D321 rims, Hope C2s, raceface bits and bobs, XT running gear. All vintage stuff! (apart from the saints)
<hr noshade size="1">

DirtJumper3200 · June 2007

I run Opera when im using Ubuntu and Windows [:)]

<hr noshade size="1"><center>
ZOMG NEW NEKKID PIX [:D]</center>
<center>Standard what bike response: Specialized Hardrock.</center>

lacuna · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by sjdrifnfo

Why change from firefox to opera, if essentially they do the exact same thing? and vice versa.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by homers double

No you didn't, you lie, exaggerate and bullsh<s></s>it you way through life to try and feed your ego, which quite frankly is the size of a deflated cum catcher on the end of a midgets condom.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wasn't suggesting anyone change. I was just wondering why Firefox is more popular than Opera when Opera has been around much longer and offers more features?

I don't understand what part of Opera people think is slow? Mine loads itself and 7 or 8 sites in seconds, can't complain about that.

<center>Mythic Meg</center>

Big Red S · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yeehaamcgee

If by incomplete you mean the most integrated graphics solution, the largest supply of software, the largest supply of hardware and drivers, the widest array of compatible ancilliary equipment, the widest support network, the easiest to repair, ..................
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, by incomplete I mean no SVG support, no ISO writer, no real anti-spyware or anti-virus software, little or no control over bad resources management, no virtual desktops, no real support, no customised packages, treating paying customers like criminals, no real graphics packages, only one choice on browser, office, media player, mail client, etc.
And it only comes with six or seven games, doesn't it?

I'd much rather have customisable over integrated. Especially when I can't really see much advantage of the integrated one.

In what way can Windows lay claim to the largest supply of software? How are you measuring that? And supply of hardware and drivers? I've had more drivers trouble under Windows than any other OS. And it only runs on i386 and, within the last year, AMD64, doesn't it? Hardly wide-ranging hardware support...

By 'widest support network' are you referring to the time between question and answer?

And easiest to repair? What? How the hell do you repair a broken system when _every_ config file is binary?
Seriously, last time I had to fix a broken windows install using another PC with Windows on it, I had to trawl the web for a working-looking ISO for it, then again for an ISO burner and an MD5sum generator, burn the CD, and then navigate through the less-than-intuitive rescue CD.
With my *nixen I just have to download an ISO of whichever of the plethora of live CDs I prefer, burn it, boot from it, and edit text files.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Seriously though, as good as linux distros, and BSD are, the only real-world competitor to Windows is OSX. Hell, most BSD shell commands even work in OSX like they should.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, it is Bash on a BSD-derived kernel. Youd expect that. Y'know, some degree of consistency.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Linux has it's uses, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a long, long long long way behind the curve.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Why?
Seriously, it's easier to acquire, install, configure and customise than Windows. It's more resources-friendly, it's free and there is a fantastically huge free support network. Installing software is incredibly easy, with a guarantee of compatability for every package in the repositories.

When was the last time you had a go on a *nix? Which one was it?

But, like I say, this is just the way I see it. Windows, by default, lacks an awful lot of the things I've got used to just having on a fresh install of an OS. Evidently, whatever it is that comes with Windows but not with Linux is of no importance to me. As, i presume, it is with the people who use Firefox knowing that Opera is more featureful.

Actually, given that this is in OT, i should probably refrain from yeat another OS war.
At the end of the day (and presumably this conversation) I don't give a fck what you run on your PCs, and presumably you don't care what I do on mine.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

jamiejim · June 2007

mabey Linux is better than Windows, but for the average computer user looking for simple web browsing and has used Windows for their entire life is going to prefer Windows to Linux. Windows is very easy to use if you are used to it

Big Red S · June 2007

Yeah, that's what I kind of meant in my penultimate paragraph.

From where I'm standing, Windows looks horrendously incomplete, missing an impractical proportion of the tools that I want an OS to come with.
Presumably, the people who use it are quite happy to either not have some of that functionality, or trawl the web looking for something that does it.

Similarly, people who use Firefox over Opera are presumably happy to have to install plugins for adblock and configuration.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

jamiejim · June 2007

oops, sorry to repeat what you said!

Yup, suppose its horses for courses (or whatever that saying is!)

Big Red S · June 2007

Nah, I like it when people agree with me.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

jamiejim · June 2007

[:)]

Don't we all!

sjdrifnfo · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

Similarly, people who use Firefox over Opera are presumably happy to have to install plugins for adblock and configuration.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The only reason I can see as to why this is, would be so you can choose what you want on the program, rather than have everything available but using less than half of the tools.
I don't use opera, mainly because I hate the layout. As someones already said, its down to personal preference.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by homers double

No you didn't, you lie, exaggerate and bullsh<s></s>it you way through life to try and feed your ego, which quite frankly is the size of a deflated cum catcher on the end of a midgets condom.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Anonymous · June 2007

BRS, I use Ubuntu Linux, and have run FreeBSD servers. Iassure you that I have a fair old knowledge of *nix systems.

Most of the applications you mention as being "included with the OS" are only there because whoever made the distro package put them there.
This is no different to the way Apple package I-life with new macs, or the way that pretty much any PC you buy will have nero or Roxio, a custom media player, graphics software etc.
Windows is an OS, unlike a linux distro so it won't contain much in the way of useful tools. Unless you count windows server, of course, in which case it has plenty of maintenance and monitoring tools. Tools that aren't neccesary on a client or home PC.

As for choice of software, I really don't see how you can even begin to believe that Windows has less to offer than Linux. Put simply, if you see some software, there's an incredibly high chance that it's for windows.

Easy to configure?
Sure, if you've got a pre-packaged linux distro, it's all set up for you. When was the last time you had to download and set up X-windows, then a desktop environment on top of that? And that's a fairly simiple setup procedure on *nix, which can still take breathtakingly long.
For example, it took overnight to setup a freeBSD system, to the point where it had a desktop interface, networking tools, and so on (not including downloading the ISOs.
WinXP took about an hour tops.
Vista takes about 30-40 minutes.

In a windows or OSX system, I don't have to remember countless command line functions to configure anything, it's all on handed on a plate. The same is simply not true of *nix

<hr noshade size="1">
My trusty steed
1999 marin wolfridge, Marzocchi Jr Ts, Saint cranks, D321 rims, Hope C2s, raceface bits and bobs, XT running gear. All vintage stuff! (apart from the saints)
<hr noshade size="1">

whyamihere · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yeehaamcgee
In a windows or OSX system, I don't have to remember countless command line functions to configure anything, it's all on handed on a plate. The same is simply not true of *nix<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

sudo vim /etc/whatever.conf

?

Not exactly countless functions...

Anonymous · June 2007

Sudo only applies to Ubuntu as far as I'm aware.
Is that the whople of your Linux knowledge? ubuntu?
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by whyamihere

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yeehaamcgee
In a windows or OSX system, I don't have to remember countless command line functions to configure anything, it's all on handed on a plate. The same is simply not true of *nix<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

sudo vim /etc/whatever.conf

?

Not exactly countless functions...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<hr noshade size="1">
My trusty steed
1999 marin wolfridge, Marzocchi Jr Ts, Saint cranks, D321 rims, Hope C2s, raceface bits and bobs, XT running gear. All vintage stuff! (apart from the saints)
<hr noshade size="1">

Big Red S · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yeehaamcgee

Most of the applications you mention as being "included with the OS" are only there because whoever made the distro package put them there.
This is no different to the way Apple package I-life with new macs, or the way that pretty much any PC you buy will have nero or Roxio, a custom media player, graphics software etc.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I was comparing the way you get the OSs, not PCs. If I go out and buy Windows, i'll still have to download the rest of the bits I want. So far as I can tell, MS don't provide a desktop version of Windows that comes with anything approaching all of the software one would want with their new OS. Though, I must admit, it's been a while since I last looked.
And surely, since it seems that whenever it is the users making the OS it is full of useful software, this isn't because the users don't want it?
And, still, even if people don't want it, wouldn't it be nicer to have the option of installing an office suite, your favourite media player and a couple of browsers on install?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Windows is an OS, unlike a linux distro so it won't contain much in the way of useful tools. Unless you count windows server, of course, in which case it has plenty of maintenance and monitoring tools. Tools that aren't neccesary on a client or home PC.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But why isn't there a desktop version of Windows that comes with the tools people want on a desktop PC?

You seem to have marked a fairly solid line between OS and userspace apps. My understanding is that a Linux distro is a distribution of the Linux kernel and apps the distributor thought might come in handy like compilers, shells, an image manipulation package, an office suite, etc.). Windows is no different. You get it as the Windows kernel and apps the distributor thought might come in handy, like Windows Media Player, Windows Movie Maker, Notepad, MS Works, Solitare etc.
The name iLife is just a way to appeal to mac fanbois, IMO.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
As for choice of software, I really don't see how you can even begin to believe that Windows has less to offer than Linux. Put simply, if you see some software, there's an incredibly high chance that it's for windows.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This is, to be honsest, a bit of a flawed argument. Should software that really ought to be part of the OS be counted? What about different approaches to the same problem? How do we count single packages?
My point was more that, for a given, known, task it is generally easier to acquire and install the relevant software under Linux than Windows in my experience.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Easy to configure?
Sure, if you've got a pre-packaged linux distro, it's all set up for you. When was the last time you had to download and set up X-windows, then a desktop environment on top of that? And that's a fairly simiple setup procedure on *nix, which can still take breathtakingly long.
For example, it took overnight to setup a freeBSD system, to the point where it had a desktop interface, networking tools, and so on (not including downloading the ISOs.
WinXP took about an hour tops.
Vista takes about 30-40 minutes.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yeah, and it also takes a fooking age to configure windows if I decide to be awkard. Though, admittedly, there's not much scope for that. If I want to customise Windows, I have to hack it to pieces first.
But if someone wants the easy way, that's what they'll pick, whichever OS they're installing. If they want an easy *nix, they'll use an easy *nix, if they want a challenging one, they'll pick that.
I don't think I've ever /had/ to manually install X on any Linux system, and only once or twice on a BSD one.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
In a windows or OSX system, I don't have to remember countless command line functions to configure anything, it's all on handed on a plate. The same is simply not true of *nix
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't have to remember countless command line functions to configure anything under Linux, either. But I do where it's easier and quicker.
It's not handed on a plate in the same way as under Windows, but nearly everything can be done with a mouse. It's just easier to give help that consists of 'C+P this into the command line' than a long list of places to click and enter text, which is why it looks, to a lot of people, like it's command-line-orientated. It's no more command-line required than Window's network is based entirely on the ipconfig command.
What was it that you had a problem with?

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Big Red S · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yeehaamcgee

Sudo only applies to Ubuntu as far as I'm aware.
Is that the whople of your Linux knowledge? ubuntu?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It's standard on Ubuntu, and arguably Ubuntu made it popular in the mainstream. You can install it on any other Linux, though. I think it's standard with Debian Etch, but I don't have an overly detailled memory of the install procedure.
I presume it works on BSD, but I don't have one to try it on.

My Debian, *buntu, DSL, FC and CentOS boxen all use sudo. It's in every deb based repository I've come across.

I _think_ I first encountered it in a Mandrake. Wherever it was, it was installed by default.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Thantos · June 2007

Everytime you use Internet Explorer, God kills a Firefox

<center>
Shred it,
it's Stinky.</center>
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by homers double

7" wouldn't fill a small child.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
R.I.P Rich

Big Red S · June 2007

What do you need to do to get God to kill a link?

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Thantos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

What do you need to do to get God to kill a link?

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I had gone through google to find the picture and i hadn't realised that i'd copied about 3 URL's into the tags.

Fixed now.

<center>
Shred it,
it's Stinky.</center>
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by homers double

7" wouldn't fill a small child.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
R.I.P Rich

Big Red S · June 2007

http://www.andreaharner.com/archives/20 ... ecipe.html

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Anonymous · June 2007

SUDO doesn't work on Unix. Unix and most linux ditsros are based on the concept of a root user. There is no root user account in Ubuntu, so you have to use the Sudo command.
Sudo (Super User DO) temporarily raises your privileges to a pseudo root-account for 10 minutes (IIRC). Which means that for 10 (or whatever) minutes after you've used it, if your machine is compromised, you're pretty much screwed, as any administrative function can be carried out.
It's rare that anyone would try and attack an Ubuntu system (it's a smaller target that windows), but it's entirely possible.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
It's standard on Ubuntu, and arguably Ubuntu made it popular in the mainstream. You can install it on any other Linux, though. I think it's standard with Debian Etch, but I don't have an overly detailled memory of the install procedure.
I presume it works on BSD, but I don't have one to try it on.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<hr noshade size="1">
My trusty steed
1999 marin wolfridge, Marzocchi Jr Ts, Saint cranks, D321 rims, Hope C2s, raceface bits and bobs, XT running gear. All vintage stuff! (apart from the saints)
<hr noshade size="1">

Big Red S · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yeehaamcgee

SUDO doesn't work on Unix. Unix and most linux ditsros are based on the concept of a root user. There is no root user account in Ubuntu, so you have to use the Sudo command.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes there is.
do

sudo passwd

and set a root password. Then su to your heart's content. You can't not have a root account...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Sudo (Super User DO) temporarily raises your privileges to a pseudo root-account for 10 minutes (IIRC). Which means that for 10 (or whatever) minutes after you've used it, if your machine is compromised, you're pretty much screwed, as any administrative function can be carried out.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It's not designed to be on every box. It's supposed to be used where the administrator feels it's appropriate, and not where he feels it isn't.

It's a 5-minute timeout by default. But obviously you can change that. And it's only on that shell session on that tty. So it's not a worry about your machine being compromised, it's someone using your terminal. If you leave your terminal logged in where it's likely to get abused, you're not the kind of person who's going to be given sudo powers, are you? The only real hole is if someone finds out a sudoers password, they become sudoable. So you switch on PAM and be anal about passwords.
It's far, far more secure than giving everyone that wants it the root password, and easier than having them give you a list of admin tasks they want done. Instead, you decide who is allowed to do what, and let them do it themselves, with whatever degree of logging and authentication you deem appropriate. Check the man pages for sudo and visudo.

Still, it's hardly less secure than the every-user-an-administrative-user Windows model, is it?

BSD's unix, isn't it?

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Firefox and Opera

Comments

Categories